Hansard, 1994-08-25

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of theRepublic 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 Chia Shi Teck - from 31st July to 6th August, 1994. Mr Chua Teck Chew, Robert - from 1st to 2nd August, from 6th to 8th August and from 18th to 21st August, 1994. Mr Bernard Chen - from 1st to 2nd August and from 11th to 13th August, 1994. Prof. S. Jayakumar - from 5th to 7th August, from 5th to 7th September and from 9th to 12th September, 1994. Dr Ong Chit Chung - on 5th August and from 19th to 22nd September, 1994. Mr Davinder Singh - from 10th to 11th August and on 19th August, 1994. Dr Lee Boon Yang - from 11th to 13th August, from 18th to 20th August and from 24th to 26th August, 1994. Dr Aline K. Wong - from 11th to 24th August, 1994. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong - from 11th to 13th August and from 18th to 24th August, 1994. Dr Wan Soon Bee - from 15th to 30th August, 1994. Dr John Chen Seow Phun - from 16th to 20th August, 1994. Dr Ho Tat Kin - on 16th August, 1994. Dr Yeo Ning Hong - from 17th to 30th August, 1994. Mr Tan Soo Khoon - from 19th to 20th August, 1994. Mr S. Chandra Das - from 20th to 27th August, 1994. Encik Ibrahim bin Othman - from 21st to 24th August,1994. Mr Charles Chong - from 21st to 23rd August, 1994. Mr Koo Tsai Kee - on 22nd August, from 29th to 30th August and from 5th to 9th September, 1994. Encik Sidek bin Saniff - from 22nd to 26th August, 1994. Mr Yeo Cheow Tong - from 22nd to 26th August and from 6th to 17th September, 1994. Mr Matthias Yao Chih - from 24th to 27th August, 1994. Dr Ahmad Mattar - from 24th to 28th August, 1994. Dr Lau Teik Soon - from 24th to 28th August, 1994. Mr K. Shanmugam - from 25th to 26th August, 1994. Dr Ker Sin Tze - from 27th to 30th August, 1994. Mr Lew Syn Pau - from 4th to 18th September and from 8th to 16th October, 1994. Mr Lim Hng Kiang - from 5th to 7th September and from 11th to 17th September, 1994. Mr Abdullah Tarmugi - from 5th to 7th September, 1994. RAdm Teo Chee Hean - from 5th to 7th September, from 11th to 15th September and from 25th to 29th September, 1994. Mr Wong Kan Seng - from 5th to 7th September, 1994. Mr Lim Boon Heng - from 6th to 10th September, 1994. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe - form 9th to 12th September, 1994. Dr Tan Cheng Bock - from 16th to 24th September, 1994. Mr Ling How Doong - from 16th to 30th September, 1994. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee - from 19th to 24th September, 1994. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 12th August, 1994 (i) The Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 1994; (ii) The Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) (Amendment) Bill 1994; and (iii) The Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill 1994. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Finance if he will discourage banks and other financial institutions from issuing pre-approved charge and credit cards.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the Member that the issuance of pre-approved charge and credit cards should not be encouraged. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has sent out a circular to all card issuers in Singapore at the end of last week directing them not to issue credit or charge cards to any person unless he has applied for it in writing. Only one bank has actually sent out such cards. Under their scheme, pre- approved cards were mailed to selected existing cardholders who already qualify for credit and charge cards under MAS' guidelines on credit and charge cards. The pre-approved cards offer access to a range of new services but the cardholder's credit limit granted by the bank remains unchanged. Although the bank's pre-approved card scheme does not raise the cardholder's capacity to spend, such aggressive marketing of credit cards will pressure other card companies to respond by offering better credit terms and some have already done so. A proliferation of such practices will eventually lead to imprudent spending and increased defaults. I would like to assure the Member that the Government shares his concern and the practice of issuing pre-approved credit and charge cards has been stopped in Singapore.

asked the Minister for Finance, in view of our strong economic growth, the rapid rise in property prices and the prediction of another bull run on the stock market, what measures are being taken by the Government (i) to stabilise the property market and (ii) to avoid a convergence of these events which may lead to a "bubble economy" with its dire consequences.

Mr Speaker, Sir, economic growth in the first half of this year was substantially above expectations and the main impetus came from strong growth in the manufacturing and transport sectors which more than offset a slowdown in the finance sector. The momentum of growth in the manufacturing and transport sectors is expected to be sustained in the second half due to strong external demand arising from economic recovery in our main export markets, but the finance sector and domestic demand growth will be weak. GDP growth for the year as a whole is therefore expected to be within the range of 9-10%. This high level of growth is not expected to be sustained, however, and GDP growth in 1995 should return to a more modest 6-8% rate. Against this background, I see little danger of a "bubble economy" developing, nor do I see the makings of a runaway bull run on the stock market. The price-earnings ratio of our stock market currently is still in the low 20s, unlike the bubble situation in Japan in the late 1980s when its price-earnings ratio went above 50. Our financial sector is well regulated to ensure that banks and other financial institutions here are not over- exposed to the stock market. Interest rates are rising world-wide and this should have a moderating effect on equity markets over the next 1-2 years. The Singapore and Malaysian stock markets have stabilised after falling from last year's excesses and their current performance should better reflect the growth rates of the underlying economies. The increase in property prices in recent years has reflected strong demand by households, underpinned by the rapid growth in their income levels and their aspirations to upgrade. While property prices will appreciate with economic growth, the price surge over the past two years is not sustainable. In the commercial and office sector, rentals today are significantly lower than what they were when they peaked in 1990. The most effective way of stabilising property prices is to ensure that there is adequate supply of new housing and land for development. The Member would have noted the many announcements made by the Ministry of National Development in recent months on its plans to increase the supply of land for all categories of housing. Over the past three years, MND has progressively increased the amount of State land sold for private residential development - from land for 2,500 units in 1992 to land for 4,000 units this year. This will be increased to 6,000 units next year. The potential supply of private residential units in the pipeline currently stands at 71,000. At the same time, MND has tightened up its rules on the sale of private properties to discourage speculative buying of properties. The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore is also scrutinising more carefully the accounts of individuals and companies active in property transactions to ensure that appropriate taxes are paid.

Sir, I presume that the release of more State land for residential buildings will still be done by tender. Would that not push property prices even higher?

I do not understand why the tender system should automatically push prices up if the supply is large. It is based on supply and demand. So why should the tender system push prices up by itself?

Sir, would the Minister assure us that he will monitor the prices and if they continue to rise, something will be done to ensure that there will be no spiral?

I will convey the Member's request to the Minister for National Development.

Sir, is there a floor price during the tender offer? Would you withdraw the tender, if it does not meet your minimum level?

There is a floor price established by the Chief Valuer, below which the tender can be withdrawn, and we have done so.

Therefore, as you move the floor price up, it will actually push the price higher.

The floor price will be determined by the prevailing market situation.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Chiam See Tong - 3. To ask the Minister for Education whether his Ministry has been notified that the PAP Community Foundation kindergartens at Potong Pasir Estate and at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh in the Potong Pasir Constituency shall be discontinued in 1995.

Question No. 3, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Education has not been notified that the kindergartens run by the PAP Community Foundation at Potong Pasir Estate and at Lorong 8 Toa Payoh, in the Potong Pasir Constituency, will be discontinued in 1995.

Sir, does any kindergarten, whether to set up or discontinue a kindergarten, need to notify the Ministry of its intention?

Sir, those that wish to set up will have to get the approval of the Ministry under the Education Act. If they wish to change their plan according to the market demand or resource constraints, they will have to inform the Ministry. That is mainly for record purposes.

Is there any control by the Ministry of Education as to whether kindergartens should be set up at certain places or whether they should be discontinued?

The Government has decided to leave the kindergarten and pre-primary sector to the private sector. So it is up to the market forces to determine where the kindergartens are built.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he will allow single women who take care of their aged parents to claim tax relief for foreign maid levy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the tax relief for foreign maid levy was introduced to specifically encourage married women to join the work force and at the same time have children. It is not meant to help all employers of foreign maids. However, I recognise the difficulties which singles face in taking care of their aged parents. Singles who maintain their aged parents are allowed a tax relief of $3,500 for each dependent parent. The savings from this tax relief will partially offset the cost they incur in looking after their aged parents.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr R. Sinnakaruppan - 5. To ask the Minister for Education what is the rationale for making all school children attend school during the period between the end of the final-year examinations and the issuing of report cards.

Question No. 5, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the school year does not end with the final examinations. The time between the end of the examinations and the issue of report books is used to conduct a variety of activities which could include a review of the examinations, enrichment activities such as excursions, and programmes which prepare pupils for the next stage of their education. These activities form an integral part of the educational package which our schools provide for their pupils.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Elections Department will include photographs and names in different languages of candidates in the ballot papers for future general elections.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Elections Department does not intend to include on the ballot papers photographs of candidates, or the names of candidates in the three other official languages. This would make the ballot papers cumbersome, especially in Group Representation Constituencies. Every polling station already has a notice showing the names of the candidates in the four official languages. The ballot papers will continue to carry the names of candidates in English together with their respective symbols. Singaporeans have voted this way in many elections and are accustomed to these arrangements. They have never had any difficulty identifying the candidates or the parties which the candidates belong to.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there will be an enquiry into reports of alleged brutality on a Thai national by officers investigating a case of murder.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in view of the recent murder case implicating a Thai worker, whether he will identify the existing safeguards that are employed to ensure that confessional statements are recorded voluntarily.

Sir, may I take Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together as they are related to the same subject?

All right.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked whether there are safeguards to ensure that confession statements given to Police are recorded voluntarily. Yes, there are safeguards to ensure that there is no abuse of Police powers in Police investigations, including the taking of statements. Let me elaborate. Firstly, strict criteria are in place for the selection of investigators who record statements. These officers must have proven themselves to be objective and fair in their treatment of accused persons and should have the aptitude for investigations. Secondly, all investigations are supervised by Chief Investigation Officers and Heads of Investigation in the Police Division, and OC of branches and Heads of Division in the CID. Investigation papers are studied carefully to ensure that the investigations are conducted in a fair and objective manner and that all statements are given voluntarily. Accused persons are at liberty at any time to complain of assault or ill-treatment to the authorities. In every Police lock up, there is a senior officer tasked to check the lock up routinely and record any complaints from the accused persons. The lock ups are also checked by watch officers and the station sergeant every day. They are also checked by Head, Manpower, Administration and Logistics, regularly. If a prisoner complains of assault, unfair treatment or ill-treatment, it is the duty of the officer who receives the complaint to refer it to his superior for immediate investigation. While in custody, the accused person can also request for medical attention and on his request will be sent for a medical examination. In addition, accused persons involved in High Court cases are subject to medical examination at Government hospitals before and after the recording of the accused's statement pertaining to the charge. Any complaint of abuse can hence be made to the doctor immediately. This is standard procedure. All complaints of police abuse are investigated by the Internal Investigation Section (IIS) immediately. IIS, being an independent unit in Police HQ, provides an internal check against Police abuse during investigation. As Dr Soin's question arose from the recent case of a Thai worker who was acquitted of murder by the court, let me briefly highlight some salient points concerning the case. The accused, Mr Somporn Chinphakdee, was charged for the murder of another Thai national, who was his room mate, at a worksite at Pasir Ris in March last year. The initial evidence against him was circumstantial. He was found alone with the deceased at the scene of the murder by his colleagues who were playing cards next door at the time. They were alerted to the scene of crime immediately after banging sounds and groans were heard. The accused fled the scene of crime before the arrival of the Police. He was also found subsequently to be in possession of the deceased's passport and gold chain. During the investigation, the accused admitted to the murder and a formal statement was recorded accordingly. The accused subsequently complained of having been assaulted by the Police on his chest and foot during the recording of the statement. Investigation by the Police's Internal Investigation Section, however, found no evidence to substantiate these allegations. About eight months after this initial complaint, Somporn further alleged to a Prison doctor that the Police had inflicted pain on him by inserting needles into his arm. This was a new allegation which the Police was not aware of until the time of the trial. The Prison doctor did not report this allegation to the Prison HQ or the Police. Somporn also did not raise it earlier at any of the four separate occasions when he was examined by doctors in relation to the recording of the statements. Why Somporn has remained silent about the needles all this while is known only to him. In the prosecution's case against the accused, some reliance was placed on the accused's admission to the Police. The Attorney-General has advised that where the prosecution seeks to admit in evidence the confession of an accused person, the law places on the prosecution the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was made voluntarily. This is a heavy burden of proof. Furthermore, section 122(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides, among other things, that "... the court shall refuse to admit any statement ... if the making of the statement appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having inference to the charge...." In the judgment of Somporn's case, the trial judge stated that "It appeared to me that the accused had been assaulted on March 18th, 1993 whilst he was in police custody." The trial judge did not appear to have made, as it was unnecessary to do so, an express finding that the accused was, in fact, assaulted in the manner alleged. As the AG's Chambers has already filed notice of appeal against the acquittal of Somporn, it would not be appropriate for me, Sir, to comment further on this matter. Dr Toh Keng Kiat asked if there would be an enquiry into the allegation of Police abuse. As I have mentioned, all allegations of Police assault are investigated by IIS. In Somporn's case, his initial complaints were promptly looked into. In view of his latest allegation of Police assault using needles, IIS is investigating this new allegation. We must not let Somporn's case create a wrong impression that allegations of Police abuse are common. It is not common. Last year, for instance, the IIS investigated 94 complaints of Police abuse on suspects. This represents only 0.5% of the 18,000- 19,000 suspects arrested each year. Of these, only 14 cases were substantiated. The 16 errant officers involved have all been dealt with departmentally or even prosecuted in court. This figure represents less than 0.2% of our Police Force which totals over 10,600 officers. Sir, let me conclude by assuring the House that the Ministry of Home Affairs treats all allegations of Police abuse seriously. Police abuse must never be condoned. If any officer is found to have abused his powers in any way, he faces disciplinary action and even prosecution where appropriate. Public confidence in the integrity and professionalism of our law enforcement agencies is high. It has taken us many years to achieve this. Let me assure this House that the Ministry of Home Affairs will not allow any black sheep to tarnish the image and integrity of any of its departments, especially the Police.

Sir, will the Ministry of Home Affairs consider requiring the Police to use a camera during interrogation and the taking of statement from a suspect?

Sir, I am not sure whether that will solve the problem. Because even if we video tape the recording of the statement, it is still open to the accused to say that there was inducement, threat or promise, before the statement was given.

Sir, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether his Ministry will take up the suggestion by a member of the public, who had been in the Police Force before and had served in the IIS, that the IIS be made an independent body?

Currently, as I have elaborated in my answer, the IIS is independent of the ground units which it is investigating. It comes directly under Police HQ. I think we have to be careful about this because it is natural to say, why not make the IIS independent. But the point is this. The Police Commissioner is given the authority over his men. What comes with this authority will be the powers to ensure that his men do their job properly. If there is any recalcitrant, that person should be punished. I think this should continue. As the commander in chief, he should have that assurance, authority and power. So the bottom line is: do we trust the integrity and the professionalism of the Commissioner of Police? We certainly do. Because if we do not trust him, then he is not the right man for the job. We have to see this in perspective. As I have mentioned just now, it has been shown by the statistics that the IIS is doing a good job. As Mr Mike Chan himself said in the Forum page of the Straits Times, having been a former investigator, he does not doubt its integrity or professionalism. That there have been cases in the past when investigations have in fact been substantiated, shows that there is no question of cover- up. If there is any breach of rules or wrongdoing, it will be uncovered. It has been uncovered in the past. It will be uncovered in the future. And I think we should allow the IIS to continue doing its job. Having said this, Sir, the Ministry, of course, is concerned that the IIS should also, in the public eye, be perceived to be doing its job well. Whilst we feel that the IIS should continue to be within the Police set-up, the Ministry has, in fact, begun the process of examining to see how it can be further strengthened.

Sir, firstly, would the Parliamentary Secretary consider, instead of making the IIS completely independent, introducing an independent component into the IIS for the public perception that he spoke of? Secondly, in view of the fact that bruises take about 24-48 hours to develop and appear, would the Parliamentary Secretary consider having a medical examination 48 hours after the confessional statement, rather than directly after giving the statement?

The first question that the Member raises is whether or not we can introduce an independent component. I think we have to look at how the mechanics will operate. We need a unit which will continue to do its work fairly, thoroughly and efficiently. Within the IIS, the investigators are people who know what happens on the ground. In other words, they know what defalcations can take place. And that is why it is important that the input of these well-trained and well-grounded investigators is important. Ultimately, I think the input of the Police and the fact that the findings should be within the control of the Commissioner of Police is very important - to reinforce this element that he is in charge and in control. In serious cases where assault has been substantiated, the papers are referred to the Attorney-General's Chambers. So there is a reference point and this has happened in the past. As I have mentioned just now, in a case last year, the defendant, a Police officer who was complained against, was, in fact, prosecuted. So it is not a closed door affair. On the second point, we are open to suggestions, but we have to weigh this very carefully. This has been an established procedure for a long time. It has worked well. As I have mentioned, it is less than 0.5% of cases which have been complained against. Out of 18,000 arrests in a year, 96 complaints have been lodged. Out of these complaints, only 14 have been substantiated out of a total Police Force of 10,600. It is less than 0.2%. I hope we can all see this in perspective. Of course, we should always be open to see how the procedures can be improved. But having used these procedures over such a long time with a proven track record, let us be careful about implementing changes. Any change must be weighed against possible problems that may arise.

Sir, firstly, will the Parliamentary Secretary please inform the House, of the 14 cases that were substantiated, what kind of action was taken against the Police officers involved? Secondly, whether any confessions that were extracted in those circumstances were used in prosecutions against the offenders?

Out of the 14 cases that were substantiated, one was prosecuted and charged in court. He was sentenced to one month imprisonment. The rest were departmentally dealt with. The range of punishment is very wide. It can vary from a verbal to a written warning, to the defendant appearing before the Police Disciplinary Board. The Board also has a range of powers, including the powers to reprimand and the powers to demote. I do not have the details as to how the 14 cases were dealt with. But given the complexities of each case, I think we can rest assured that the powers available to the IIS and to the Police Force, and how it deals with its Police officers who are subject to such investigations, give it that range where the punishment will fit the crime.

Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the complaint of the needles only came months later. Actually, it was taken on 16th November 1993 and there was confirmation that there were needles implanted. But the X-rays were lost. Subsequently, at counsel's request, another X-ray was taken on 29th April 1994. How is it that the X-ray could disappear? At the same time, how is it that the needles were not removed from the Thai accused from November right to April 1994?

The Prison doctor who examined the accused did not inform the Prison HQ of the complaint of Somporn. Admittedly, there was a lapse, in terms of what the doctor should have done. Anyway, we have taken steps to tighten up the procedures.

My question is: how was it that when the prison knew that there was a needle implanted in November 1993 it lapsed until 29th April 1994 when the counsel asked for another X-ray to be taken and the needle was still inside? Therefore, it shows that there must be some lapse, as you said, and that there should be further investigation.

Yes, like I said, there was a lapse on the part of the doctor. If the doctor who had examined Somporn and taken the X-ray had informed the Prison HQ about this, then the process would have begun and there would have been an investigation into his allegation. But the assurance is that we have taken steps to ensure that this will not happen again.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree to using camera for serious cases that lead to capital punishment if it is not possible to use camera to record all interrogations? But for serious cases that lead to capital punishment, probably it will be fair to do that.

In the context of a review, we can consider his suggestion. But I can say that when we take this suggestion we have to look at whether there are gaps. Like I mentioned just now, unless you video-tape everything that goes on from point A to point B, all the way, there will always be an occasion when a person says, "Well, I was threatened during the lapses."

Could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the suggestion about the bruises? I do not feel that just because a procedure has been done for many years we can exclude this important medical fact which will only help to make the police appear even more above-board.

We can consider that.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, regarding the new rules on industrial land leases announced recently, whether he will provide further details on (i) how many leases of the Jurong Town Corporation, Housing and Development Board and Port of Singapore Authority will be affected by the new rules in the next 15 years; (ii) how much additional investments must be committed by a current lessee in order to obtain an extension to the lease; (iii) what is the formula for calculating the new rental rates for an extended lease; and (iv) what are the terms and conditions that allow a current lessee to assign an approved extended lease to another party prior to the expiry of the current lease.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are a total of 771 JTC, 58 HDB and five PSA industrial leases expiring over the next 15 years. The rationale for allowing earlier extension of lease is to facilitate planning for new fixed investments by the industrialists. It is to assure them of a lease extension so that the total lease remaining is long enough for them to amortise their investment, get a reasonable return on the investments and to obtain financing. To qualify for earlier lease extension, industrialists must make new investments. The length of extension will depend on the amount of new investment that they are going to put in. The existing investment in buildings on the land will also be taken into account. Lessees who are granted extensions of lease will continue to pay the land rent as provided for in their existing leases until their expiry. The land rent will only be revised to the JTC's prevailing posted rental rates at the commencement of the renewed lease term. However, to cushion the impact of higher rents when the renewed lease term comes into effect, JTC will help its lessees by giving rental rebates over the first three years of the renewed lease on a reducing basis. In other words, rentals will be adjusted gradually over three years to the full JTC posted rentals only in the fourth year. While we allow leases to be renewed early enough to encourage companies to invest further, we must have adequate safeguards against land speculation. The value of a longer lease must not create an opportunity for speculation by the lessee, for example, by assigning the lease once it has been extended. To discourage speculation, the renewed lease term will be forfeited if the lessee assigns his lease before the additional investment is put in. After the investment is in place, the lessee can assign the remaining portion of his existing lease and renewed lease term. However, the concessionary premium for the "old" buildings will be withdrawn if the lessee assigns his lease within three years of putting in the new investment. "Old" buildings are defined as those buildings that are already on the land at the time the renewed lease term is granted.

asked the Minister for Defence if he will comment on the formation of a Regional Arms Register in the context of the ASEAN Regional Forum.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the first ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) was concluded successfully in Bangkok in July this year. The participants agreed to meet annually to discuss security issues relevant to the Asia Pacific region. We are happy with the outcome of the Bangkok meeting and we hope that over time the process will be institutionalised and serve as an effective mechanism to prevent conflicts in the region. The ARF will be a channel for members to discuss security issues, including preventive measures, which will enhance the prospects for regional peace. Transparency and confidence building measures contribute significantly to enhancing regional security. Several proposals to promote transparency were made at the ARF in Bangkok. Such proposals are good and, if realised, would certainly contribute to peace and stability. However, we should not rush these issues. It is important that the momentum of the ARF is sustained and the various ARF participants feel comfortable to discuss difficult security issues raised before concrete proposals are considered. A step-by-step approach is useful in this regard for we do not want participants to abandon the ARF process just because they are not comfortable with the pace at which the ARF is being developed. It may be counter-productive to force the pace of the ARF process. Singapore supports the concept of an arms register. In fact, Singapore has been reporting its arms acquisitions to the UN Arms Register (UNAR) which was established two years ago, even though reporting is not mandatory. We sponsored the UN resolution which proposed this mechanism. We also secured a place in the 1994 UN Expert Panel convened to look into how the UNAR could be made more effective. Our experiences tell us that it will take time for states to be comfortable and support transparency measures. For instance, for 1992, the first year of UNAR's operations, of the 184 UN members, only 89 submitted returns while for 1993, so far, only 77 members have submitted returns. These returns suggest that a significant portion of UN members are still uncomfortable with declaring their arms acquisitions for the year. It will take time but I believe that eventually all nations will be convinced of the merit of reporting to the UNAR. The Regional Arms Register concept is a useful proposal and, if successfully established, will contribute to regional confidence. But just as in the case of the UNAR, it must be introduced only when all regional members recognise its importance and its relevance in promoting peace and stability in the region. Even if agreement can be reached on the concept, members will then have to agree on the details and the reporting mechanism. These are complex issues which must be managed in a manner acceptable to all regional countries. The best approach would be to reach consensus on the concept first and then work out the details and procedures, taking into account the views, consideration and national interests of all participating countries.

asked the Minister for Communications if he will state whether the cost of telephone calls and the implementation of technology are adversely affected by the monopolies granted to Singapore Telecom.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore needs a comprehensive, competitive and efficient telecommunication system if we want to be an attractive financial and business centre. We cannot afford to have telecommunication services in Singapore costing more than other financial centres. Nor should the range and the quality of these services be inferior to what is available elsewhere. Even though Singapore Telecom has been granted exclusive rights to operate basic, domestic and international telecommunication services, its pricing of these services is subject to the control of the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore. TAS has a price control framework which ensures that Singapore Telecom's charges for basic telecommunication services are among the lowest compared with national telecommunication operators in major business and financial centres as well as the NIEs. TAS will review the price control framework regularly to keep pace with world trends and to ensure that Singapore retains its competitive edge as a business hub. There is no evidence to suggest that exclusive rights given to Singapore Telecom had impeded the implementation of advanced technology. Telecommunication is a technology-driven industry. New technology has spawned new services which transcend national boundaries with the world as the market place. We can neither go against, alter nor shut out global competition. Singapore Telecom recognises that to stay ahead in business and to compete globally they will have to continually invest and implement new technology. Singapore Telecom is also responding to competition through better service and more aggressive pricing. That is why Singapore Telecom has progressively reduced its charges, including its recent substantial IDD rate reductions. It has introduced services like Singnet even though offering Singaporeans access to Internet will potentially erode Singapore Telecom's IDD revenue. I am confident that Singapore Telecom will continue to take bold steps to revise its rates and to upgrade its services in line with changing market conditions.

In view of the Minister's reply, will he instruct the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore to be more flexible or lenient in its interpretation of the monopoly granted to Singapore Telecom? This is in view of the wider picture that Singapore must maintain a technological lead in this particular area.

That is exactly what I have asked TAS to do. I have given instructions to the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore that in those areas where exclusive rights are now given to Singapore Telecom the Act should be interpreted in as wide and generous a manner as possible so as to ensure that there is as much room and flexibility as possible for other operators to work. The net result of all this is that there should be better service to Singaporeans.

Sir, a recent report by EIU stated that Singapore is more costly than Hong Kong in terms of telecommunication costs. Given the monopoly to Singapore Telecom, would the Minister direct that they must be the cheapest as far as this region is concerned, because they have the advantage of the monopoly?

There is a basket of services which TAS uses to compare Singapore Telecom's rates with those of other countries, in particular, as I mentioned just now, those of the major financial centres and the NIEs. It is not possible to be the cheapest in all categories for various reasons, for example, exchange rate fluctuations. Nevertheless, the objective of this is that we must be among the lowest for a broad range of services within this basket. I think that is currently being achieved by Singapore Telecom. If they are not, they will be asked to make changes quite quickly.

I suppose the basket must be for those countries that we are competing with. Hong Kong, being our biggest competitor, we must at all times target our rates to be lower than them.

When I used the word "basket", I am referring to the services which we compare with. Obviously, Hong Kong is one of the major countries with which we compare. The NIEs and the other financial centres, including London and New York, are also within this comparison table.

asked the Minister for Communications whether he will make public the details of Certificate of Entitlement bids above the strike price in each vehicle category for June, July and August 1994.

Sir, a list of all the successful bids each month is available for public viewing at the Registry of Vehicles. Any member of the public can obtain this information at ROV's information counter. ROV has also made such information available to the media and I believe, from time to time, these have been carried in the press.

Sir, actually my question to the Minister is about "bids above the strike price", not the successful bids. In other words, everything that is above the strike price.

Those are successful bids.

What I mean is the actual value.

The actual values are made available. That is what my answer referred to. They are made available for public viewing and if anybody wishes to see them they can do so.

Would the Minister consider the non-transferability of COEs from motor traders to car buyers?

Motor traders are not allowed to bid for COEs under our current regulations. I presume the Member is referring to the practice of some motor traders where I am told that there may be so-called proxy bids made in the names of somebody which are then transferred to their customers upon the sale of a car. This is the so-called double transfer. We are currently monitoring the situation and we will look at it and see what the impact of this is on the prices of COEs. But the fact is that double transfers are part and parcel of the current regulations, that is, it is a legitimate practice. It is a practice which we need to have in order to ensure that people who wish to dispose of their cars for whatever reason can do so without being inconvenienced or restricted.

asked the Acting Minister for National Development if he will reduce season car parking charges in Housing and Development Board multi- storey car parks to the level of open space car parks.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member asks whether we will reduce season car parking charges in multi-storey car parks to the level of open space car parks. The answer is no. The long term objective is to recover the full economic costs of providing car parks. The present level of season car park charges for surface car parks is below the full economic cost of providing such car parks.

Sir, car parking is part and parcel of the infrastructure. Will the Minister confirm that recently the car park charges for open car parks were raised, but not for the multi-storey car parks?

Recently, we raised the car park charges for surface car parks but not for the multi-storey car parks because the recovery rate for surface car parks is far below that of multi-storey car parks. So we are now moving closer to recovery rates.

Will the Minister confirm that they are not using purely economic rationale for moving up or reducing car park charges? In effect, what we have done in the last exercise is that we have reduced the charges for covered car parks relative to that for open car parks. By not raising the covered car park charges, we are actually lowering those charges. In other words, the rationale is not purely economic. That is my question.

The rationale is economic. Right now, the recovery rate of multi-storey car parks is higher than for surface car parks, which means that the surface car park rates have somewhat more to go before we can fully recover the cost.

Could I ask the Minister whether he would consider moving away from cost recovery basis for calculating car park charges to demand-based car park charges? In other words, for places where there is a higher demand, the rates will be higher, rather than base the rates on a cost recovery basis.

I am very glad the Member has raised this principle. We accept this principle. If there is greater demand, then car park charges will go up.

Since the Minister accepts the principle of demand-based car park charges, in places like multi-storey car parks where there is very minimum demand, would he consider reducing the car park charges?

The two will go together.

Could I ask the Minister whether that means "yes"?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are several principles on which to base car park charges. First, we start off by trying to recover the cost in which we provide car parks, because it is the principle of this Government not to subsidise the cost of owning cars. Car owners must fully pay for the privilege of owning cars. The second principle is of course the utility to the car owners. Many will argue that surface car parks provide more utility than covered car parks, in which case since there is greater demand for surface car parks, then of course the surface car park charges should be higher than that for multi-storey car parks. If you go along the same argument of utility, you could also say that car parking is the same, whether it is multi-storey or surface car parks, in which case, the rates ought to be similar or close. So we are moving in this direction of adopting both cost recovery, utility, as well as demand and supply in our next revision of car parking charges.

Sir, will the Minister say that the higher demand for open car parks is a result of the lower charges for open car parks at the moment and not because of utility?

When we first introduced car parking charges, the main principle was cost recovery. That is why car parking charges for surface car parks were set lower than that for multi-storey car parks. Now we accept the other principles involved, ie, utility, demand and supply. And we will have to go towards a more differentiated way of charging car parks.

asked the Acting Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board's scheme to repurchase 3-room flats is being actively pursued and whether the response to the scheme has been so far positive.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in May this year, I announced that HDB would be offering 300 3-room flats for sale to low income families in October. HDB has since appointed two agents to source for 3-room flats from the resale market for its Buy- Back Scheme. Based on the progress so far, HDB is confident that it would be able to offer the 300 flats in October as planned.

Sir, what is the average difference in price that the HDB buys the flat from the open market and then sells it to the low income families?

At this moment, we have bought the flats. We have not established the price. But as I announced in May, we expect that there will be a fairly deep discount of between $30,000 and $35,000 from the market price.

Sir, has the action of the Ministry resulted in a rise in prices for such units?

So far, we have purchased about 200 such units. The resale market is about 30,000 units per year. So the impact is minimal.

Could I ask the Minister whether the reverse will happen? In other words, had we not pursued this policy, will the price drop further?

If it is minimal for upside, it is also minimal downside.

Would the Minister consider letting the applicants buy directly from the resale market and then subsidizing it, rather than going about in this roundabout way?

HDB buying back in this manner is a more practical solution because of some of the peculiarities in the resale market. Right now, as many Members know, most sellers of resale flats demand a cash payment upfront. For these low income families, even if we give them $30,000 into their CPF, to be able to afford a cash downpayment upfront may not be possible. So it is better for HDB to purchase them and allocate to the low income families. Then they can service the loans through their mortgage payments using CPF.

Sir, is a single parent eligible under the scheme?

This scheme is meant for first-time families, not for single parents, or unmarried parents, or singles.

asked the Acting Minister for Community Development whether he will consider giving prize money as encouragement for Singaporean chess players who can achieve international grandmaster status, similar to the prize schemes granted by the Singapore National Olympic Council for various international games.

Sir, it has always been the policy of the Singapore Sports Council (SSC) not to give prize money to any athlete in any sport. SSC, however, does work with other agencies to give financial rewards to athletes who perform well in international competitions. Examples of such organisations are the Singapore National Olympic Council and the national sports associations (NSAs). The Singapore Chess Federation can, on its own, implement a similar financial reward scheme, if it so wishes.

asked the Acting Minister for Community Development (a) whether temples, churches and all places of worship need to account for the donations they receive; (b) whether he will give some indications by groupings of the amount of money collected by religious bodies yearly from 1989 to 1993; and (c) whether there were cases of irregularities over the same period.

Sir, the Ministry of Community Development does not regulate or maintain a register of places of worship in Singapore. However, places of worship in Singapore can be classified under three broad categories: (1) those that are privately run: these are temples and churches which are not registered as societies or companies; (2) those that are registered charities, societies or companies: these have to submit their audited accounts to the Commissioner of Charities, the Registrar of Societies or the Registrar of Companies and Businesses; and (3) those that are managed by a statutory board: these will include all mosques which are vested with the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapore (MUIS), the two Sikh temples managed by the Central Sikh Gurdwara Board, which is a self-regulating body, and the four Hindu temples under the administration of the Hindu Endowments Board. All mosques in Singapore vested with MUIS have their accounts incorporated into MUIS' accounts which are audited by the Auditor-General. The four Hindu temples managed by the Hindu Endowments Board have separate accounts maintained by the Hindu Endowments Board. These accounts are audited by a commercial audit firm. As for the Central Sikh Gurdwara Board, it maintains the accounts of the two Sikh temples under it and their accounts are audited by a commercial audit firm. In the circumstances, I regret that I am unable to give a full answer to the Member's question. However, if there is evidence of any irregularities in the management of funds, may I suggest that this be brought to the attention of the Commissioner of Charities, the Registrar of Societies or the Registrar of Companies and Businesses as the case may be. If any offence such as criminal breach of trust is suspected, a police report should be made.

Sir, will the Minister be able to answer this: are there any places of worship that belong to families, for instance, houses, where they put up some signs as a prayer place and people start going there?

Sir, as I mentioned earlier, my Ministry does not really monitor such institutions.

asked the Minister for Education whether registration for primary schools will be reviewed so as to allow children without connections greater opportunity to enter choice schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the current Primary One Registration Exercise, which saw a record number of 53,000 children being registered for admission to Primary One in 1995, 3,259 children (or 6.1% of the total) secured places for having direct connections with the school under Phase 2B. Of the 197 primary schools, only 13 closed registration at Phase 2B. The remaining 184 schools had places for children who did not have any direct links with them. These data show that parents who did not have any direct links with schools still had ample opportunities to register their children in schools near where they live. The priority given to parents having direct connection with the school serves to acknowledge their contributions and support to the school. It strengthens the bonds between the community and the school and helps to build up good schools. My Ministry therefore does not see the need to change this aspect of the registration scheme.

I have two supplementary questions, Sir. The first one is whether the Minister will consider a rotational posting of good principals and teachers to all the neighbourhood schools to uplift the standards. And the second one is whether the Ministry of Education will proceed with the ranking of primary schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we do send good principals and teachers to all the schools. And when the time comes, we do rotate them to give them a wider exposure. I think it is a misconception that neighbourhood schools do not have good principals and teachers. In fact, very often so-called good schools do well because the children are very bright. They have tuition at home and all the support. And often it is the teachers in the neighbourhood schools who have to work harder, provide remedial lessons, and so on, to give the children that additional advantage. So they are the ones who add value. I would urge parents not to be taken in by the schools' results alone. Concerning the ranking of schools, there is no plan at the moment to rank primary schools.

Sir, since the teachers in the neighbourhood schools have got to work harder, will he not look at better incentives for them? Because those who are in good schools actually do not do that much work.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the challenges are different. In a good school, you have very bright children. You have to stretch them further. So I think we have to try and balance out and make sure that all our schools provide a good quality of education.

Sir, what is the purpose of ranking schools if the objectives are met?

Sir, the ranking of secondary schools is meant to guide the parents and to tell them, for example, that not all the popular schools are really doing that well. There are many neighbourhood schools which are very good. And besides the ranking, we also look at the value-added. In other words, we compare the "0" level results with the entry qualifications of the students. If the students did not do so well in PSLE but performed very well at "0" levels, it means the school has added value. 1.30 pm

Order. End of Question time. [Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Questions Nos. 18 to 20 have been postponed to the sitting on 26th August 1994.]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill is to reform the law on bankruptcy in Singapore. It repeals the present Bankruptcy Act (Chapter 20 of the 1985 Revised Edition) which was enacted in 1888 and had remained substantially unamended all these years. The Act needs to be reformed in order to keep pace with social and economic developments in Singapore. Therefore, in the Addendum to the President's Address to this House in January this year, I stated that my Ministry would, and I quote, "introduce legislation to improve administration of the affairs of bankrupts and protect creditors' interests without stifling entrepreneurship. We will strike a balance between the interest of the debtor, the creditor and society. There will be greater accountability of bankrupts in the administration of their estates on the one hand, and speedier discharges of bankrupts on the other." This Bill is the result of a fairly exhaustive review of the current position. In 1989, when asked in this House if Government would review our insolvency laws in view of developments in England, I replied that we would undertake such a review but also cautioned that it would take some time because of the complexity of this area of the law. We have decided that no change, for the time being, be made in this exercise to our corporate insolvency legislation which seems to have worked fairly well. The reform in this Bill is, therefore, limited to the personal insolvency legislation, that is, our bankruptcy laws. In this regard, we studied the reforms in other jurisdictions, such as, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Malaysia. Let me state, at the outset, that I intend to refer this Bill to a Select Committee because it is a fairly technical Bill so that interested parties can give their views on the details of the provisions. Let me, Sir, highlight, first, the main weaknesses of the present legislation which the Bill seeks to address. Firstly, the difficulty in obtaining a discharge from bankruptcy. It is now not possible for a bankrupt to be discharged unless he settles his debts in full or proposes a scheme of arrangement or composition which is acceptable to the creditors. Many creditors are also not prepared to accept realistic proposals for settlements. In short, there is very little incentive for the bankrupts to actively seek a discharge by disclosing their assets and cooperate with the Official Assignee in the administration of their estates. Secondly, the difficulty in monitoring the large number of bankrupts. This difficulty, which I mentioned, in obtaining a discharge has led to an increasing number of undischarged bankrupts over the years. Since 1984, the number of undischarged bankrupts increased more than three-fold from 4,297 to 13,733 at the end of last year. As a result, it is extremely difficult to monitor the bankrupts' conduct and to recover assets. Thirdly, the limited powers of the Official Assignee. What I have mentioned just now has severely hampered the Official Assignee in supervising the affairs of bankrupts. For example, the Official Assignee cannot adequately inquire into the bankrupt's affairs or conduct. Also, the bankrupt's movements outside Singapore cannot be effectively checked and action cannot be instituted for breach of his essential legal obligations. Fourthly, there is a problem of present procedures being very cumbersome and complex. The present procedures are outdated and also too technical. They contribute to substantial delay in the administration of estates. These then are some of the problems. Let me now highlight the main reforms contained in the Bill. Firstly, to reduce the instances where parties resort to bankruptcy proceedings and encourage, wherever possible, the settlement of debts. The present minimum debt for filing of a bankruptcy petition which was fixed in 1955 as $500 will be increased to $2,000, or in future, such other amount as may be prescribed. The Bill introduces a voluntary arrangement scheme under which a nominee can be appointed under an interim order. Under the scheme, an insolvent debtor and his creditors can enter into a voluntary arrangement for the discharge of his debts. This scheme, which is modified from the equivalent United Kingdom insolvency legislation, hopefully will encourage debtors to settle their debts early so as to avoid bankruptcy. Its flexibility, as well as its lower costs as compared with bankruptcy administration, I think, will be attractive to both debtors and creditors. The second main feature of this Bill is to encourage entrepreneurship where bankrupts who have become so through misfortune rather than malpractice will be subjected to a more practical and pragmatic regime of bankruptcy. A major innovation is the provision for a discharge by certificate of the Official Assignee. Under this scheme, where proven debts do not exceed $100,000, a debtor can be discharged from bankruptcy after five years. However, unlike the position in the United Kingdom and Australia, there will not be any automatic discharge. In deciding whether to issue a certificate, the Official Assignee will be guided by a number of factors, including the circumstances in which the debt was incurred, the bankrupt's conduct and the extent of cooperation given to the Official Assignee. To facilitate easier discharges by the court in other cases, for example, beyond $100,000, the requirements for an application to the court have also been simplified and subject to certain safeguards. The existing scheme and procedures for the settlement of debts through a scheme of arrangement or composition offer have been rationalised and improved. Hence, it will result in creditors recovering their moneys more quickly and will also expedite discharges. The third feature is to enhance the Official Assignee's powers to enforce the bankrupt's essential legal obligations. Bankrupts who fail to perform their essential legal obligations will be taken to court. Currently, a bankrupt who fails to fulfil his legal obligations, such as, filing a six-monthly return of income and expenditure, or leaving the country without the Official Assignee's permission, is only liable to committal proceedings for contempt of court. This is a costly and circuitous process which also impedes the administration of the estate. The Bill will subject recalcitrant bankrupts to prosecution. Also, the Official Assignee will be empowered, if he thinks fit, to detain the passport, or other travel document of a bankrupt, or to request the Controller of Immigration to do so when a bankrupt attempts to leave the country without the Official Assignee's prior approval. The fourth feature is to encourage unsecured creditors to assume a more active role in bankruptcy proceedings. Petitioning creditors can apply to a court for a trustee in bankruptcy to be appointed to administer the bankrupt's estate instead of the Official Assignee. A trustee may be appointed when there are sufficient assets in the bankrupt's estate and will be subject to the control of the Official Assignee. A creditors' committee consisting of not more than three persons may be constituted to advise the Official Assignee or the trustee in bankruptcy on matters relating to the administration of the bankrupts' estates. The fifth feature is to maximise the amount available in the bankrupt's estate for distribution amongst his creditors. Sir, difficulties in the recovery of assets disposed of by bankrupts in favour of related or associated persons will be removed. Transactions, such as, disposals by way of gifts, other voluntary dispositions with intent to defraud, unfair preferences and extortionate credit transactions will be closely monitored. I should add that an Insolvency Assistance Fund will be established. It will be financed by unclaimed moneys in the Bankruptcy Estates Account administered by the Official Assignee. These are moneys not claimed by creditors and discharged bankrupts for more than seven years which are presently paid into the Consolidated Fund. The moneys in the Fund will be tapped to finance proceedings on behalf of a bankrupt's estate if the Official Assignee is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so but there are insufficient moneys in the bankrupt's estate for such a purpose. The recovery of moneys owed to a bankrupt by third parties in proceedings financed by these moneys will benefit both the bankrupt and his creditors. Sixthly, Sir, the Bill streamlines and updates cumbersome, complex and archaic bankruptcy procedures. Sir, bankruptcy proceedings, bankruptcy administration and discharge from bankruptcy will be streamlined and simplified. This will result in greater efficiency and lower costs. For example, the single ground of inability to pay will replace the outmoded concept of acts of bankruptcy on which proceedings are based. Furthermore, a new 2-tier court process consisting of bankruptcy petition and bankruptcy order will replace the present 4-tier process of notice, petition and two court orders. These innovations have also been adopted by the United Kingdom. Sir, this Bill deals mainly with substantive matters of policy and principle. There are many procedural matters, such as, meetings of creditors, proving of debts, appropriations of salaries and prescribing of fees payable, all of which will be dealt with through subsidiary legislation. There will be two Schedules to the Bill. The First Schedule covers Transitional Provisions and Savings which, inter alia, determines the status of bankrupts under the present Act when repealed and uncompleted bankruptcy proceedings under the present Act. The Second Schedule deals with consequential amendments to a number of related legislation which will be affected by this Bill. Sir, as I said, this Bill is a major piece of law reform. As such, in drafting it, relevant Government Departments and Ministries were consulted. Consultations were also held with representatives of the Law Society, the Law Faculty in the NUS and the Institute of Certified Public Accountants, all of whom have expressed support for the major provisions of this Bill. However, since this Bill also introduces a significantly different bankruptcy regime and many of its provisions are technical in nature, I intend to submit it to a Select Committee so that all interested parties can submit their views. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. I just want to bring up a couple of points. During our meet-the-people sessions, it is not uncommon to come across people who are made bankrupts. But they are made bankrupts not because they were involved in a business. They were just, what I call, friendly guarantors. They are usually relatives or close friends invited to be sleeping partners in a business deal. When the company has failed, creditors go after that particular person and, in the course of the dealing, the poor person has got to pay a very heavy price. There was a case of this old lady who wanted to go to China but she was a bankrupt because her son was a bankrupt. And because her name was in the company of the son, she was asked to pay up, but she could not pay up. So she had difficulty getting a passport to go to China. It is a pity because I do not think she had any intention to cheat. It was just that she was party to a business failure. I am so glad that this present Bill will give us a chance to look into all these aspects. Then, of course, we get many young people who are also made bankrupt because of business failure, and they want to go abroad to do business. Again, because they are bankrupts, they have difficulty in getting employment and difficulty in getting passports, or if they are given a passport, it is always for a limited period. So this Bill, I hope, will also take into account the plight of all these people. As we are going regional, I am sure some of these people who have failed in their business should be given a chance. Of course, they must be punished for their involvement, but we should also consider their plight by giving them a lighter sentence. I notice that some criminals seem to get a lighter sentence than these people. Because when the criminal is released, he can go out and get a job. At least, he has got an opportunity to get a job. Some of these bankrupts, I am afraid, sometimes it is for a lifetime, because I cannot imagine them paying up the large sums that are usually involved. Of course, in fraud cases, I suggest that the penalty for the guilty party should be severe. I have no sympathy for them. As I said, for genuine business failure and all these people who give friendly guarantees to do business, we should really look into these matters.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. As the Minister has stated, the existing bankruptcy laws have not kept pace with social and economic developments in Singapore. This Bill, with its new and significantly different structure, is long overdue and should be welcomed by all concerned. As the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee, I will not speak on the specific provisions.I have a few general observations to make. Sir, this Bill has altogether 167 clauses and two Schedules. A tremendous amount of work and consultation must have taken place involving the Official Assignee's office, the Attorney-General and all those concerned in the administration of bankrupts and their estates. They have taken more than five years since 1989 when the Minister answered a Question in this House and I presume that the review must have commenced then before this Bill was completed. I would like to commend the Official Assignee and his officers for their commitment and effort in putting together this Bill. I also observe from the comparative table at the end of this Bill that several clauses in this Bill have adopted or incorporated, with modifications, bankruptcy legislation in other jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Malaysia, just to name a few. Although such reforms were carefully considered, I would like an assurance from the Minister that there has been no slavish adoption from such foreign reforms, especially when these were enacted against the background of varying economic and social conditions existing in those countries for which it was legislated. Sir, I am pleased to note that we have not followed other jurisdictions, such as Australia where provisions on automatic discharges of bankrupts have been incorporated. This departure is welcome. Automatic discharges should not be allowed as it does nothing to encourage the settlement of debts and the maintenance of financial discipline and commercial morality. On the other hand, I applaud the scheme to enable bankrupts resulting from business failure to obtain discharges more easily. This will indeed promote our policy of encouraging business entrepreneurship without eroding financial discipline and commercial morality. In summary, Sir, this new system is a major piece of law reform. It represents a significant milestone in updating our commercial laws. Rightly so, a prime consideration is to find the right balance between the interest of creditors in being paid and bankrupts who like to be financially rehabilitated to start over again and society in having legislation which promotes our overall economic and social objectives. This Bill will be welcomed by both the business community and the general public. I welcome the Minister's decision to commit the Bill to a Select Committee. Sir, I support the Bill.

Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer acting for parties who have an interest in the bankruptcy regime. Sir, there are many purposes behind this Bill. Two of them are to simplify the regime as well as to strike a correct balance between the interests of creditors and the interests of debtors. But there are two other objectives which I think ought to be considered when deciding whether this should be passed as legislation. They are whether the provisions would create a heavier load on our court system. That is number one. Number two, whether we are actually discouraging people from attempting to take risks, albeit honestly. There is no dispute that if you cannot pay your debt, you ought to be punished for it and, of course, the bankruptcy regime is available for that. You are made a bankrupt if you cannot pay up or cannot make a reasonable offer which is acceptable to your creditors. What I find difficult to accept is the new discharge provisions. The proposal is essentially two-fold. One is that the Official Assignee is entitled to discharge one group of bankrupts. There must be two conditions. One is that they are bankrupt for a period of not less than five years and, secondly, that the debt they owe must not exceed $100,000. That is one group. The second group which does not have the benefit of this discharge mechanism must make an application to court. The court will then review all the relevant circumstances which are listed out in the Act. And some of these circumstances include, eg, whether the bankrupt has brought the bankruptcy on account of his rash speculation or reckless behaviour. Or whether he has put up a frivolous defence in any claim that was brought against him for monies which defence was, of course, subsequently rejected. We should take this opportunity to simplify procedures and decide what we are trying to achieve here. Bankruptcy is punishment. The question is: how long do we want to punish these people without affecting their ability to be rehabilitated, if you like? In England, they have a very simple procedure. If you have not been made a bankrupt for the last 15 years, you are given a discharge after 3 years, subject, of course, to the court's discretion. If you are made a bankrupt, and this is your second bankruptcy in a space of 15 years, you have to wait for 5 years before the court can let you off. I do not understand why in Singapore we have not followed a similar scheme. Because if you expect bankrupts to go to court to make applications to discharge themselves, then what you are going to have is a very heavy burden on the court. Because the court must go into all the circumstances of the case before deciding whether someone should be discharged from his bankruptcy. Why can we not have a simpler procedure where everyone is discharged after a fixed number of years? We are concerned, of course, with those who acted fraudulently or dishonestly. There is a way to deal with that. To the extent that there is fraud or dishonest conduct, create the necessary provisions which are loosely called bankruptcy offences and punish them for that conduct. If they are sufficiently punished for those offences, there is no reason, while they are being punished for that, to delay the discharge. It is not going to help creditors to delay the discharge because it is not going to increase the monies that will be available for distribution. Also, I find the $100,000 ceiling, as it were, somewhat artificial. I would like to know why $100,000 was proposed. You can have a situation where there is one creditor who is owed $99,000 and the bankrupt is then discharged after five years on the certificate of the Official Assignee. He has hurt more than 20 creditors who are owed maybe $10,000 each, totalling $200,000, and the bankrupt then cannot get discharged because he has to make an application to court, because the amount is more than $100,000. I do not think really we should be setting a limit, whether it is $100,000 or any amount. We should look at what we are trying to address. If we are trying to deter dishonest conduct, punish them for it, but do not delay the bankruptcy discharge, as it were, on account of the fraudulent or dishonest conduct. In addition, I have three questions for the Minister. First of all, arising from what I consider to be sophisticated frauds that are now committed which I believe this Bankruptcy Bill does not address. The essence of the prohibitions in the Bankruptcy Bill is that if you have been naughty, if in contemplation or in anticipation of bankruptcy, you start moving your assets around, you can be caught. You can be punished and those assets can be retrieved. That deals with the straightforward cases where you really have assets and you move them. For example, if you have shares in a company, you move them to your wife or to a relative, the provisions operate. But these days, there are more sophisticated ways of diluting your assets without actually moving them. For example, you may be a 60% or 70% shareholder in a company. Instead of transferring those 60% or 70% shares to another person so that the creditors do not get at them, what you do is you contrive a rights issue. You renounce your rights. The minority picks up the rights. He becomes the majority. You are diluted to a minority. The Bankruptcy Bill does not catch such conduct. That is fraud. That is dilution of assets. It is as fraudulent as you can get and I think that the Bill ought to address such new sophisticated forms of fraud. It is not really the moving of assets that we are interested in. It is the dilution of the value of the assets that you have at any one point of time before bankruptcy. Another issue is the appointment of interim receivers. This Bill proposes that the court or the Official Assignee be entitled to appoint a receiver of your property during the period between a petition for bankruptcy is filed and the bankruptcy order. What a receiver can do is receive your property. He can take possession of your property. But what he cannot do is manage your property. And I suggest that this particular issue be addressed as well because it is important that when he receives property, he is also given the right to manage it. Otherwise, as in the example I gave earlier, the right to vote is not addressed. I am glad the Bill is going to a Select Committee and it will be interesting to see how the amendments work out. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the three speakers who have spoken. Dr Tan Cheng Bock raised the question of the problems of people who became indebted for "innocent reasons", if I can use that phrase, where there is no intention to cheat and so on. He hoped that they will be dealt with more sympathetically. Of course, the reasons why people may end up in indebtedness can be very varied, including the situations that he mentioned. The fundamental principle, which this Bill does not disturb, is that people who owe others monies must discharge their debts. That principle is not affected. So whether one is innocent or found himself indebted due to cheating or dishonest means, both categories are still bound by that principle. As I have mentioned, this Bill seeks to distinguish between different categories of situations and a more pragmatic and sympathetic approach will be taken for those who were not dishonest, were not cheating, and so on. So I hope that takes care of his point. Then he mentioned the problems of those bankrupts who have difficulty travelling and getting a passport. Let me assure him that it is not the intention of the Official Assignee to prevent every bankrupt from travelling. But I am sure he and other Members know of such a thing as "millionaire bankrupts". We have complaints from many financial houses and businessmen that they have travelled abroad and they found individuals travelling in first- class who were supposed to be bankrupts and were unable to meet the amounts which were due to the creditors. Others who have travelled elsewhere have found that bankrupts were wining and dining. When the Official Assignee has evidence of this, I think he is entitled to put his foot down. Dr Arthur Beng comments about our reliance on provisions in other countries. Let me assure him that we have taken some time because we have to make sure, as best as we can, that where we adapt provisions from other countries they are suited for our own circumstances and our own society. He will note, for example, that we have not adopted the automatic discharge provisions, a point which Mr Davinder Singh seems to disagree with us on this Bill. I have taken note of what Mr Davinder Singh has mentioned. He has raised a point of some detail but also a specific point of principle. I would say that the approach which he has commended was one of the options open to us to follow, namely the English approach. After examining the actual experience in England and elsewhere which have the automatic approach, we decided to be more cautious. We decided that, for our circumstances, it may not be suitable or wise to adopt the automatic discharge. In England there is automatic discharge after three years regardless of the amounts owing. We decided that the approach in this new Bill must not be based on automatic discharge, but there will be a discharge after a period of five years and if the debts do not exceed $100,000. One can have a debate whether it should be $100,000, $150,000 or $200,000. There may be some arbitrariness in the figure of $100,000, but that represents about 60% of bankruptcy cases in Singapore, which is quite a large number. Does it over-burden the courts? I would have to look into this, but I think the present approach in the Bill is far better than the existing regime in the present Act where it is really very difficult, if not almost impossible, to get a discharge. When weighing automatic discharge as opposed to the approach in the new Bill, one comes to the fundamental question on whom should the onus be? Should the onus be on the individual who has become indebted to demonstrate that he has taken sufficient steps to arrange his financial affairs in such a way that will enable him to discharge his debts? Or should the burden be, as it appears to be in the United Kingdom, on the Official Assignee who has to make an appearance in court to object to a discharge? We think that, in terms of principle, it is important that the onus must still be on the individual to discharge this burden, of meeting his debts and to arrange his financial affairs and his proposals for meeting his debts. It should not be the other way round where there is automatic discharge and where it is for the authority to enter an appearance and object. I have taken note of his two useful comments on what I would really consider the details of the provisions. He mentioned that he has three points, but perhaps he could let me know the third idea that he has. One is on the need for the Bill to deal with sophisticated frauds and the second is that if an interim receiver is appointed, we should also look into the need for such an interim receiver to manage the estate or property. I think it is a useful point which can be taken up in the Select Committee. If he and other Members have other suggestions, I will be very happy to receive them.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as the Committee of Selection may nominate. - [Prof. Jayakumar].

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill seeks to clarify the legal status of parallel imports under the Copyright Act. When the Copyright Act was enacted in 1987, the Government announced that its intention was to ensure that parallel imports of copyright products would be allowed. Parallel imports are foreign products which are "genuine" in terms of its manufacture but the importation or distribution of which in Singapore is unauthorised due to the existence of a local copyright owner who has not authorised the importer or distributor to do so. Members of this House will recall that when the Minister for Law took the Copyright Bill through its Third Reading in 1987, the House was told that the Select Committee on the Bill had, after hearing arguments for and against parallel imports, decided to make it clear that parallel imports were not prohibited. This is what he had said in this House, and I quote: `The Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, will prohibit only the importation of copies which are made in countries without copyright legislation without the consent of the copyright owner, copies made without the consent of the copyright owner under a statutory licence. The consent that we are talking about, Sir, is consent by the copyright owner in the country of manufacture in the other country, not to the importation by Singapore.' Mr Speaker, Sir, the rationale then and now in allowing parallel imports is to benefit the consumer by not denying him the opportunity to purchase a lower-priced but legitimate edition of a work merely because the edition had originated from some other country. The Select Committee on the Copyright Bill in 1987 was particularly impressed by the evidence presented of large price differentials of authorised editions of copyright materials, in particular, books originating from different countries. Sir, in September 1993, the Chief Justice in a copyright prosecution, ie, PP v Teoh Ai Nee and Ngoh Chin Heng decided that the importation of a copyright product and its distribution in Singapore would be unlawful if the imported article was manufactured abroad without the consent of the local owner in Singapore. Although the effect of the decision would still allow for parallel imports, for example, when the local and foreign owners are identical, one class of genuine imports - ie, those manufactured in countries whose copyright owner is different from that in Singapore and where the Singapore copyright owner has not given his consent to the manufacture of the product - would be barred. Sir, the decision caused considerable unease amongst retailers and consumers. Uncertainties arose over the ambit of parallel imports allowed into Singapore. In view of the uncertainty prevailing in the copyright industry, the Government formed a committee to propose amendments to the Copyright Act so as to clarify the position on parallel imports. Sir, the Committee has submitted its recommendations to the Government which has accepted them. Let me now deal with the main recommendations of the Committee. On parallel imports, the Committee based its recommendation on the fact that Government's policy on parallel imports which it enunciated in 1987 remained unchanged. To give effect to this policy, it had recommended that all legitimate reproductions of copyright products may in future be imported into Singapore regardless of who the copyright owner was. Only three classes of imports would be barred. These are: Firstly, articles made in a country where copyright protection does not exist; Secondly, articles made in a country where the copyright protection has expired; and Thirdly, articles made pursuant to a compulsory statutory licence. Sir, these recommendations will be given effect to by an amendment to section 25. The amendment will make it clear that the relevant copyright owner whose consent must be obtained is the owner in the country of manufacture except where there is no copyright owner, in which case the relevant owner would be the owner in Singapore. Let me assure Members that the amendment will not have retrospective effect. These amendments will, therefore, not affect any importation or distribution done before this amendment takes place. However, existing copyright products will be affected. Let me now turn to the other recommendations of the Committee. The Committee also recommended the following: Firstly, that amendments be made to prevent the use of copyright in product packaging as a ground to repel otherwise legitimate products. Product packaging should therefore be ignored if the product itself is not an infringing copy. However, instructional manuals accompanying computer software should enjoy copyright protection as these are substantive works in themselves. Secondly, that an anomaly under the current design copyright law be rectified, ie, that the design copyright owner who industrially applies his work overseas be placed in no better position than his local counterpart who industrially applies his design here. This anomaly was pointed out in a recent High Court decision of Lance Court Furnishings Pte Ltd v PP. These recommendations will be given effect to in the Bill by the introduction of two new sections, ie, section 40A and 116A in the Copyright Act. In addition, the word "accessory" for the purpose of product packaging is given a wide definition in section 7(1) of the Copyright Act which is amended to incorporate the definition. Sir, the Government is mindful of the need to achieve a proper balance between ensuring cheaper prices for consumers and providing sufficient incentives for copyright industries to develop and remain competitive. The Government's policy on parallel imports is to prevent copyright owners and exclusive distributors here from carrying out price maintenance and discriminatory practices at the expense of consumers. Closing our markets to genuine products from other countries is also inconsistent with our advocacy of free and fair competition. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. The Bill introduces amendments that will clearly reflect Government's policy of allowing genuine products, ie, copyright products, to be imported into Singapore by persons other than the authorised distributors. This clarification is to be welcomed as it will inject certainty into our law and practice. Sir, this is in line with Singapore's free market policy. To me, it makes sense that if a product is not a counterfeit or pirated copy, but a genuine product made with the consent of the copyright owner in the country of manufacture, such a product should be allowed to be imported and sold in Singapore. This will enable Singaporeans to have a wider choice of products which they can purchase and also at cheaper prices. Sir, this is important as we want to build Singapore into a shoppers' paradise. I have no doubt that this factor of variety and price will work towards the benefit of consumers. I have only one small question to ask, ie, if an authorised distributor of a foreign country were to sell his products to an authorised distributor in Singapore, will that be considered as an infringement of the copyright law? I am pleased with the approach that the Ministry has taken on this matter. It was a carefully considered one. No doubt, it has taken some time. But at least the position is now clear. The Government has reaffirmed the policy that it announced in 1987 of allowing parallel imports which are now more clearly defined under the Bill. Once again, I support the Bill.

Sir, I thank the Member for his support of the Bill. He asked one query. The point to note is that whether or not it is an infringing copy under the Act depends on whether or not consent has been given by the copyright owner in the country of manufacture as to the manufacture of the product. We have to distinguish between a manufacturing process and a right of distribution.

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. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.15 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Constitutional Amendment Bill contains three categories of amendments: (a) Civil Service and Personnel Matters; (b) Elected President Provisions; and (c) Miscellaneous Amendments. The first set of changes is to enhance the performance of the Civil Service and strengthen its foundations to serve the country into the next century. The second set of amendments is to fine-tune the Elected President provisions after three years of operating experience. The third set of amendments covers miscellaneous items, including changes in Parliamentary procedure and change of terminology from reservists to operationally ready national servicemen. A new provision will be proposed in Committee for questions on the interpretation of the Constitution to be referred to the Courts for an advisory opinion. One further group of amendments has not been included in this Bill. It concerns the mechanism by which the Elected President provisions are entrenched in the Constitution. There is a defect in the way this mechanism has been drafted which needs to be remedied in due course. I will explain the problem later. Category 1: Civil Service and Personnel Matters The background to these changes is that we inherited our personnel system from the British. The constitutional provisions are 43 years old. And in that period the world has changed. Then, the highly centralised personnel system worked as responsibilities of government were simpler, unemployment was prevalent, and government jobs were much sought after. Now, governing has become increasingly complex - we need first rate planners and implementers to work out long term strategies for the country. The private sector offers a wide range of exciting, challenging and rewarding jobs. The Civil Service is no longer the most sought after employer, and indeed faces great difficulty recruiting and retaining its share of talent. The new generation of Singaporeans has grown up in an age of fast growth and full employment. They have different expectations and priorities. They prefer immediate compensation to deferred rewards which tie them to the service. They are less concerned with job security or pensions. The basic flaws which make the existing personnel arrangements unworkable are over-centralisation of powers and the separation of authority from responsibility. We must remedy them urgently. The Prime Minister explained all this when he announced the changes to Civil Service personnel administration at the Administrative Service Dinner on 22nd April this year. He explained that the aim is to make the Civil Service and the public sector more responsive and flexible as an employer, while safeguarding high standards of integrity and impartiality of the Civil Service. We will liberalise the way the Civil Service hires and promotes officers. We will update personnel practices to be more in line with the private sector, in order to recruit and retain a fair share of top talent for the Service, as well as supporting staff at all levels whose commitment and dedication are essential to running the many functions of government. We must empower senior civil servants with the resources, give them the autonomy and authority to take decisions, and hold them accountable for the performance of their organisations. Currently, functions of promotion and recruitment (other than for legal officers) fall under the purview of the Public Service Commission, the Education Service Commission and the Police and Civil Defence Services Commission. None of the members of these Commissions are public officers. The amendments provide for Personnel Boards, comprising public officers, to take over functions devolved from the Commissions, including recruitment and promotion. In devolving powers from the Commissions to the Personnel Boards, we will incorporate safeguards to preserve impartiality and high standards in the Civil Service. The Personnel Boards will be established by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. Appointments to Personnel Boards for Division I officers will be subject to the President's discretionary veto power. Political appointment holders, MPs and trade unionists will be excluded from Personnel Boards. Powers in relation to officers in the Administrative Service and the Administrative Service (Foreign Service Branch) in and above the Significant Grade, which is currently Superscale B, will not be devolved to Personnel Boards but retained by the PSC. Individuals aggrieved by decisions of Personnel Boards can seek redress through a system of appeals to the relevant Commissions. These are major changes. I stress that these changes and reforms do not in any way reflect on the members of the Public Service Commission, or the officers in the Public Service Division, either collectively or individually. The Prime Minister explained this at the Administrative Service Dinner. But because it is important, I quote him again: "... these problems with Civil Service personnel management, and the reforms that we are making to the system, do not in any way reflect on the officers staffing PSD, or on the members of the PSC, either collectively or individually. They have given their best, within the constraints of the existing system. The PSD officers have served faithfully and conscientiously, operating within the rules which they have been given. The members of the PSC, the Education Service Commission, and the Police and Civil Defence Services Commission are private individuals who have come forward to do public service for very little personal reward. They have volunteered to take on an onerous responsibility, and filled a key role in the personnel management system. Commission members attend an average of 100 sessions a year. Some have served for more than 20 years. The Government is grateful to them for their dedicated work, and appreciates their sterling service." The Government aims to implement these changes to Civil Service personnel management from 1st January 1995. We will fine-tune the arrangements as we gain experience from operating them. PSD will be briefing unions, staff and heads of departments and Permanent Secretaries. The proposals will succeed only if there is a change of mindset throughout the Civil Service, on the part both of civil servants and of those responsible for Civil Service personnel management. Decentralisation will give more authority to those in charge in exchange for greater accountability and increased performance. The changes will create a framework for attracting talent to take up public sector careers as challenging and rewarding as those in the private sector, and allow us to build upon what we have so far achieved to prepare the Civil Service to serve Singapore into the next century. The amendments in this category are contained in clauses 16 to 19 of the Bill. There will be consequential changes to the Public Service Commission Act. The Bill also contains other personnel-related amendments to change the retirement ages of the Auditor-General and the Attorney-General from 55 to 60. These are amendments to Article 148F(5) and Article 35(4) of the Constitution. Category 2: Elected President Provisions The second category of amendments pertains to the Elected President provisions. The Elected President provisions were passed in January 1991 and brought into effect in November 1991. Their aim was to provide a check on the powers of the elected Government mainly in two key areas - the spending of past reserves and the preservation of the integrity of the public service. It is impossible, with a complex and novel piece of legislation like this, to foresee all consequences and implications of the provisions upfront. The three years we have operated the new provisions has enabled us to understand better how the mechanism operates, where the loopholes and ambiguities are, what is practicable and what needs to be modified in the light of experience. We have discovered that the Elected President mechanism is even more complex than we originally anticipated. It is extremely difficult to balance the Government's need for operational flexibility with the President's duty to exercise effective oversight. As we operate the mechanism day to day, we are still discovering implications of the provisions which we had not realised. This will therefore not be the final set of amendments before we can safely entrench the Elected President provisions. A second and probably even a third round of amendments to fine-tune the provisions will be necessary. It will therefore be several more years before we entrench the provisions. This is consistent with the intention stated in the Select Committee Report and the Prime Minister's Third Reading speech to Parliament, when we debated the Elected President legislation, to delay entrenching the Elected President provisions for several years, in order to give the Government a free hand to fine-tune the provisions during a running-in period. The amendments to the Elected President provisions fall under two major groups - those to fine-tune the financial safeguards and those to the non-financial provisions. Let me take the financial safeguards first. Amendments to Fine-tune Financial Safeguards EDB and JTC Acts Under the EDB Act and the JTC Act, bonds and debentures issued by these statutory boards are automatically guaranteed by the Government. Article 144 of the Constitution was intended to prohibit guarantees given by the Government except with the concurrence of the President, but Article 144 accidentally excluded EDB and JTC. Article 144(3) will be amended to require the President's concurrence to future guarantees given by the Government under the EDB Act and the JTC Act. However, the MAS will continue to be excluded from this requirement to obtain the President's concurrence. The MAS routinely borrows and accepts deposits to manage the liquidity of our financial system and the Singapore Dollar. This confidence in MAS being able to repay obligations is derived from its assets and from the Government's unconditional guarantee. Including the MAS in this amendment would handicap MAS operations in a time-sensitive environment, and affect confidence in the banking system. The financial standing of MAS must be beyond question for it to operate effectively as a central bank. Transfer of Statutory Board and Government-linked Company (GLC) Reserves. New Articles 22B(9) and 22D(8) will allow the transfer of reserves from key statutory boards and Government-linked companies to the Government, provided the transferred reserves then form part of past Government reserves. Currently, the Government, key statutory boards and Government companies are regarded as separate entities for the purpose of determining whether they have drawn on reserves. Several companies and statutory boards have accumulated surpluses in excess of their needs. The amendment will allow them to return surplus funds, for example, proceeds from privatisation of a GLC, to the Government as past reserves rather than have the funds remain as reserves in the statutory board. The statutory board or GLC so transferring will be deemed not to have drawn on its past reserves. This will improve management of funds in these statutory boards and companies. Publication of Approval of Transaction Drawing on Reserves When we introduced the Elected President provisions, we envisaged that the President would exercise control over all past reserves and publish his opinion whenever there was a draw on past reserves. However, as drafted, Articles 22B(7), 22D(6) and 148G(2) do not require the President to publish his decision if he approves of any proposed transaction which he thinks is likely to draw on past reserves. The amendment will put this right. Defence and Security Measures We need to make one exception to the principle that the President must concur with any drawdown of reserves, and must publish his opinion if he concurs with any drawdown. This is for defence and security-related measures. Firstly, the President will not have power to veto such transactions. Spending for defence and security purposes is qualitatively different from giving handouts to the population or subsidising social services, which were the dangers the Elected President mechanism was designed to protect against. The Prime Minister and Cabinet are ultimately responsible for Singapore's defence and security, not the President. Under the Constitution, they, not the President, decide whether to declare an Emergency. We cannot take the risk of a disagreement between the Prime Minister and the President over whether some spending is necessary for defence and security. Secondly, such defence and security transactions will not be made public, even if they are likely to draw on the reserves. To do so would compromise security. In a period of political tension, untimely publicity may worsen the crisis and alarm the population. Even in peacetime, Mindef has never published details of its equipment procurements, though of course Mindef's total budget is approved by Parliament every year. Nor do most other countries. Note that the President will still be informed about such transactions. But he cannot veto them, nor publish his opinion that they will draw on reserves. As this is a significant deviation from the principle of having two keys, we have incorporated a safeguard. The transactions must be recommended by both the Chief of Defence Force and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, and then certified by both the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister to be necessary for the defence of Singapore. The Chief of Defence Force and the Permanent Secretary (Defence) are both non-political appointments. Permanent Secretaries are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister from a list of names submitted by the Public Service Commission. The Chief of Defence Force's appointment is subject to the concurrence of the President, given in his discretion. Unless these two non-political appointees recommend the transaction, the Government cannot proceed with it. The amendment is set out in a new Article 151A. There will be consequential amendments to section 9 of the Audit Act to preclude untimely publicity for such transactions. Amendment to Fifth Schedule Singapore Technologies Holdings (STH) will be deleted from the Fifth Schedule. Singapore Technologies Holdings is a smaller company, both in terms of assets or turnover, than many other subsidiaries of Temasek Holdings, like Singapore Airlines or Singapore Telecom. For purposes of Presidential oversight, it will be more consistent to treat STH just like any other Temasek subsidiary. Furthermore, STH is being transferred to become a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings. With the Government linked companies centralised under Temasek, the President can exercise indirect control over the GLCs by vetting appointments to Temasek's board of directors and Temasek's budget. After this amendment, the Fifth Schedule will contain only three companies, Temasek Holdings, MND Holdings which, for other reasons, we are unable to bring under Temasek but which is largely a dormant company, and GSIC which manages our foreign exchange reserves. There are three other minor financial changes. In the event the President vetoes the Supply Bill and Parliament is unable to override that veto, the amendment to Article 148A(2)(a) and (3) will allow the Government to spend up to the total amount authorised by the President in the preceding financial year, and not just the amount provided in the main Budget. This is to prevent sudden withdrawals of essential services which may have been provided for in supplementary budgets in the previous year. Under Article 147(4), the Minister for Finance must present to Parliament together with the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure a statement certifying whether the Estimates are likely to draw on reserves accumulated by the previous Government. The amendment to Article 148 extends this provision to Supplementary Estimates. Article 148C now does not expressly require the President, before he vetoes or concurs with advances from either Contingencies Fund, to consider whether the advance will affect past reserves. The amended Article 148C will expressly empower the President to refuse to agree to an advance from a Contingencies Fund on the basis that it is likely to draw on past reserves. Now, let me turn to amendments to the non-financial provisions of the Elected President legislation. Acting President Presently, under Article 22N, if the office of President is prematurely vacated, the Chairman of the Council of Presidential Advisers, or if he is not available, the Speaker, shall act as President until a newly elected President assumes office. Article 22N is amended to extend to a situation where the incumbent is not successfully returned and the President-elect is for some reason unable to take office once the term of office of the incumbent expires. Timing of Presidential Elections The timing for holding Presidential Elections will be expressly stated in the Constitution. This is currently set out only in the Presidential Elections Act. Disqualification Criteria for MPs and the President Under the revised Article 45, any person who is found guilty of any corrupt or illegal practice committed in the course of a Presidential Election (not just a general or by-election) will also be disqualified from being an MP or the President. The person will also be disqualified from voting and being on the register of electors for a specified period. There will be consequential changes to the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Presidential Elections Act. Function of the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) The function of the Presidential Elections Committee is to ensure that the candidates for the office of President are persons of integrity and have the requisite financial experience, as specified in Article 19. Article 18 will be amended to make clear that the PEC's function is only to ensure that candidates are qualified under Article 19(2)(e) and, where applicable, under Article 19(2)(g)(iv). Administration of the Presidential Elections Committee Amendments to Articles 37B(2), 37F(1) and new Articles 37L and 37M will clarify some provisions concerning the Council of Presidential Advisers, enable staff to be appointed to assist the Council in performing their functions and authorise payment of honoraria to the Council members. Category 3: Miscellaneous Changes The third category of amendments are miscellaneous changes. Parliamentary Procedures Amendments to critical provisions must be supported by the correct number of elected MPs. Article 5(2) is amended to make clear that a Bill to amend the Constitution must be supported by two-thirds of the total number of elected MPs. Under the revised Article 22L(3), only elected MPs may vote on a motion to remove the President. The amendment to Article 148D allows only elected MPs to override the President's veto of a Supply or Supplementary Supply Bill. In all these cases, the minimum number of votes necessary will not be affected by any premature vacation of seats by elected MPs. Oaths of Office A new oath of office for the Acting President has been prescribed. The language of the oaths for the Prime Minister, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries has been revised and brought up to date. Amendments are in clause 28. Final Supply Bill Under Article 148(2), a Final Supply Bill or law is a Supplementary Supply Bill or law passed after the close of the financial year. Several Articles in the Constitution refer to Supply and Supplementary Supply Bills or laws but make no mention of a Final Supply Bill or law. For completeness, these provisions should also refer to a Final Supply Bill or law. Clause 30(a) to (c) remedy this. Operationally Ready National Service Since 1st January, 1994, Mindef has replaced the term "Reservists" by "Operationally Ready National Servicemen", or "NSMen" for short. To give the change of nomenclature permanent legal effect, the terms "reservists" and "reserve service" will be replaced by "operationally ready national servicemen" and "operationally ready national service" respectively in all the affected statutes. The amendment is to Article 128(2) of the Constitution. Referral of Constitutional Questions to a Tribunal of the Supreme Court The Singapore Constitution does not have any provisions for referring questions of interpretation of the Constitution to the Courts for an advisory ruling. The Malaysian Constitution does. This is a lacuna in our Constitution. From time to time, the Government will need to refer such questions to the Courts, especially in relation to new and complex provisions of the Constitution, such as the Elected President provisions. One such question has arisen about the interpretation of Article 22H, as I shall presently explain. The new Article 100, proposed in the amendment to the Constitutional Amendment Bill which I shall introduce in the Committee Stage, will allow the President, acting on the advice of the Cabinet, to refer to a tribunal consisting of at least three Judges of the Supreme Court, any question which has arisen, or is likely to arise, concerning the interpretation of any provision of the Constitution. The minimum size of the tribunal will be three Judges, because there are three Judges on the Court of Appeal and we should follow the same structure. The tribunal will deliver its opinion within 60 days, and this opinion will be final. Now, let me explain the problem with the entrenchment mechanism, in particular, Article 22H. We have discovered a problem with the mechanism by which the Elected President provisions are entrenched in the Constitution. When the Elected President amendments were passed in January 1991, the legislative intent was that, firstly, Constitutional amendments which circumvent or curtail the Elected President's discretionary powers should be subject to a referendum, and, secondly, the Elected President's veto over Constitutional changes which affect his powers should not be brought into effect immediately, but only after we have had several years of experience operating and refining the system. This was to have been achieved by placing the master entrenching mechanism clause in one Article - Article 5(2A), and then delaying bringing Article 5(2A) into effect until we were ready. This was done. Unfortunately, we overlooked another Article - Article 22H, which was incorrectly drafted, and which has been brought into effect. Article 22H was intended to cover non-Constitutional legislation. If such legislation circumvents or curtails the President's discretionary powers, the President can refuse assent, and if the Courts uphold the President, the matter is final. Article 22H applied to non-Constitutional legislation does not cause any problem. Such legislation should never circumvent or curtail the President's discretionary powers. These powers are spelt out in the Constitution. If a Constitutional provision is unsatisfactory, the remedy is to amend the Constitution, not to pass other legislation which contradicts it. But Article 22H, as it stands, has the unintended effect of covering Constitutional amendments other than the core provisions which have already been covered by Article 5(2A). This causes two problems. First, the non-core provisions of the Constitution are protected by an inappropriate criterion. Indeed, Article 22H protects the non-core provisions more stringently than Article 5(2A) protects the core provisions. Let me explain. Under Article 5(2A), if the Government wants to amend core provisions of the Constitution, it can either persuade the President to waive the requirement for a national referendum, or put the question to a referendum and win a two-thirds majority. The final test is a political one of policy, whether we should or should not circumvent or curtail the President's discretionary powers. Under Article 22H, on the other hand, if the President refuses to assent to an amendment to a non-core Constitutional provision, the question is put to the Courts. The Courts must answer a narrow question whether the amendment does in fact circumvent or curtail the President's discretionary powers. If the Courts agree with the President that it does, then the President's veto is upheld. The final test of the Constitutional amendment is a judicial one of law: whether it does or does not circumvent or curtail the President's powers. The Courts do not, and correctly cannot, decide the wider question whether it is desirable to modify the President's powers as proposed. Article 22H, therefore, is wrong because it provides no mechanism, such as a referendum, to decide this wider question. That is the first problem. The second problem is that Article 22H has prematurely conferred upon the President a power to veto non-core Constitutional amendments, eg, the removal of Singapore Technologies Holdings from the Fifth Schedule, or the amendments relating to the devolution of Public Service Commission powers. The Government has not brought Article 5(2A) into effect in order to preserve full flexibility to modify the Elected President provisions in the light of practical experience. This leads to an anomaly: amendments to non-core Constitutional provisions are subject to Presidential veto, if they circumvent or curtail the President's discretionary powers, whereas the core provisions setting out these powers have, correctly, not yet been entrenched. The solution is to separate Article 22H into two parts, which can be brought into effect separately: One is an amended Article 22H, confined to legislation other than Constitutional amendments, where the President's veto, once upheld by the Courts, is final. This will be brought into effect once the legislation is enacted and assented to, in order to prevent non-Constitutional legislation from circumventing or curtailing the Elected President's discretionary powers. A second part is a new Article 5A covering non-core Constitutional amendments, empowering the President to refuse assent if the amendments curtail or circumvent his powers. If the President refuses assent, the Government can refer the question to the Courts. If the Courts hold that it is a curtailment or circumvention, the Government can still proceed, through a national referendum. This new Article 5A will be brought into effect together with Article 5(2A) when we are ready to entrench the Elected President provisions. In addition, we will also have to amend Article 5(2A) which is a master entrenchment clause to cover the new Article 5A to make it a core provision. The Government intends to amend Article 22H along these lines to reflect the true legislative intent. We have not, however, included the new Article 5A and amendments to Articles 22H and 5(2A) in this Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 2) Bill. This is because a question has arisen whether the President has under the existing Article 22H the right to veto these amendments to core Constitutional provisions. The Attorney General has studied this matter. His considered opinion is that the President has no power to veto amendments to core Constitutional provisions. The President, therefore, cannot veto amendments to Articles 22H and 5(2A), or the introduction of the new Article 5A. However, the President has stated that in the interest of testing out the system, he would like this question to be referred to the Courts for a ruling, and that he will accept whatever interpretation of Article 22H the Courts rule to be correct. The new Article 100 referring Constitutional questions to a tribunal of the Supreme Court is, therefore, to be inserted for this purpose. The Government will put this matter to the Supreme Court for a ruling after the present Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 2) Bill has been enacted, and the new Article 100 which provides for Constitutional questions to be referred to a tribunal of Supreme Court judges has been brought into effect. After the tribunal has ruled and cleared the ambiguity, the Government will decide on the timing and approach to amending Article 22H. The question which has arisen over the amendment to Article 22H has highlighted the need for the President and the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA) to have access to legal advice, separate from the advice which the Attorney General gives to the Cabinet, in order to help the President carry out his duties. The President may especially wish to seek such a separate opinion on questions relating to his functions under the Constitution where he acts in his discretion. The President and the CPA should therefore be entitled to appoint formally a legal advisor, who can be a lawyer in private practice. The Government is presently studying how this can be done. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Order. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.20 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.52 pm to 3.20 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. I would like to comment on the provisions in the Bill which deal with the changes in the Civil Service personnel management system. Sir, the establishment of Personnel Boards to take charge of personnel management in the Ministries is a significant development. As the Deputy Prime Minister has said, at present the Civil Service personnel management system separates authority from responsibility. Permanent Secretaries who are responsible for their Ministries do not have authority over the staff they can recruit, deploy and promote. With the devolution of the personnel functions, the Permanent Secretaries will have more flexibility and authority to manage their staff. However, for the Personnel Boards and Permanent Secretaries to manage personnel effectively, it is important that there is transparency in the way decisions are taken in promotions, staff deployment and staff appraisals. The staff appraisal system must be one which extends beyond the annual performance or evaluation of the officers to one which helps to develop their talents and abilities. Staff must be informed of the basis on which their performance is evaluated. It is important that managers in the Ministries and departments be given adequate training to enable them to assess their staff effectively. Sir, let me now turn to the need for Permanent Secretaries and other managers in the Ministries to conscientiously develop a close and positive working relationship with union leaders in their Ministries. This can indeed be achieved when they are able to work in a way which will promote mutual trust and confidence. Union leaders should be recognised as partners in the effort to raise the standard of performance and quality of work and contribution in the Ministries. Regular meetings and information sharing exercises should be encouraged. When there are changes to be introduced in the terms and conditions of service, deployment of staff or any restructuring and reorganisation of work, the unions and employees should be quickly informed so as to minimise any anxiety and confusion. Sir, Permanent Secretaries must understand, recognise and appreciate the work done by the union leaders in their Ministries. In this way, we can persuade more persons who are capable and with good work attitudes, commitment and integrity to serve in the unions. Sir, I am happy to note that there are avenues for any person aggrieved by a decision of a Personnel Board to appeal to the appropriate Commission which, prior to the establishment of the Personnel Board, is in charge of personnel in the Ministry. Finally, Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify clause 19(6)(b) on the need to disqualify a member of any trade union or of any body or association affiliated to a trade union from becoming a member of any Personnel Board. Sir, I can understand it if an official of a trade union cannot be appointed as a member of a Personnel Board. Sir, we are trying to expand our union membership to include persons who may be senior officers or executives who strongly and genuinely support the mission and objectives of the trade union. In fact, many officers and executives, including some very senior ones, want to join the trade unions because of the attractive facilities and benefits which our trade unions offer to their members, like membership of the Orchid Country Club, use of NTUC resorts, including new ones which the NTUC is currently developing. Some senior officers may also join as associate members of a union or even in the general branch so that they are able to support the union and enjoy social and leisure benefits which the union offers. In this case, they would not be involved in the industrial relations function. So I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether consideration can be given to the restriction to become a member of a Personnel Board to apply only to a person who is the holder of any office in the trade union.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no quarrel with most of the provisions in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 2) Bill that is before this House, but there are two provisions in particular that I am quite concerned about. The first is the proposed Article 151A and the second is the proposed Article 100. Article 151A, as the Deputy Prime Minister has explained, is designed to waive the Presidential veto in cases of national security. We have to look at amendments like this, not from the point of view of what a responsible government would do, but from the point of view of what an irresponsible profligate government would do, because that, after all, is the whole point of having an Elected President. If we have got a responsible Government, it really does not matter whether the President has a veto or not. It is when we have an irresponsible government that the presidential veto becomes absolutely crucial. So when we have got something like Article 151A, which takes away the veto, we have to consider how an irresponsible government might use this to circumvent the whole scheme of protection. If Members will look at the proposal, Article 151A states that "Articles 22B(7), 22D(6), 148G(2) and (3) and 148H shall not apply to any defence and security measure." This means that the President cannot veto any drawdown of reserves of a statutory board, any drawdown of reserves of a Government company, any drawdown of national reserves, when you have a defence and security measure. Who defines the defence and security measure? If you look at the proposed Article 151A(2), it says "For the purposes of clause (1), a defence and security measure means any liability ... which the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for defence, on the recommendations of the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of Defence Force, certify to be necessary ..." This is conclusive. It cannot be challenged by anyone. Let us think of it. Supposing you have a situation where the government is irresponsible and they want to spend money to buy votes and they disguise this by saying, "In order to promote the long term stability of Singapore, we consider this to be a security measure." If they can get the Chief of Defence Force and the Permanent Secretary to recommend and to agree to that, nobody can challenge that. So the key really is the independence of the Permanent Secretary and the Chief of the Defence Force. The whole point of giving the Elected President the veto is that he has got the moral authority to say no to the Government. He has been elected by the people. He has been elected by a majority. He can stand up to the Prime Minister and say, "No, I do not think that you should be spending the money in this way." The other point about the Elected President is that it is the highest office in the land. A person who has reached the office of Elected President has no more desire to go higher because he has reached the highest. The Chief of Defence Force and the Permanent Secretary still can be offered inducements. They may be ambitious people. The Elected President has constitutional protection against being sued, constitutional protection against having his Civil List cut. The Chief of Defence Force and the Permanent Secretary have to live with the Government, even if they are inclined to stand up to the Prime Minister. An irresponsible profligate government intent on getting its way might, by threats or inducements or outright bribery, get the recommendation from the Chief of Defence Force and Permanent Secretary, and nobody can challenge that. Since the determination is conclusive, imagine what an irresponsible Prime Minister could do! He could circumvent all the safeguards by certifying any transaction as necessary for national security, and national security being such a wide thing that it would be possible to fit any sort of handout within that rubric if you are intelligent enough. All you need is a smart and crooked lawyer to help you to do this. And it should be possible, especially when nobody can challenge it. So when you open a loophole like this, all kinds of abuses are possible. I do not say they are probable. I say they are possible. I do not think it is desirable that we should take away the presidential veto in this way. If it is desired to preserve secrecy of these transactions, then, by all means, provide that the President does not have to give reasons. If it is desired to have a government override, then perhaps some sort of override mechanism, like the override mechanism for budgets, can be introduced where Parliament can debate the matter, if necessary, in camera without the press, without the media. But to take away the power altogether from the President, I think, opens the door to abuse. There is no point having two keys to a door if you leave the door unlocked. And this is what I am afraid that Article 151A might do. The other point is Article 100. Before I deal with Article 100 itself, could I just ask why it was not included in the original amendment Bill. The amendment that we have got in the Order Paper Supplement goes beyond merely changing words here and there in a proposal that had already been put to this House. Article 100 is a substantive provision and Members, I believe, only have one or two days' notice of it. Not enough time to consider it in depth and not enough time to make suggestions as to its improvement. May I request that if Government wishes to put these things before the House that at least we be given some decent notice so that improvements may be suggested. As for the substance of Article 100, from what the Deputy Prime Minister has said, it is designed to allow reference to a constitutional court on points of interpretation. I notice that the President may refer the point to a tribunal. However, Article 21 of the Constitution provides that the President may not act in his discretion, unless Article 21(2) says that he can. And Article 21(2) does not include a reference to Article 100. In other words, the President can only refer a constitutional question to the tribunal on the advice of the Cabinet. He has no discretion to refer it himself. If you are going to give the power to the President to clear up constitutional ambiguities, would it not be better to allow him to make the reference himself when he sees there is an ambiguity, rather than to constrain it only to situations where Cabinet sees there is an ambiguity? Had there been time, I would have suggested that Article 100(1) be amended so that the reference to this tribunal could have been done by the President acting in his discretion or by the Prime Minister. In other words, both Government and President would have had access to the tribunal. At present, if the President says, "I see an ambiguity, I would like to refer it", but the Government declines to advise him to refer it, he has no power to refer the constitutional question to the tribunal at all. And that seems to me to be a defect. The second thing is that, judging again from the Deputy Prime Minister's speech, it is intended to test the interpretation of Article 22H by referring it to the tribunal. The wording of Article 100 seems to be ambiguous on that point because it refers to questions as to the effect of any provision of the Constitution. Until a Constitutional Amendment Bill has been passed, the provisions in that Bill are not provisions of the Constitution. So one wonders whether they can in fact be referred to the tribunal before they are passed. You might get a situation where you have to pass the amendment Bill, then refer it to the tribunal. At least, that is the way, on a plain reading, it looks like. If you look at clause 4 of Article 100, clause 4 is not as clear as it should be, but it clearly envisages that the Bill can be referred. Perhaps it should have been re-drafted to make it absolutely clear. Again, had we sufficient time, I would have put up some suggestions for the re-drafting to make this clear. In summary, Mr Speaker, as far as Article 100 is concerned, I think it is a good thing that there should be a final tribunal somewhere to interpret ambiguities in the Constitution. But it would be much better, from the point of completeness and also from the point of view of presidential powers, if the President has the right to refer to the tribunal. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister has already referred to the fact that the President needs his own advisors. It would be consonant with that if he also has this independent power of referral without necessarily requiring Cabinet's advice on the point.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to comment on the provisions of the Constitution (Amendment No. 2) Bill pertaining to the proposed Personnel Boards. I agree that the decentralisation of the personnel function of the Public Service Commission is a good idea and has been long overdue. However, I am not too clear about two small points concerning the proposed Article 110D, clause (6), as set out in clause 19 of the Bill. I assume and accept that there are good grounds for disqualifying Members of Parliament, trade unionists and political office holders from sitting on any Personnel Board. Sir, I am sure it is not the intention of the Deputy Prime Minister to draw an anomalous distinction between elected and appointed Members of Parliament by disqualifying the former but not the latter from serving on any Personnel Board. If the Deputy Prime Minister can give an assurance that the expression "duly nominated candidate for election as such Member" covers a candidate for appointment as a Nominated Member of Parliament, I am satisfied. Sir, my other point concerns the disqualification of trade unionists. I think the line of exclusion here may be too broadly and carelessly drawn. Singapore is a very compact society where the pool of eligible persons for any specific purpose is very limited. The number of persons in this House wearing more than one ministerial or other hats illustrates my point. The trade union movement in Singapore has cooperative or commercial offshoots, on whose boards sit persons who are not trade unionists in every sense of the word. Nevertheless, it seems to me that such persons would be disqualified from sitting on any Personnel Board by reason of their being members "of any body or association affiliated to a trade union." Moreover, as the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF) is a trade union of employers, does it mean that the officers and shareholders of the commercial or industrial organisations which are affiliates of the SNEF would be also similarly excluded? If it does, I should think it is a great pity as their expertise and experience might be useful to the proposed Personnel Board. Then, again, an anomalous distinction is drawn between the SNEF and other employers' organisations such as the Singapore Manufacturers' Association and the various Chambers of Commerce, which are fortuitously not registered as trade unions. I suggest the Bill's blanket exclusion of all trade unionists from the proposed Personnel Board may be made surgically precise. You do not deal with a boil on the hand by cutting off the whole arm! As the Trade Unions Act bars trade unions representing non-government employees from representing Government employees, an exclusion of the members of a trade union of Government employees from the proposed Personnel Board would serve the desired aim of the proposed Article 110D(6)(b) as well. I do not believe that it can be the intention of the Deputy Prime Minister to suggest that trade unionists representing non-Government employees cannot be relied upon to take hard-headed, unpleasant and objective decisions as members of the proposed Personnel Board on their Government colleagues. For more than one decade, an active trade unionist has sat in Cabinet meetings without giving rise to any talk of untoward occurrence as a result of such participation by a trade unionist.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution is the supreme law of the country. When a government takes office, it must first of all take an oath to defend the integrity of the Constitution. Why? In simple language, the Constitution is the covenant between the government and the people. Because the Government has the duty to defend the integrity of the country's sovereignty and to govern the country, the people therefore agree to let the Government have certain powers under the Constitution in order to carry out its duties. On the other hand, the Government has the powers to rule after it is returned to office. It can use such power to suppress and hoodwink the people. Therefore, the Government must agree to defend the provisions in the Constitution which gives protection to the people, and to undertake not to exceed the limit given for the Government to exercise its powers under the Constitution. Under such a premise, the people vote in the Government at a General Election to rule the country. The Government must first be given the mandate by the people before it can legally exercise the powers provided under the Constitution. Therefore, when each government takes office, it must take an oath to defend the Constitution and not to violate any provision or the spirit of the Constitution which would infringe upon the rights of the people. That is the significance of the Constitution. Since independence, the PAP Government has been amending the Constitution almost every year. I think the frequency in which we have been amending the Constitution may well earn us another "first in the world". From what the Deputy Prime Minister said just now, it would appear that our Constitution, which is already scarred and battered, may have to suffer many more amendments, and I really do not know when these amendments will end. Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 2) Bill, which is now before the House for Second Reading, I would like to comment only on the proposed Article 151(A). On the face of it, new Article 151(A) appears to provide a definition for the powers of the President under the Constitution, and to impose a restriction thereof. But, at the same time, it provides for special powers to be given to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence. So long as the Chief of Defence Force and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence make a recommendation which is then certified by the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister to be necessary for the defence and security of Singapore, then nobody else can have a say in it, and there is no need for any explanation to Parliament. The new Article provides that for any liability or debt relating to defence or national security, or any proposed transaction thereof, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence can exercise this special privilege. This amendment to the Constitution to provide for the concentration of power in just a handful of people to make decisions on matters relating to our defence and national security is indeed alarming. Now, I would like to express my views on the matter. First of all, will this lead to a loss of power on the part of Parliament in supervising over the Government's spending on national defence and matters relating to national defence? With this new provision in the amended Constitution, even the Audit Act will have to be amended. The Government can be exempted from reporting to Parliament on any liability or proposed transaction certified to be necessary for the defence and security of Singapore. Can Members of this House raise any query on it? How is Parliament going to exercise its supervisory role over the Government's expenditure and the operation of the Government departments? This will curtail the powers of Parliament as well as the powers of the people. As a matter of fact, the connotation of the proposed new provision in the Constitution is vague. The scope of power can be expanded through different interpretations of the wording. Let me give you two examples. Firstly, is the purchase and sale of arms included in the so-called "proposed transaction"? Secondly, if the Government allows a certain country to set up a military base or to install nuclear weapons in Singapore, will this be included in the so-called "transaction or liability" in this new Article? Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware of the sensitivity of national defence and security matters. At present, information relating to defence expenditure in our Budget, as provided to this House, is already very minimal. I believe that Members of Parliament in general, including most PAP Backbenchers, have very limited knowledge of the inside information relating to our defence expenditure. Now, this amendment is going one step further by giving the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence this supreme power. This will leave matters concerning our national defence in the hands of an extremely small number of people. This is an unhealthy situation. In the early days of nation building, our national defence was still in its infancy. Coupled with the tension of the political situation around the region at that time, to maintain a high degree of secrecy in defence matters was understandable in those circumstances. Strangely, in those days, it did not occur to the PAP Government to amend the Constitution to concentrate the powers on defence and national security matters in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister, in order to maintain a high degree of secrecy. Yet today, when Singapore has already built up a sound defence infrastructure, and has established good and friendly relationship with our neighbouring countries, and the situation in the whole world is getting more relaxed, the Government is now seeking to amend the Constitution to curtail the powers of Parliament in supervising over the Government's expenditure on national defence and security. This is really beyond our understanding. What, really, is the motive behind it? To put national security matters concerning the life and wealth of the people in the hands of just a few people, free from supervision by Parliament, without the need to explain to Parliament, and even seek, with the warrant of a good conscience, to have it written in the Constitution, is indeed inconceivable! Furthermore, if these people, acting on impulse, make a wrong decision resulting in great damage to the country, do they not have to account to Parliament? Do they not have to face the people! Where is the responsibility of the elected Government to the people? Once a precedent is set by allowing the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence to arrogate all the powers to themselves to decide on major national matters, free from supervision by Parliament, then I fear that many more Bills, which are similar to this, may be presented in Parliament in the future. For example, for the sake of national solidarity and security, the Government can well introduce a Bill that, as long as the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs agree, they can deal with and make decisions on all matters relating thereto, or to arrest those who are deemed to be a threat to national solidarity. Likewise, all you need is a certificate and everything is taken care of, and nobody else is to have a say on it. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Amendment Bill will open up the Pandora's box and Singapore will move towards an era whereby the ruling Party can shut out the heavens with one hand, and pull the wool over the eyes of the public.

Resolved, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion and the remaining items on the Order Paper for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Mr Speaker, one of the main reasons for the creation of the post of the Elected President was to act as a check on the Government's spending of the nation's financial reserves. In this House, in October 1990, Mr Goh Chok Tong, who was then the First Deputy Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill to have an Elected President with special powers, said the Government was, in fact, "clipping its own wings". It seems to me that, in introducing this amendment, the Government is now trying to add on some feathers. I am referring specifically to the new Article 151A. By this provision, the Elected President will be unable to veto the proposed transactions on defence and security measures. There is no such exemption for any other area. I am of the opinion that if our purpose in having an Elected President is to have him operate a second key as a check, then we cannot allow a copy of this key to be made and given away to the Executive, in this case, the Prime Minister. On top of that, it is precisely in the area of defence and security that horrendous sums of money can be spent and it is dangerous to have no check or balance. The proposed check of including the Permanent Secretary and the Chief of Defence is not adequate because the latter could be an interested party. If the inclusion of the Permanent Secretary is an adequate safeguard, then why do we not have the same for the other areas of spending as well? Then what is the role of the Elected President and the second key? I think we must stick to our original objective, that is, the Elected President is the only one who has the second key and we should make no exceptions. The other matter, Mr Speaker, that I would like to raise concerns the Acting President. The Oath that the Acting President has to take differs from that of the President in one crucial area. The President's Oath includes the following, and I quote, "and without regard to any previous affiliation with any political party". This is not present in the Acting President's Oath. To ensure that the Acting President can adequately fit into the shoes of the Presidential office, we have to ensure and we have to be sure of its non-partisan stance like that of the President. If we do not have this assurance, then it detracts from the whole concept of the Elected President as a check on the Executive, that is, the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the matter of the Civil Service and Personnel Boards, the PSC with the other Commissions has been the main pillar of safeguarding the high standards of integrity and impartiality of the Civil Service. A lot has not changed in the Civil Service set-up since the PSC was formed except that the Civil Service has become much bigger. This is not reason enough to change what has been a hallmark of the impartiality of the Civil Service in the form of the PSC. My fear is that, with the implementation of Personnel Boards, favouritism and cronyism may begin to find their way into the hiring and promotion of civil servants. There is the possibility of abuse of delegated powers although a system of appeals to PSC exists. I cannot understand how a system like the PSC that has worked so well and for so long is considered as a fundamental flaw in the administration. The rationale that Personnel Boards will introduce flexibility into the system is not convincing enough. The same end result can be achieved by fine-tuning the three Commissions and having top civil servants, including the Permanent Secretaries, from the relevant Departments sitting on the Boards of the Commissions instead of relegating most of the work of the Commissions to decentralised Personnel Boards which may lead to fragmentation and varying standards in the Civil Service. We must guard against this happening.

I rise to support this Bill. There are, however, a few points I would like to raise. The liberalised recruitment in the Civil Service poses questions: What is the future role of the PSC now? Are we disbanding the PSC? Can we recruit civil servants now at different levels? Or must we go through the normal procedure where the recruitment must be at the bottom? For example, for Division III recruitment, you start from Division III. Suppose you are an Administrative Officer, you start from the Administrative Service scheme. Can we, for example, recruit a Permanent Secretary from the private sector if you find that he is a very competent and able person? The other point I would like to touch on is this question of the President having no veto powers over the drawdown on reserves for defence and security. I am of the opinion that when the Presidential Elections Bill was introduced, the idea behind having an Elected President was having another key to check on our reserves. I think defence spending is very sizeable. We are assuming that the Prime Minister and the whole Cabinet are all very good people. But we cannot say this because, in the years to come, there may be a Prime Minister, who may, in the course of his duty, have suffered some mental disability. Then what is going to happen? He might order certain very high expenditure, for example, he wants to buy big missiles. There is no check on him. I think the President's veto power in this area should remain.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. I support this Bill. Just now, I heard Mr Low Thia Khiang raising a few points and I was very confused. As he said, defending the Constitution is the duty of every citizen. But it is also the duty of every one of us as Members of Parliament to amend the Constitution to make it better. Any Bill to amend the Constitution has to be supported by not less than two thirds of the total number of Members. It cannot be immutable and frozen forever, unless the Members are so inflexible, or they do not want to think of the long-term interest of the nation. Giving the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister greater responsibility and power to deal with some important issues is a correct move. Take, for example, the incident in which a SIA aeroplane was hijacked. When it happened, and if we had to wait for Parliament to sit before a decision could be made, then the matter would not have been dealt with so quickly and efficiently. 4.00 pm

Sir, Dr Soin asked why the Acting President's oath does not require him to ignore any previous affiliation with any political party. The practical answer is that, from time to time, under the Constitution, the Speaker will be required to act as President and the Speaker is usually a member of a political party. But we will look into the question whether we can frame the oath, so that when the person is acting, he swears that whatever party affiliation he has will not affect him in his discharge of his duties, as I am sure is presently the case. On the Public Service Commission, Dr Soin says, "Why not keep the status quo? Nothing much has changed with the civil service since we established a Public Service Commission." That is precisely the problem. The world has changed. The Public Service Commission structure and the civil service have remained static. We modelled this on the British. The British do not do this any more. They have divided up. Their Ministries promote civil servants separately. There is some central control only at the very top. The Malaysians followed the British, like us. They have abandoned that mechanism and they provided for extensive devolution of the powers to Permanent Secretaries or any other boards which the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong may specify, because they could not work the old system. It is a big country. They have civil servants all over and you cannot have 12 wise men in the centre settling for the whole country in order to have complete parity and rational progression and no mis-steps and so on. It did not work for them. In Hong Kong, which has a similar Public Service Commission, the Public Service Commission does not have the final word. It has advisory responsibility. The Governor decides. The man who is in charge of running the system will be the man who has the power to hire and fire. Dr Soin is in the private sector. I am sure she does not have a commission to decide who should be on her staff. She decides. It is your company - whom do you want to hire, who will work for you, who will be fit to be promoted, who should be sacked. That is how the private sector works. That is how it should work. That is not how the civil service works. We need safeguards, yes. Because it cannot just be on the whims and fancies of an individual Permanent Secretary who may have a down on a person or his judgment may be poor. So norms must be established, procedures must be established and there must be cross-checking. There must be mechanisms whereby if anything goes awry or simply departs from what is usually the case, we will be able to pick it up and trap it. But it is not as if we have never done this before. Mindef has operated its own system for years. No Member has raised complaints about unfairness of the Mindef personnel system. The statutory boards have operated independently for years. They are not subject to the Public Service Commission. They have established their own check and balance mechanisms. If we had not broken off Mindef and the statutory boards from the PSC system, we would have no Mindef today and the statutory boards would never have grown. It is impossible. And there is no reason why, given what we have been able to do with Mindef and with the statutory boards, we are unable to do it with the other Ministries, and substantially improve the structure. Civil servants are not saints. They are not from out of this world. They are young human beings who are looking for careers - fulfilling, challenging, rewarding. They want a career where they can be sure that their contribution will be recognised, that if they do well they will be rewarded and they can move up. And if they are capable, they will reach the top early. The present system does not allow us to do that. It is very good at making sure that no person who is incapable ever gets promoted. I am extremely doubtful whether it is capable of making sure that a person who is fit to be promoted is guaranteed to be promoted. Very often he is not. You never know. If you look around, you ask, where are they? I can tell you. They are gone. Because they are not waiting around to be left out. They have watched others and they have decided that they are not going to be part of this, and they leave. It used to be that they waited 7-8 years to leave, because then they have worked off most of their bond and it is just one or two years left, somebody may buy them out. Now they are leaving younger, because it is easier to be bought out and they are more confident of what will happen to them if they go outside. We have to adjust. If the system were working well, we would not be making a major change. We have over delayed this change. It should have been done at least five years ago. In 1989, when we made major salary revisions and we had a committee, we looked into many aspects of the civil service. This was one of them. At that time, we decided to leave it be. But we already knew there was a problem. Probably even then it was overdue. But we waited five years, and five years down the road, today you know what the situation is. I have spoken on this several times in the House when we made salary revisions. We will be having a White Paper on the Civil Service and Ministerial Salaries. That will give further data. It shows you how serious the problem is. The Administrative Service age profile is like a population pyramid. It is not broad at the bottom where people come in, narrowing gradually to the top as people grow older and there is attrition, and some leave. It is broad at the bottom where people come in. It narrows down to a waist in the late 30s because they have already disappeared. And then there is another bulge in the 40s because these are the older officers who are already locked in by the pension scheme and cannot leave. Now, imagine what happens to the civil service when that bulge reaches 45, which is when people should become Permanent Secretaries. I think we will already have a problem with the quality of the administration in Singapore. And if you do not do this, you would not just be having a narrow waist, you will have anorexia nervosa. I think we better fix it now rather than wait for that to happen. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked why we are disbanding the PSC. I have explained that we are not disbanding the PSC, but we are devolving its powers. The PSC will remain and will keep control of the Significant Grade and above, which means the top level. Can we recruit at different levels, meaning mid-stream? Yes, we would like to try. It is quite difficult for two reasons. One, the culture of the civil service is such that you have got a system where everybody knows each other, and for a stranger to come in mid-stream and join that magic circle, that is very difficult. We want to do it, but we have not yet succeeded. I hope this freeing up will enable us to try. The second reason, of course, is that our pay is out of line and nobody will join you in mid-career, unless you do not want him. And that also has to be fixed. One other point on the PSC. Mr Chin Harn Tong and Mr Othman Haron Eusofe raised the question about the exclusion of unionists and associations affiliated to trade unions from serving on a Personnel Board. I should point out that what we have drafted here is nothing new. It is copied exactly, from the same restrictions which apply to membership of the Public Service Commission, the Education Service Commission and the Police and Civil Defence Services Commission. It has not proven a problem in practice because for the Commission members, we are looking for people at very senior levels. When we have Personnel Boards, they will also be at very senior levels and they are unlikely to be either members of the trade union movement or affiliated to the trade unions. If it does become a problem later on because you have associate members, because of Orchid Country Club or other union facilities, we can look into it. But I think the same rules should apply, whether to the PSC or to the new Personnel Boards. I go on to Article 151A. When we first established the Elected President legislation, there were big debates whether we should in fact institute such a mechanism, as Dr Kanwaljit Soin reminded us, to clip our wings. Now that we are making adjustments we have another big debate whether we should make adjustments. But we have to make these adjustments. I think that the Members who have read Article 151A have not quite grasped how it fits in together with the rest of the Constitution. It does not stand in isolation, allowing the Government carte blanche in defence and security matters. It applies, if you read the legislation, through its effects on certain other Articles of the Constitution which are specified in Article 151A(1), namely, I read: `Articles 22B(7), 22D(6), 148G(2) and (3) and 148H shall not apply to any defence and security measure.' What are these specified Articles? They are to do with individual transactions which may draw down reserves, or liabilities which have been incurred as a result of transactions which were not noticed, but which may draw down reserves. The President, because of new Article 151A, will not be able to veto such transactions. But that is not the only door which needs to be unlocked to spend the money. Because you have to budget the money, and budget means that you have to come to Parliament. Or the statutory board has a budget or the company has a budget which has to be approved by the President. We have not made an exclusion from the requirement for the President to approve budgets which draw down money, because of defence and security measures. What does that mean? It means the President cannot object to the specific transaction. If you are buying 20 aeroplanes, he cannot say, "No, don't buy the aeroplanes." But at the end of the year when you budget to pay for the aeroplanes, he can say, "No, your budget doesn't pass. You cut some other items of expenditure in order that you have a balanced budget, and then I will approve it." So there still remains a check. It is the existing arrangement. Today, Parliament debates the Defence budget once a year. We do not provide details. We do not intend to provide details. I think it would be unwise for us to provide details. It is a block vote. Mindef operates it. There are internal checks and balances. There is also the external auditors who go in and vet Mindef's spending and make sure that Mindef does not become a camouflaged Ministry for Community Development. I do not think any Member has suggested that that is the case. That will continue. But the specific transaction at the critical time, that must be the Executive's decision. You cannot declare war by committee. In the United States, declaration of war is the prerogative of the President. He is the Executive President. Congress does not have that right. Of course, Congress has now passed the War Powers Act to say that after you have declared war, we have to confirm it. But the constitutionality of that legislation has never been tested. And every President of the United States challenges that constitutionality because he has got his institutional prerogatives to protect. There is a reason why the President declares war and you do not have a debate of 100 Senators before you decide "Aye" we go to war, or "No" we do not go to war. In Singapore, it is not an Elected President. It is an elected Executive. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet are answerable. They decide whether to go to war. And if they decide, then they must have the wherewithal to execute that decision, and that is why we need Article 151A. You have to balance between safeguards and flexibility. If we want full flexibility, we could just say the Prime Minister and Defence Minister will decide and that is the end of the matter. But we have said that the Chief of Defence Force and the Permanent Secretary (Defence) must recommend. If they do not recommend, then it cannot go through. Can they be suborned? Yes, sure. So can the President. So can the Prime Minister. What happens if the Prime Minister goes mad? God help us! You are looking for certainty, assurance and safety using fallible human digits. And you are trying to make a scheme which will give you that certainty, not a probability of one, but a probability of 99.9% that the system will work even if individuals within it go wrong. As for Article 22H, Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon raised the question whether the drafting is loose and whether we need to pass an amendment first, or whether we can refer a Bill to a tribunal. We do not intend to refer a Bill under Article 100 to a tribunal of the Supreme Court for a decision. The decision which we seek from a tribunal of the Supreme Court concerns the existing Article 22H. We want an interpretation. As it stands, Article 22H clearly protects non-constitutional legislation. If you want to amend non-constitutional legislation and it curtails or circumvents the President's powers, the President can veto and it can be tested in the court. If you want to amend non-core provisions of the Constitution, Article 22H is also clear. It is wrong, but it is clear. The President can veto that, and the court will decide whether in fact it curtails or circumvents the President's powers or not, and that's that. The question which arises is whether Article 22H applies to itself and protects itself today, because Article 22H says it applies to everything to which Article 5(2A) does not apply. Article 22H is protected by Article 5(2A). But you can make a literal argument that since Article 5(2A) has not been brought into effect, therefore, Article 5(2A) applies to nothing. Therefore, Article 22H applies to everything. Therefore, we have locked the door and thrown away the key. The Attorney-General's considered opinion is that that is not the case. The Government's position is that that is not the case. But the President prefers this to be tested in the courts and the Government agrees that it is good to have this question tested in the courts. This is what we will put to the tribunal to decide. The existing Article 22H is not a putative future amendment. If the courts rule that we have the power to change, then we will decide whether we want to change, and when. At some stage, it must be done. If the courts rule that we cannot change, we will find some other way. But it has to be put right. So that question raised by Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon, in fact, does not arise. On Article 100, Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon asked, "Why not provide for the President to have the right to refer questions to the tribunal acting in his discretion rather than on the advice of Cabinet?" Firstly, we have drafted Article 100 following the Malaysian precedent. That is how the Malaysians have worked their legislation. It has worked for them. We think that it is safe for us to follow them. Secondly, it is the intention, the design of the Elected President legislation, that the initiative lies with the Government, and not with the Elected President. So the Government decides and sets the rules. The Elected President has a custodial safeguard power. He acts within the rules until such time as the legislation is entrenched. If he does not like something, some transaction, or he is not satisfied about a name, he has the power to say "No", but he does not have the power generally to initiate. Similarly, here, the Government would be the one which will have the power to initiate. The Cabinet will advise the President and the matter will be referred. It does not mean that the President has no recourse, because the Elected President plays a custodial role. If he is unhappy with a legislation or he thinks the Government is curtailing his powers, he may not be able to refer the question, but he can veto the legislation. Then the Government must either call a referendum or it must take the matter to the tribunal and the matter will be tested out, and the tribunal will decide whether the President is acting within his rights or the President is acting ultra vires. Thirdly, if there is a disagreement between a President and the Cabinet, and the Cabinet wants to ride roughshod, and says that it is quite convinced and refused to refer the matter, I think that the Government will be under considerable public pressure to have the matter tested in the courts because, finally, what is the test? The courts must decide issues of right and wrong. They cannot decide issues of policy. Whether you should or should not do is not their business. Whether that is the correct legal interpretation, that is their business. So the Government will be under pressure to refer to the Courts. I think we take one step. We introduce Article 100. Let us work the system and see how it works.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have a clarification with the Deputy Prime Minister? Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that Article 151A sets a precedent that the absolute power to decide on a specific matter is now given to the Prime Minister and another Minister, rather than a decision which rests with the Cabinet?

I disagree completely. As I have explained, firstly, the Permanent Secretary and the Chief of Defence Force have to be involved. Secondly, the money finally has to be voted by Parliament. The Prime Minister and the Defence Minister do not have absolute power. They do have ultimate responsibility. Therefore, they have considerable leeway to make the move. But in the end they have to come and justify and get the money from Parliament.

The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of Parliament, which is 54 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. The Clerk will ring the Division Bells. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Division taken: Ayes, 66; Noes, 2; Abstention, 1. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abdullah Tarmugi Lim Hng Kiang Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Loh Meng See Chandra Das, S Low Seow Chay Chay Wai Chuen Mah Bow Tan Chen, Bernard Mohamad Maidin B P M Chen Koon Lap, Kenneth Ong Chit Chung Chen Seow Phun, John Othman bin Haron Eusofe Chew Heng Ching Ow Chin Hock Chin Harn Tong Peh Chin Hua Chng Hee Kok Shanmugam, K Ch'ng Jit Koon Sinnakaruppan, R Chong, Charles Sung, Peter Choo Wee Khiang Tan Cheng Bock Davinder Singh Tan Keng Yam, Tony Dhanabalan, S Tan Soo Khoon Goh Chee Wee Teo Chee Hean Goh Chok Tong Teo Chong Tee Goh Choon Kang Umar Abdul Hamid Harun bin A Ghani Vasoo, S Heng Chiang Meng Wang Kai Yuen Ho Kah Leong Wong, Aline K Ho Peng Kee Wong Kan Seng Ho Tat Kin Wong Kwei Cheong Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Ibrahim bin Othman Yatiman Yusof Jayakumar, S Yeo Toon Chia Ker Sin Tze Yeo Yong-Boon, George Koh Lip Lin Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Lau Ping Sum Zulkifli bin Mohammed Lee Hsien Loong Lee Kuan Yew Noes Lee Yiok Seng Ling How Doong Lee Yock Suan Low Thia Khiang Leong Horn Kee Lew Syn Pau Lim Boon Heng Abstention Lim Chun Leng, Michael Cheo Chai Chen

The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of Parliament. 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.

Clauses 1 to 18 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 19 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 10, line 13, before "the procedure" to insert "prescribe". This is to correct an error in drafting. Amendment agreed to. Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 20 to 31 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause - "Advisory 100. -

Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." I have explained the rationale for this clause in my main speech earlier.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

This new clause is to be inserted immediately after clause 15. This will be done. Consequential amendments will be made to the renumbering of clauses consequent on the addition of the new clause. Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of Parliament, which is 54 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. Ring the Division Bells. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Division taken: Ayes, 66; Noes, 2; Abstention, 1. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abdullah Tarmugi Lim Hng Kiang Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Loh Meng See Chandra Das, S Low Seow Chay Chay Wai Chuen Mah Bow Tan Chen, Bernard Mohamad Maidin B P M Chen Koon Lap, Kenneth Ong Chit Chung Chen Seow Phun, John Othman bin Haron Eusofe Chew Heng Ching Ow Chin Hock Chin Harn Tong Peh Chin Hua Chng Hee Kok Shanmugam, K Ch'ng Jit Koon Sinnakaruppan, R Chong, Charles Sung, Peter Choo Wee Khiang Tan Cheng Bock Davinder Singh Tan Keng Yam, Tony Dhanabalan, S Tan Soo Khoon Goh Chee Wee Teo Chee Hean Goh Chok Tong Teo Chong Tee Goh Choon Kang Umar Abdul Hamid Harun bin A Ghani Vasoo, S Heng Chiang Meng Wang Kai Yuen Ho Kah Leong Wong, Aline K Ho Peng Kee Wong Kan Seng Ho Tat Kin Wong Kwei Cheong Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Ibrahim bin Othman Yatiman Yusof Jayakumar, S Yeo Toon Chia Ker Sin Tze Yeo Yong-Boon, George Koh Lip Lin Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Lau Ping Sum Zulkifli bin Mohammed Lee Hsien Loong Lee Kuan Yew Noes Lee Yiok Seng Ling How Doong Lee Yock Suan Low Thia Khiang Leong Horn Kee Lew Syn Pau Lim Boon Heng Abstention Lim Chun Leng, Michael Cheo Chai Chen

The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of Parliament. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill contains amendments to various Acts which are consequential to the Constitutional Amendment Bill. Amendments to the Audit Act (Cap. 17) As I explained in moving the Constitutional Amendment, if a defence and security measure causes any drawdown of reserves, the President will be kept informed, but may not veto the transaction or publish his opinion on the matter. Publicity would not only compromise security, but in a crisis would also worsen tension. For these reasons, section 9 of the Act is amended so that financial statements presented to Parliament by the President exclude commitments which have been undertaken for the defence and security of Singapore. As in the Constitution, such a matter must be certified by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence, on the recommendation of the Permanent Secretary (Defence) and the Chief of Defence Force, to be necessary for the defence and security of Singapore. Amendments to the Economic Development Board Act and the Jurong Town Corporation Act Section 16 of the EDB Act and section 13 of the JTC Act are amended as a result of amendments to Article 144(3) of the Constitution to require the President's concurrence to future Government guarantees under these Acts. The President's concurrence will be needed for Government guarantees of future issues of bonds and debentures by EDB and JTC. Bonds and debentures issued before these Constitutional Amendments will be unaffected and continue to enjoy a Government guarantee. Amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act and Presidential Elections Act The amendments to Article 45 of the Constitution will disqualify a person who is guilty of any illegal or corrupt practice committed in connection with a presidential election from being a Member of Parliament. Consequential changes are to sections 37, 42 and 61 of the Presidential Elections Act. Currently, any person found guilty of any corrupt or illegal practice committed in connection with a parliamentary election is disqualified from voting at any parliamentary or presidential election for a period of years. A person found guilty of similar offences in a presidential election should be similarly disqualified from voting in a parliamentary or presidential election, but this is not presently the case. The amendments to the Presidential Elections Act and section 6 of the Parliamentary Elections Act will remove this inconsistency. Amendments to the Financial Procedure Act The writing-off of loans may adversely impact on past reserves. Section 19 of the Financial Procedure Act is amended to require the Minister for Finance to obtain the President's concurrence in order to write-off loans or to abandon claims. Amendments to the Public Service Commission Act The Public Service Commission (PSC) presently enjoys certain immunities and privileges in connection with the exercise of its functions, for example, persons who supply false information to the PSC or who attempt to influence PSC members in the performance of their functions will be guilty of an offence. PSC members also enjoy the immunity of a Magistrate and communications of the PSC are privileged and cannot be disclosed except with the consent of the President. Personnel Boards will be established under the new Article 110D of the Constitution to exercise the powers and functions of the PSC. The PSC Act is amended to accord Personnel Boards the same privileges and protection currently accorded to the PSC. 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. 4.45 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act was first brought into operation on 21st October 1955. Since then, it has been extended by this House on eight occasions. The Act will expire on 20th October 1994, and the purpose of this Bill is to extend the Act for another five years. The Act provides for the maintenance of public safety, peace and good order and, in particular, for the detention and supervision of persons associated with secret society, drug trafficking and other criminal activities. Sir, the Act has proved to be a potent weapon in our fight against secret societies and drug traffickers over the years. Without invoking the powers of this Act, it would not have been possible for us to suppress secret societies and drug trafficking activities in Singapore. Why is this so? Because it is not always possible to prosecute secret society members successfully in open court as potential witnesses are unwilling to testify for fear of reprisals. Secret society members themselves also refuse to give evidence in court against their fellow members. It is the same with drug traffickers and their accomplices. Sir, we take no pleasure in putting a person under Criminal Law detention instead of prosecuting him in court. We will prefer to prosecute him in court whenever possible but where there are no witnesses or witnesses are unwilling to testify and the crime is serious, we have to think of the wider interests of society. To give you an example, there was a very vicious gang clash involving about 40 persons from two rival secret societies at Boon Lay Hawker Centre in February 1988. One gang member was killed and three innocent bystanders were injured. The Police arrested two gang members at the scene and, subsequently, another 13 members who had gone on the run. Although there were eye-witnesses to the gang clash, none of them was willing to come forward to testify in court against the offenders. Eventually, we had to detain all 15 persons under this Act rather than to let them go scot free. In 1989, the MP for Toa Payoh GRC, Mr Davinder Singh, in supporting the extension of this Act, said, and I quote, "in the next five years, we are going to see thousands of foreigners coming into Singapore" and consequently, "there is a greater risk ... of proliferation of [criminal] activities in Singapore." He went on to say that if this Act would serve the purpose of deterring these foreign criminals, then he would support it for the next five years at least. Mr Davinder Singh has been proven right. Hon. Members will remember that during the latter half of 1993, between September 1993 and January 1994, two innocent security guards - one was 61 years old who wanted to remain active - and five construction workers were killed in six construction work sites where surveying equipment (called Theodolites) were stolen. All the victims were cold-bloodedly bludgeoned to death by the murderers using hammers, wooden poles or iron pipes found at the work sites. Police suspected that some foreign criminal elements were involved. Subsequently, 28 male Thais were arrested and eight of them were found to be connected with the murders of the security guards and the construction workers, and the thefts of the Theodolites. The eight Thais admitted verbally to the thefts and murders. We had sufficient evidence to charge three of them in court for murder. But we could not prosecute the remaining five Thais in court because their accomplices are not willing to testify against them in open court for fear of reprisals against their own families back home in Thailand. But we cannot let these five go scot-free because they are dangerous criminals who will not hesitate to kill people who stand in their way. They are now detained under this Act. And this put an immediate stop to such incidents at work sites. Sir, the effectiveness of the Act in curbing secret society activities can be seen from the significant drop in the number of secret society gang clashes in Singapore from 416 in 1959 to only three last year. Detention Orders issued against secret society members fell from 165 in 1984 to 27 in 1993. For the first half of 1994, 14 Detention Orders were issued against secret society members. In respect of drug trafficking, the use of this Act has also enabled us to cripple many drug syndicates and to break up their distribution networks in Singapore. Detention Orders issued against drug traffickers fell from 128 in 1984 to 19 in 1993. For the first half of 1994, the number of Detention Orders issued against drug traffickers has increased to 44 as a result of increased enforcement against drug traffickers and pushers. The Act has also been used effectively to deal with criminals who had committed serious crimes, such as, murder, gang rape and robbery with firearms, where witnesses were not prepared to testify in court. Detention Orders issued under this category fell from 20 in 1984 to zero in 1993, but we have five this year. As these statistics have shown, the Act is effective in suppressing secret societies and other organised crime gangs. But we should not be complacent. There is no indication that secret societies or triads have been completely eliminated. In fact, triads have been a feature of Chinese society for a long time. In Singapore, triads have existed ever since colonial times when large numbers of Chinese immigrants first arrived from China. Even the British had problems trying to control the triads, and they had to resort to enacting this Act in 1955 to deal with the triads. Similarly, we still need this Act to keep these secret societies under firm control. In many countries, their Police are losing the fight against triads precisely because of the lack of sufficiently deterrent penalties. Hong Kong, for example, has not been able to curb the growth of organised triads in the colony ever since their emergency legislation enacted in the mid-1950s to deal with triad-perpetrated civil disturbances was repealed in 1960. Unlike the emergency legislation, the existing Hong Kong Societies Ordinance which deals with secret society activities does not provide for any special powers of deportation or detention without trial of known triad members. Australia's lack of such legislation has also hampered its efforts at curbing the growth of Chinese organised gangs in the country. Recently, it was reported in the New Paper on 20th July this year that a Singaporean secret society known as Ah Kong Gang is terrorising and dominating the underworld in Amsterdam. The same gang, first formed by Singaporeans, came to the notice of the Singapore Police way back in the 1970s when it first ousted the 14K Secret Society of Hong Kong in Amsterdam through violent gang clashes and warfare. Ah Kong Gang then took control of gambling dens in Amsterdam and started a massive drug trafficking network covering Amsterdam and Germany with drugs smuggled from the Golden Triangle. Drug couriers were recruited from Malaysia and Singapore. A front company and mess were set up in Singapore. The Ah Kong Gang was, subsequently, crushed in Singapore with the arrest of several key Ah Kong syndicate members and leaders in Singapore under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. During the arrest, a key Ah Kong syndicate leader asked the Police: "Why are you arresting me when we were actually trafficking drugs directly to Europe? We had avoided Singapore because of the tough laws. At the most, Singapore was merely a transit point for our drug couriers to Europe." The fact that this gang is now active in Amsterdam and Europe and not in Singapore because they had consciously avoided it speaks well of the deterrent effect of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Sir, the inability of these countries to deal effectively with triads will have grave consequences for them. In a recent Straits Times article of 7th July this year, it was reported that Asian gangs may pose the greatest organised crime threat in the future to many countries. Let me quote you some examples from the article. (1) Chinese triads, some with as many as 180,000 members worldwide, specialised in smuggling aliens and heroin into New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. They smuggle military weapons out of China, Vietnam and the former Soviet Union, with the help of the Russian mafia. (2) The tattooed Japanese yakuza, experts at high-level fraud, have penetrated the US real estate and banking industries. (3) Increasingly violent Chinese and Vietnamese street gangs in the US specialise in home invasions, low-level drug dealing, and protection rackets. Sir, all these examples show what can happen if we lose our grip on the activities of criminal gangs; the relatively crime-free situation in Singapore will soon disappear. We must prevent this from happening at all costs. The same article also reported that Asian organised crime is spreading "like a giant spider web" across the world. According to our CID, many Hong Kong triads have been expanding their operations overseas, especially to countries like the United States of America, where there are large Chinese communities, in view of the imminent reversion of Hong Kong to China in 1997. But up to now, there is no sign that Hong Kong triads have attempted to move their operations to Singapore. CID attributes this to the deterrent effect of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. In an interview reported in the New Paper on 8th July 1994, Superintendent Philip Choy of Hong Kong's Organised Crime and Triad Bureau also attributed this to Singapore's strict laws. He said at the interview, and I quote, "We have not received information that the triads see Singapore as a possible destination for their activities. But we know that some of them are spreading their wings and going to places like the United States, Canada and Taiwan." In 1992, during the Hong Kong movie stars' protest against triads, actor-director Eric Tsang was quoted as saying: "We want the police to look into our plight. We want the situation to be like Singapore, where police can offer protection. We have the money and we will pay for protection." The Singapore Police is able to offer such protection because of our very tough laws. Even so, we cannot be complacent. In 1990, the Police uncovered an attempt by a Taiwanese to set up a karaoke lounge business in Singapore. When it was found out that he had connections with a major triad society in Taiwan, his application for a public entertainment licence was rejected. This episode reminds us that we need to be constantly on our vigilance if we are to prevent foreign secret societies from gaining a foothold in Singapore. Renewal of this Act will send a strong signal to warn any foreign triads that may be targeting Singapore for their operations. Sir, although we have succeeded in preventing triads from Hong Kong or Taiwan from setting up operations here, the close proximity of West Malaysia poses another problem for us. Traditionally, secret society elements from Singapore have been known to take part in secret society activities in Malaysia and vice versa. As recently as May 1992, members of the "3821" Triad Society operated in Johore organised a Triad Initiation ceremony at Layang-Layang in which 11 triad members from Singapore attended. The ceremony was aborted when the Malaysian Police arrived after a tip-off. The 11 Singaporean triad members were dealt with under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act when they returned to Singapore. Of the 11 Singaporean triad members, seven were placed under detention and four under Police supervision. Malaysia too has similar preventive detention laws, such as, the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969, the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 and the Prevention of Crimes Act, which are widely used to deal with her own secret society members, drug traffickers and other criminal elements. Should we allow our Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act to lapse, the Malaysian triad members will be likely to take advantage of the situation and transfer their operations here. Let me now turn to the drug situation. During the last two decades, the world has witnessed the "globalisation" of the drug abuse problem and the situation has worsened drastically. The drug abuse problem used to be the concern of only a limited number of countries, but today countries which are not spared from the harmful consequences of drug abuse are the exception rather than the rule. The economic power and the political influence of drug cartels are rising rapidly. These cartels control the entire process of producing drugs, from the cultivation phase to the storage and distribution phases. Large amounts of drugs are stored at staging posts in certain countries to take advantage of weak or ineffective laws in these countries. Surely we do not want this to happen in Singapore. There are many drug syndicate bosses who mastermind and finance the operations but do not actually handle the drugs. In December last year, Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) cracked a major local drug syndicate led by a Malay Singaporean. A total of 36 members were arrested, and 18 kg of heroin and almost $140,000 in cash were seized. Of the 36 members, seven were prosecuted in court for drug trafficking, including two who will face the death penalty, if convicted. As for the rest, 18 were admitted to the Drug Rehabilitation Centres, eight were detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, two were prosecuted in court for drug consumption, and one was repatriated to Malaysia. But we are unable to charge the syndicate leader in court because he had used his underlings to carry out all the drug transactions. No drug was found on him at all when he was arrested. His underlings also refused to testify against him for fear of reprisals not only against themselves but also against members of their families. The question is: are we to let him loose on the streets and only deal with his underlings? The answer is obvious. We eventually put him under Criminal Law detention. Let me give you another example. Early this year, CNB crippled an international drug trafficking syndicate operating from Singapore with overseas connections. The syndicate organised the delivery of heroin worth millions of dollars from Thailand to Europe and Australia, and was also involved in laundering huge amounts of money. Through CNB's intelligence and surveillance, eight syndicate members were subsequently arrested. Three members were charged in court and will face the death penalty, if convicted. However, five syndicate members were not found to be in possession of drugs when they were arrested and their accomplices were unwilling to testify against them. It is therefore impossible to charge them in court. Here again, we had to detain the five under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Sir, in my view, drug traffickers are the most despicable of criminals, because they undermine both the body and soul of our young and erode the very fabric of our society. With drug addiction also come crimes. That is why many countries consider drug trafficking as a threat to their national security. True, we have very strict laws against drug trafficking, including the mandatory death penalty. But we cannot let drug traffickers off just because they succeed in intimidating witnesses or where the witnesses, being accomplices themselves, are unwilling to testify. We have to think of the interest of the rest of our society. As with secret societies and triads, we must continue to be tough in dealing with drug trafficking syndicates. Detention or supervision under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act together with the mandatory death penalty under the Misuse of Drugs Act are both indispensable weapons in our endless struggle against drug traffickers and pushers. If we relax on our tough anti-drug trafficking policy in Singapore, it will lead to a worsening of the drug abuse situation here because of our close proximity to the Golden Triangle as well as the constant threat of drug smuggling from West Malaysia. Sir, hon. Members may rightfully ask: what safeguards are there to prevent the Police and the CNB from taking the easy way out to lock up people and not to charge them in court at all? Let me assure Members that there are adequate built-in safeguards in this Act to prevent it from being abused. We have also introduced additional administrative procedures to ensure that enforcement agencies do not resort to using this Act without the strongest justifications. First, any proposal by CID or CNB to detain a person under this Act or to place him under compulsory Police supervision will be scrutinised by my senior officials and the Attorney-General before the Detention Order or the Police Supervision Order is issued. Second, an Advisory Committee comprising private prominent citizens, such as Justices of the Peace, senior lawyers and community leaders, will scrutinise the investigations and examine all documentary evidence and witnesses. At this hearing by the Advisory Committee, detainees or supervisees are allowed to be represented by legal counsel. Third, the Advisory Committee will then recommend all such Orders to be confirmed or otherwise by the President after the Cabinet has endorsed it. Fourth, cases whose Detention Orders are confirmed are subsequently reviewed annually by a separate Review Committee, also comprising private prominent citizens. And fifth, another Review Board will consider cases of persons who have been detained for 10 years or more. All reports by the Review Committee and Board to extend the Detention Orders or otherwise must also be considered by the President. Sir, to briefly summarise the rationale for extending this Act, its provisions are only resorted to when the securing of a court conviction is impossible because of the unwillingness on the part of complainants and key witnesses to testify in court for fear of reprisals. The Act has substantially contributed to the maintenance of law and order in Singapore. It is still required as a key weapon to suppress secret society, drug trafficking and other criminal activities, as there is no indication that these criminal activities can be completely eliminated here in the near future. If the gangsters and other criminal elements detect even a slight wavering of the Government's will to deal with them firmly, then we will see more of them reverting to their old and lawless ways to terrorise and victimise innocent people. The Chairman of a Criminal Law Advisory Committee had told me, when I met a group of them recently, that he was glad that Singapore had the foresight to implement the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. This has brought about much protection and safety to the law-abiding public. In other countries, he noted, the underworld had taken control over much of society. We need this Act to prevent this from happening. It is therefore necessary to extend the Act for a further period of five years, and we cannot afford not to. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whenever the issue of detention without trial arises, the question of safeguards and of relevance to society today must be addressed. The Minister has given us a review of the checks and balances that are in place. I am convinced that there are sufficient checks on the system. However, to me, the fact that this Bill must be presented to Parliament for review and extension every five years is itself a very fundamental procedure to ensure that this Bill cannot be abused or wrongly used by the Government of the day. If this Bill was meant to silence political opponents, no sane government would make itself go through the motion of seeking extension from Parliament every five years. Thus, the Bill is presented today, and I support the move to extend it for another five years. Sir, some may question the relevance of this Bill. We have a very law-abiding population. There is no major crime problem in Singapore. Where are the secret societies of the 50s, 60s and 70s that make this Bill necessary? The major problem in this area are different and changing. However, the problem of getting witnesses to testify is still a problem because of the fear of reprisals on themselves and their families. As mentioned by the Minister, drug trafficking is a very real problem. Our proximity to the Golden Triangle and our efficiency as a travel hub make Singapore a convenient drug hub. Drug syndicates are wealthy, well organised and very powerful with extensive international links. The persons who are intercepted and arrested are the pimps in the trade. They are the small boys. It would not be possible to get witnesses to testify in these cases for obvious reasons, the threat of reprisals. Detention without trial has been a major factor in addition to the death sentence to keep Singapore relatively drug free. Yet, we still consider drug abuse as a major problem in Singapore. The drug dealers know that, because we have tough laws, it is better for them to stay away from Singapore. Singaporeans also know this. Let us look at some statistics regarding Singaporeans arrested overseas for drug trafficking. In 1989, 16; 1990, 15; 1991, 5; 1992, 31; 1993, 32. And up to June this year, there were 17, making a total of 116 cases. These 116 cases are cases known to the Ministry of Home Affairs and this is therefore not the complete list. Let us note the increasing trend in the last three years of Singaporeans committing drug offences overseas and being involved in drug trafficking overseas. Do we need detention without trial? My answer is yes, so that our whole society can be spared the agony of drug addiction. Is the problem of secret societies or triads totally eradicated? The answer must be a no. Under control? Yes. We read now of the Hong Kong triads penetrating the United States, Canada, Australia and Europe. In an article, as quoted by the Minister, senior police officers have assessed that Singapore's strict laws have been a major deterrent effect. A look at serious criminal offences committed by Singaporeans overseas, again to the best knowledge of the Ministry of Home Affairs, is telling. In 1989-1990, none was known. In 1991, 2; 1992, 2; 1993, 2. But up to June this year, six cases have already been recorded. Small as these numbers are, they should alert us to remain ever vigilant. Compound this with the easy availability of firearms in as close a region as Thailand, as has been recognised by the Thai authorities, we can realise how quickly our problems can multiply. My conclusion is that this Bill is still relevant today and that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that detention without trial is not abused. Sir, I support this Bill.

Sir, I support the Bill. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act is known primarily for granting the Government power to detain without trial. There is another vital aspect to that piece of legislation. It spans more than 40 sections, a considerable part of which deals with the creation of offences which have to be proved in a court of law. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act makes a number of activities illegal, eg, carrying, making or distributing subversive documents, eg, documents which incite people to violence. It makes striking in the context of essential services, like the supply of gas, water, electricity, illegal; funding of those strikes illegal; locking out employees engaged in those services illegal. And if you want to throw someone into prison for engaging in those illegal activities, the Government has to prosecute and has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty and this has to be done in a court of law. I am therefore a bit surprised that we are continuing to have a sunset clause in so far as this particular aspect of the Act is concerned. It has got nothing to do with detention without trial. It creates ordinary offences as do the Penal Code and other statutes which create offences. There is no reason, I submit, for this part, at least, of the Act to be subject to a renewal every so often. The other aspect is detention without trial. It has always been a difficult argument. Because, from the purist's standpoint, the person in detention is deprived of his right to natural justice. But really, renewing this Act every few years enables this House as well as Singapore to understand what is happening in this country and in the world around. We get the opportunity, as we did a few minutes ago, for the Minister to tell us what has been happening, both in terms of secret society activities and in terms of drug activities. It is easy for us in air-conditioned comfort to talk about the pros and cons, academic or otherwise, of this Bill. But the question of whether this Bill ought to be renewed ought to be posed to the families of the victims of secret society activities and to the families of the victims of drug activities. When their children are seduced by drugs, as a result of the activities of drug overlords, and if they see that the Government is powerless to put these people behind bars, the question is: where is the justice? Put this question to them, and I would suggest that their support for the renewal of this Act would be unanimous.

Sir, the Minister has made a very strong case for the extension of this Act and thus, despite my inner concern about detention without trial, at least, as of now, I would not take issue with the extension. I would, however, like to emphasise on one point relating to the composition of the Advisory Committee. As the Minister has pointed out, and as it is apparent from the Advisory Committee's rules, the Advisory Committee plays a key and very important role as a safeguard mechanism. It has reasonable powers to prevent or curb abuse. The Minister, therefore, should seriously consider strengthening the composition of that Committee. At present, as I understand it, under the rules, the Minister appoints all the persons of that Committee. I would suggest that the Minister consider amending the rules such that at least three or four appointments to the Committee could be by respected bodies outside of the Government, preferably at least one person. Perhaps the Head of that Committee should be a Judge or a Judicial Commissioner. This is not meant as a criticism of the composition of the existing Committee, but I suggest this predominantly for two reasons. First, as I have emphasised, the Advisory Committee plays a very important role. Detention without trial itself is a very strong step and such Committee must enjoy ultimate public confidence. That is not to say that the present Committee does not enjoy public confidence, but such confidence would be immeasurably strengthened should the Minister take such a step as to, for example, let the Committee be headed by a Judge or a Judicial Commissioner, and perhaps let the Academy of Law or some other respected body appoint one or two members. I also say that if the composition is to have two or three such persons, including a Judge, that would help this Parliament as well when it comes up each time that the matter has been reviewed by, for example, a Judge and these people who are detained were, in the view of the Committee, rightly detained. I trust the Minister will consider these suggestions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while I support this Bill in respect of detention without trial for people involved in drug abuse as well as secret society members, I am not in favour of the other provisions for the simple reason that, under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, the definition of "criminal activities" is all- catching and all-embracing. In other words, you can do away with the Penal Code and all the criminal statutes. With this Act alone, you can actually arrest anybody and put him behind bars without trial. I agree with the Minister that, without this weapon, there is no way we can check drug traffickers and secret society members. My reservation is in respect of this all-embracing law. For instance, the example cited by the Minister earlier on about gang rape. If you cannot get witnesses, you have to invoke this Act. I think this is very unfair because there are provisions where we can have the due process of law. As such, no other criminal activity should be brought under this Act other than the two examples I have cited. With that reservation, I support this Bill.

Sir, I thank the Members for supporting the renewal of this Act. I do not want to over-emphasise the point that this Bill is indeed important for the maintenance of law and order in Singapore. As to the reservation by Mr Ling, I do not know which particular aspect of the Bill he does not support. But looking at the provisions, there is detention without trial, it is an offence also for carrying subversive documents, helping subversive groups, making strikes in essential services illegal, and so on. All these were part and parcel of the Bill that was passed way back in 1955 and they are already there and well entrenched. Of course, we can take them out and put them in some other law, but at this point in time, I do not think it is necessary to do so, so long as we still have this Act. When we decide to do away with detention without trial, then we can really look at all the other provisions of the Act. As to criminal cases of gang rape where there are no witnesses, actually this means that no one is willing to testify in open court. But there are people who are prepared to say that they are the witnesses but they are afraid of reprisals. From the police investigations, they have built up a case against the gang rape group, and that is why they were able to put this gang rape group under Criminal Law detention. I think nobody would quarrel with that so long as the accused persons or the people who are detained were given the right to appear before the Committee and to make representations with legal advisors or lawyers. On Mr Shanmugam's suggestion about strengthening the composition of the Advisory Committee, first of all, let me say that there is a lot of confidence in our Advisory Committee. We have seven such committees with 44 members. Most of them are all very senior members of the Bar and, if not, they are very prominent citizens, such as Justices of the Peace, retired principals and even a Brother from a religious order. I believe that they have carried out their task very well. They have applied themselves on every case. They have spent a lot of time studying the facts and also talking to and interviewing the officers who put up the cases to them. I am always open to suggestions about additional members or people who are willing and able to find time to serve on the committee. But do we need to specify that the appointing authority should come from several sources or rather than just the Minister? I would say that we do not need several appointing authorities. Just one will do. I, as the Minister, would be prepared to consider any suitable person who is willing to spend time and apply his mind on the case. What about Judicial Officers, be they Judges or Judicial Commissioners? Here I would say that detention without trial is an executive decision, and we have gone through this administrative procedure of detaining people. We should not mix it up with the judicial process. I think it would not be desirable to involve Judges and judicial officers in an executive decision, or an administrative process because, who knows, in some of these cases they may take the Government to court and the Judge will then be put in a situation where there is a conflict of interest. We do not want that situation to happen. But I am always open to suggestions for any suitable names that Members may have, be they from the Academy of Law, the Law Society, or any other group. I am always prepared to consider names. On Mr Davinder Singh's point that we do not have to subject the other provisions for renewal, historically, we already have them in the Act, and until we revamp the Act, we just keep them as they are. I think I have dealt with all the points that Members have brought up. Once again, I thank them for their support.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. 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 Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 1994 gives legislative effect to income tax changes announced in the 1994 Budget Statement, and other changes not announced in that Statement. Let me begin with the tax changes that were announced in the 1994 Budget Statement. At present, the tax exemption scheme for syndicated offshore credit and underwriting facilities is available only to Approved Currency Units (ACUs). I have announced that this Scheme will be extended to include Approved Securities companies. Clause 5 amends section 13(1)(Y) to provide for this extension.

5.28 pm Currently, the Comptroller of Income Tax can make assessment or additional assessment on taxpayers within 12 years after the year of assessment concerned. Since tax is assessed on a preceding year basis, taxpayers will therefore effectively have to keep records for 13 years. As it is onerous for taxpayers to comply with this statutory requirement, Government has decided to reduce the time limit to issue assessments for non-fraud cases from 12 years to 6 years. This means that taxpayers need to keep records for the purpose of making such assessments for only seven years. Clauses 18 and 22 amend section 67 and other relevant sections in the Income Tax Act to effect this change. The next tax change concerns procreation incentives. At present, taxpayers are allowed to consume the special and further tax rebates within seven years. However, with the implementation of GST- related offsets like the $700 rebate and reduction in personal tax rates, taxpayers who also enjoy the special and further tax rebates may not be able to consume them to the same extent as before. I have thus extended the period for claiming special and further tax rebates to nine years. Clause 14 amends section 42A to effect this change. I have also announced tax changes to further encourage Singaporeans to venture overseas. One is that the tax rates used to compute non-resident tax reliefs will be reduced with effect from Year of Assessment 1995. This will enable more Singaporeans who declare non-resident status for tax purposes to enjoy the non-resident tax reliefs. Clause 13 amends section 40 and clause 21 inserts a new Part C in the Second Schedule to the Act to provide for the tax change. The other tax changes are as follows. First, employees will be allowed a tax deduction for contributions made by them to the CPF which are obligatory by contract of employment, provided they are residents for tax purposes. The tax deductibility for these contributions, as well as contributions to other approved pension and provident funds, will be capped at the compulsory CPF limit. Clause 12 amends section 39 to effect the change. Second, employers will be allowed a tax deduction for CPF contributions made in respect of staff posted overseas that are obligatory by contract of employment. Third, CPF contributions by employers in respect of ordinary wages of staff posted overseas will be exempt from tax, up to the statutory limit for compulsory CPF contributions by employers. Clause 4 amends section 10C to provide for the change. I have announced the increase in the limit for tax deduction for CPF contributions, inclusive of compulsory Medisave contributions, by self-employed persons. The present limit for such deductions is 18% of assessable income from self-employment, subject to a maximum of $12,960. The limit will be increased to 18.5% of the assessable income from self- employment, subject to a maximum of $13,320 with effect from the Year of Assessment 1995. Clause 12 amends section 39 to effect the change. Following the good performance of the economy last year, I have also announced a one-off 5% rebate on personal income tax payable for the Year of Assessment 1994. Clause 23 provides for this rebate. I shall now deal with tax changes not announced in the 1994 Budget Statement. Several of these are needed to streamline and improve tax administration. Members may be aware that since 15th January 1994, taxpayers earning $20,000 or below are able to phone in their income tax returns using the Telefile system. Other electronic means of filing tax returns may also be introduced in the future as part of IRAS' effort to improve its services to taxpayers. To provide for these changes, clauses 2 and 19 amend section 2(1) and insert a new section 71A to allow tax returns to be filed by permissible electronic means. At present, companies are required to submit their tax returns within 21 days from the date stated in their returns forms issued by IRAS. Many companies have found it difficult to comply with this deadline. In view of this, the Income Tax Act will be amended to allow companies to submit their tax returns before a common deadline of 31st July of each year. This amendment will give companies more time to prepare their tax returns. Nevertheless, to ensure that the tax assessment process will not be delayed under the new system, companies are also required to furnish estimates of their chargeable income within three months after the end of their accounting period. Clause 17 re-enacts section 63A and clause 20 amends section 72A to effect these changes. The next amendment pertains to the collection of unpaid tax. To facilitate the collection of unpaid tax, the Income Tax Act empowers the Comptroller of Income Tax to appoint any person as an agent of the taxpayer concerned. Such an agent is then required to pay any tax due by the taxpayer from the taxpayer's moneys held in the agent's custody. Currently, however, the agent is obliged to do so only at the point of time when the notice of appointment is issued. Clause 16 now amends section 57 so that the statutory obligation on the agent will be effective for a period of 90 days from his appointment as an agent. The provision of a 90-day period will make it easier for the Comptroller of Income Tax to collect unpaid tax through the agent should the need arise. At present, a company that has undergone a substantial change in its shareholders will have to seek the Minister's approval if it wants to carry forward its unabsorbed capital allowances or losses. For ease of administration, clauses 10 and 11 amend sections 23(2A) and 37(8) to enable the Minister now to delegate the power to approve such requests to the Comptroller of Income Tax. The Goods and Services Tax or GST was introduced on 1st April 1994. Under the GST Act, a person who is required to, but failed to register under the Act, will not be allowed a refund for the amount of GST he has paid on his taxable supplies. The GST Act also provides for penalties to be imposed on such persons. To be consistent with the GST Act, clause 8 amends section 15(1) of the Income Tax Act to also disallow that amount of GST paid on his taxable supplies to be deducted as an expense for such cases. I will now turn to the amendments that are needed to fine-tune the provisions of existing tax incentive schemes. The first relates to our tax incentive for Pioneer Companies. Clause 9 amends section 19A of the Act to defer the deadline for Pioneer Companies to elect for accelerated capital allowances in respect of the residual value of plant and machinery by one year. This will enable Pioneer Companies to enjoy the full effect of the tax concessions even in the last year of their incentive period. The second concerns our tax concession for Singapore flag vessels. Currently, once a vessel is registered under the Singapore Ship Registry, income derived from the operation of such a vessel will be exempt from tax. However, under certain circumstances, some shipping companies may wish to elect not to be under this tax concession scheme. Clauses 3 and 6 thus amend section 10(4) and 13A to provide for this option. The third amendment relates to the tax concession for offshore leasing companies. Currently, companies enjoying such concessions are restricted in the manner which capital allowances can be deducted against their other sources of income. Clause 15 amends section 43I to allow companies to elect not to enjoy the concession if they do not want to be restricted in their claim for capital allowances. Finally, clause 7 amends section 14(1)(e) of the Income Tax Act to raise the limit imposed on the deduction allowed in respect of an employer's contributions to an approved pension or provident fund. The limit is raised from 18.5% to 20% to be in line with the increase in the employer's CPF contribution rate. The change will take effect from 1st July 1994. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

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

5.40 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have laid claim to speak on the motion for adjournment today on a matter which many Singaporeans believe is of some importance. I ask for your indulgence and of the remaining hon. Members to prolong the sitting of this House. The matter, Sir, which I am referring to is the presence of a quota for female medical students, and I would like to make a fervent appeal to the Minister to abolish this quota. Since 1979, a quota of 33% for females has existed for entry into the medical school. This means that the intake of female medical students into the medical faculty is restricted to one-third of the total intake and no more. The total medical enrolment in 1993 was 771, of which 522 were males and only 249 were females. The female percentage therefore constitutes less than one-third of the total. In spite of this, the surprising fact is that out of 13 people, up to 1993, who obtained an MBBS (Hons) degree, which is only given for exceptional academic performance, seven are females and only six are males. Since 1979, a lot of water has passed under the proverbial bridge. And as our Deputy Prime Minister has said, the world has changed. Our GDP has increased from $6,700 in 1979 to $22,000 in 1993. Our female labour force participation rate has increased from 42% to 52% in the same period. Singapore has gone regional and has become a successful hub city. Fifteen eventful years have gone by and each year, many disappointed parents and their intelligent and hardworking daughters have continued to be discriminated against entry into medical school and they have stood by in sadness, helplessness and anguish while being lectured on the advantages of living in a meritocratic society. The conditions which prevailed in 1979 and which prompted the institution of the quota have changed many times over and are hardly applicable today, but yet, unfortunately, we have not reviewed the policy. In 1979, the following reasons were advanced for imposing the quota: The first reason given was that female doctors shunned speciality training and preferred outpatient work and are thus considered less productive than male doctors. In 1979, nearly 85% of the outpatient doctors were females. Since then, this percentage has dropped tremendously and females are no longer concentrated in the outpatient sector. In 1992, 39% of the female doctors were providing primary health care as compared to 34% of the male doctors. So 39% females, 34% males. 32% of female doctors provided specialist care as compared to 40% of male doctors. 32% females, 40% males. 24% of the female doctors were medical officers under training as compared to 23% of the male doctors. 24% females, 23% males. So all these figures for male and female doctors are pretty close, signifying that there is not much difference in the career paths of male and female doctors now. Thus, the statement that females prefer outpatient work no longer holds. The second reason that was given in 1979 was that female doctors do not continue to work after graduation and thus are wasting the taxpayers' money on medical education. This is also no longer valid. In 1979, the attrition rate of female doctors was 15-20%. This was the figure quoted by Dr Toh Chin Chye in Parliament in March 1979. Today, the figure has changed completely. The numbers for both sexes are very comparable. In 1989, the female attrition rate was 3.4%, and for males, 3.5%, hardly any difference. In 1990, it was 5.1% for females and 3.5% for males, an insignificant difference. In 1991, it was 4.7% for females and 2.6% for males, again, hardly significant. And in 1992, the female attrition rate was 5% and the male attrition rate was 3%. Hence, we see that the difference between the attrition rates of male and female doctors over four years is hardly significant, unlike the picture in 1979. Also, for the last 10 years or so, doctors have been bonded to work for the Government upon graduation. Singaporean doctors are bonded for five to eight years and scholarship holders serve a longer period. This is only fair as the Government spends about $300,000 on each doctor's undergraduate training and the bond is to ensure that the taxpayers' money is not wasted. If the doctor, male or female, wishes to have an early release, the applicant has to pay the outstanding sum of the bond back to the Government. Thus, the second argument that female doctors are wasting the taxpayers' money is also no longer valid and no longer true. In 1979, there was no bond and the female doctor could stop working. Now, she can only exercise this choice, like her male counterparts, if she pays back the bond. All the medical students are fully aware of this stipulation and know what they are in for when they apply to study medicine in NUS. Thus, the reasons for which the quota was instituted no longer stand, but the quota still stands. Is it not time for the Minister to review this anachronistic policy? I am sure that as a good policy maker, the Minister will understand the need for this change and abolish the quota. Here, I would like to illustrate my point with a story. When Maynard Keynes was criticised for changing his policy stand, he had this reply for his critic, and I quote: `When circumstances change, I change too. What do you do, sir?' If the Minister needs any further reasons to change the policy, let me also try to provide them. When our family planning policy was first enunciated in the second half of the 1960s, the slogan was "Boy or girl, two is enough". Countless Singaporeans heeded this advice and only had two children. Even if they came from traditional families and wanted sons, they enacted their part of the social contract and obeyed the Government's edict and did not go on trying to have sons even if both their children were daughters. Now, are we trying to tell all those parents who were responsible citizens that they cannot maximise the potential of their children if they happen to be daughters? That was not part of the bargain as far as they knew. Secondly, I am sure that the Minister knows that the medical quota is against our Constitution which is predicated on equality and equal protection of the law, especially when the matter concerns an institution, namely, the university, which is supported by the taxpayers. Not only does this practice offend the letter and the spirit of our Constitution, but it is also against our ethos of building a society based on justice and meritocracy. Here, I would like to quote the Minister for Education, Mr Lee Yock Suan, himself. This is what he said on 12th March, 1993 with regard to the admission of candidates into the medical course, and I quote: 'In the selection process, aptitude and suitability for the course as assessed by the interview are taken into account together with the "A" level performance. The selection is based entirely on merit.' I appeal to the Minister to consider heeding his own words and abolishing the quota which relies on sex and not on merit.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think it is getting late, and so I do not want to go into a very long debate on this issue. I will give a very brief and to-the-point reply. As Dr Soin has said, since 1979, the intake of female medical students into the National University of Singapore has been limited to one third of its total intake of medical students, and this is because of two main reasons. Firstly, women doctors, particularly, after marriage, cannot be assigned duties as freely as male doctors. Secondly, a significantly higher percentage of female doctors do not work or work part time. The policy was announced in a press statement in March 1979 and is reviewed regularly. In 1988, 32.8% of female doctors, as compared to 8.7% of male doctors in the Ministry of Health, its restructured hospitals and NUH, were deployed in positions which did not involve irregular working hours. The 1988 Singapore Medical Council register showed that the proportion of female doctors who did not work or who worked part time was three times that of their male counterparts - 16.3% for females and 5.4% for males. The difference between these figures and Dr Soin's figures is that my figures include the part-timers. I think Dr Soin only mentioned those who stopped work. Last year, the figures still showed that 23.3% of female doctors, as against 12.4% of male doctors in the Ministry of Health, its restructured hospitals and NUH, were deployed in positions which did not involve irregular working hours. The 1993 Singapore Medical Council register also indicated that 15.6% of female doctors, as compared to 6% of male doctors, did not work or worked part time. There is, therefore, no need to change the existing policy despite the very strong appeal by Dr Soin. As she has mentioned, it costs about $300,000 of taxpayers' money to train each medical graduate at NUS. It takes five years and the annual operating cost alone is about $60,000, or three times that of arts and science graduates. Therefore, we should make sure that the money is put to best use with minimum wastage. She also mentioned the point that this quota of one third is against the Constitution. I have asked the University this and they have checked with their lawyers. They have been advised that it is not against the Constitution. If Dr Soin disagrees, she can put this to a test in a court of law. The University must have proper requirements and qualifications for its students, and certain jobs are more suitable for men than for women. So they have this rule which is not against the Constitution. As I said, the essential difference between her figures and mine is that a lot of the female doctors worked part time. For example, in 1993, of the female doctors, 11.2% were working part time, as compared to 2.8% for male doctors. So in percentage terms, four times of female doctors were working part-time as compared to male doctors. This represents an under-utilisation of a very valuable resource. In the case of doctors not working, in 1993, 4.4% of the female doctors were not working as compared to 3.2% of male doctors. So if you add up both the part-timers and those not working, for females, it was 15.6%, as compared to 6% for males. So I think the reasons that were given in 1979 still remain valid, and I have no intention to change the policy.

Sir, can I ask a point of clarification?

No, you have no right of reply.

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

asked the Minister for Law whether he will prohibit any non-proprietary wording to appear in a trade mark.

Under the Trade Marks Act, non-proprietary wordings cannot be registered as trade marks. Non-proprietary wordings include the following : (a) Non-proprietary drug names issued by the World Health Organisation. (b) Generic words which appear in a trade mark. The applicant will have exclusive rights to the use of these particular words. (c) Non-trade mark matters, for example, indications as to the price of the goods, nett weights, ingredients.

asked the Minister for Finance (a) which institutions control and invest the official reserves of Singapore and in what proportion and (b) which institutions are the star performers.

Singapore's official reserves are managed largely by The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Temasek Holdings (TH) and Singapore Technologies Holdings (STH). GIC is the Government's principal investment agent and it handles the bulk of the Government's investments. TH and STH are holding companies which own and manage the Government's shareholdings in Government linked companies (GLCs). The Monetary Authority of Singapore also holds major currencies in reserve for the defence of the Singapore dollar, if required. GIC's investments are carried out overseas. Temasek's investments are very diversified in nature and include both local and overseas investments. STH's investments are mainly in the defence related industry. Ranking the performance of these institutions would not be meaningful as they perform different functions and their investments differ by types and geographical distribution. I would, however, like to inform the Member that these institutions have been performing well in their investments.

asked the Minister for Health what is the number of hospital beds in (i) each class of ward and (ii) each Government/restructured hospital for each year from 1985 to 1993.

The number of hospital beds by class of ward in each public sector hospital for the years 1985 to 1993 is at Annex 1 (Cols. 503 - 508). Annex 1 - BEDS IN PUBLIC SECTOR ACUTE HOSPITALS BY CLASS, 1985 - 1987, BEDS IN PUBLIC SECTOR ACUTE HOSPITALS BY CLASS, 1988 - 1990, BEDS IN PUBLIC SECTOR ACUTE HOSPITALS BY CLASS, 1991 - 1993 (Cols. 503 - 508)

asked the Minister for Health if he will give an estimate of the number of citizens and permanent residents who have no Medisave accounts or are unable to tap them through their children or parents.

The estimated number of Singaporeans and permanent residents without Medisave accounts is 1.1 million people. The majority of these are children, housewives and the elderly who are not in the work force. We are unable to estimate how many of these have no access to Medisave through their immediate family members.

asked the Minister for Health if he will give the figures for the profit made out of non-subsidized beds and non-subsidized procedures in restructured hospitals from 1991 to 1993.

The surpluses that restructured hospitals, including National University Hospital, made out of non-subsidised (Class A) inpatients and non-subsidised procedures are as follows: 1991 $ 4.9 million 1992 $10.3 million 1993 $ 8.9 million

asked the Minister for Health whether his Ministry has any plans to switch some prescription drugs for sale over the counter in the near future.

The Ministry regularly reviews the classification of drugs into prescription-only medicines, pharmacy-only products and over-the-counter medicines. Re-classification of drugs from one class to the other is done when clinical studies and reports show that it can be used safely for self-medication without direct medical supervision. In the classification of drugs, we also make reference to its status in the country where the product is manufactured. The Ministry will reclassify the prescription-only medicines into over-the-counter medicines as and when appropriate.

asked the Minister for Health what is the ratio of nurses to population that is ideal for Singapore; when this will be achieved; and how it will be done.

There are a total of 11,600 registered nurses in Singapore, giving a nurse to population ratio of 1:280 in 1993. It is projected that there will be a need for another 3,400 nurses by the year 2000. This takes into account the needs of an aging population, the development of new health programmes and the building of more hospitals, clinics and nursing homes. For planning purposes, the targetted nurse to population ratio is 1:200, or 15,000 by year 2000. There is no ideal ratio as such but we believe that our target is reasonable when compared to some developed countries. For example, the nurse to population ratio in 1993 for UK, Japan and US was 1:234, 1:165 and 1:154 respectively. The targetted ratio can be achieved if the recruitment of student nurses is able to meet the target of 600 Registered Nurses for training each year. The intake of student nurses into Nanyang Polytechnic for Registered Nurses has been encouraging. It has increased from an intake of 259 in 1992 to 557 in 1994. In the meantime Ministry of Health will continue to rely on the recruitment of foreign nurses to supplement local recruitment.

asked the Minister for Defence whether all operationally ready National Servicemen are given up to five pairs of No. 4 uniform and, if so, what is the rationale of giving so many sets to them as they wear them for two to three weeks only every year.

In April this year, I announced that the Advisory Council on Community Relations in Defence (ACCORD) had recommended letting NSmen keep more of their personal equipment to give greater recognition to the operational status of NSmen. NSmen had earlier expressed their desire to retain and maintain their own personal equipment such as their helmets and equipment pouches. After careful consideration, MINDEF decided to let NSmen keep the full complement of their personal equipment upon completing full-time national service, including the 5 pairs of No. 4 uniform that had been issued to them. Such a move enhances the operational readiness of the SAF by enabling faster mobilisation and equipping of NSmen, who form the bulk of the SAF's fighting strength. Therefore, from now on, NSmen will be equipped with all the necessary personal equipment when they respond to a call-up. They will only have to collect their weapons to be ready for deployment, regardless of whether it is for a peace-time training mission or for an actual emergency. This significantly reduces the time and effort spent in transforming civilians into highly trained and fully equipped operationally ready NSmen. The reduction in time spent on sorting and issuing personal equipment to NSmen is critical in an emergency when it is vital to get fully-equipped and combat-ready NSmen to the frontline at short notice. Letting soldiers fresh out of full-time national service keep as much of their personal equipment as possible also gives NSmen a sense of ownership and responsibility for their own equipment. It is a clear signal to them that they have come of age and are operationally ready at any time.

asked the Minister for Labour whether the banker's guarantee required to be furnished for foreign workers brought in by companies for approved training purpose will be modified as the present requirement of $5,000 per person matched to each name is both costly and cumbersome, as well as a financial strain on the smaller local companies.

Employers need to obtain Work Permits and Visit Passes for their foreign trainees before they can work and stay in Singapore. The requirement that employers must furnish security bonds for their non-Malaysian foreign trainees before they are allowed to enter Singapore is a condition for the granting of Visit Pass. The issue of Visit Pass and the acceptance of security bond are both under the ambit of the Immigration Act. The Ministry of Labour currently performs these functions on behalf of the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide one-stop service to employers. The security bond serves a deterrent purpose to ensure that every employer repatriates his non-Malaysian foreign trainee after the Visit Pass is cancelled. The Controller of Immigration requires the name of the foreign trainee to be stated in the security bond because the bond is tied to a Visit Pass issued to a particular foreign trainee. The bond will be discharged once the particular foreign trainee is repatriated. Employers can furnish the security bonds in the form of bankers' guarantee, insurance guarantee or cash. To reduce cost, employers can compare the service offered by different financial institutions and choose the most economical option.

asked the Minister for Labour, from 1991 to 1993 yearly, what was the loss of man-hours of productive work in the labour force, when compared to the total number of man-hours worked, because of (i) sickness; (ii) injury; (iii) pregnancy and maternity leave; and (iv) reservist training.

My Ministry does not compile the information requested by the Member.

asked the Minister for Communications whether he will consider reducing the Additional Registration Fee on cars.

There is no intention to revise the Additional Registration Fee (ARF) on cars in the near future. Although a reduction in ARF will not affect our control on the vehicle population, it will have implications on the bidding for COEs by buyers of different categories of cars, as well as COE prices. Unlike COE premiums, ARF is a progressive tax. It is calculated as a percentage of the Open Market Value of a car, which means buyers of more expensive cars pay more ARF. A reduction in ARF would result in more savings for buyers of more expensive cars. Therefore, a reduction in ARF will give buyers of more expensive cars an advantage over buyers of cheaper cars in the bidding of COEs. A reduction in ARF is likely to lead to an increase in COE prices. Existing vehicle owners will be adversely affected as they have to pay more when they revalidate the COEs of their vehicles.

asked the Minister for Communications whether individuals and small companies will be allowed to own taxis.

The ROV stopped issuing taxi licences to individuals in 1975 because individually-owned taxis were poorly maintained and provided poor service to passengers. Since then, taxi licences were issued to taxi companies only. Taxi companies are in a better position to capitalise on economies of scale to ensure better maintenance of vehicles and to organise the taxi service to provide a higher quality of service, for example, the provision of capital-intensive radiophone taxi despatch systems. At present, taxi service is provided by yellow-top taxis and five taxi companies, viz. COMFORT, SABS, Singapore Commuter, SBS Taxis and TIBS Taxis. As announced last year, my Ministry will consider deregulating the taxi industry to allow more operators to provide taxi service after the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) has been implemented. This will enable us to take into account the impact of ERP on taxi operations.

asked the Minister for Communications if he has any incentive schemes to increase the number of feeder bus services to private housing estates.

The main bus operators are expected to provide a mix of profitable and unprofitable services. Unprofitable services to low-demand areas are cross-subsidised by profitable services elsewhere. More unprofitable services mean more cross-subsidies and eventually all commuters will have to pay higher fares to cross-subsidise these services. Hence, low-demand services are carefully considered before implementation. In this regard, there are no grounds to give special preference to private housing estates over other areas in the provision of unprofitable bus services. The Public Transport Council welcomes private operators to provide shuttle services to link up private housing estates to nearby bus interchanges or MRT stations. For example, the Clementi Park Condominium runs such a service to the main road and the Clementi MRT station for their own residents. Recently, a TIBS/SMRT joint venture company launched two pilot services under the Bus-Plus project to serve residents in Bayshore Park and Faber Hills.

asked the Minister for Communications how his Ministry intends to plug the loophole in the Weekend Car Scheme.

The Weekend Car Scheme was introduced on 1st May 1991 to enable more Singaporeans to own cars without creating more congestion on the roads. The objective of the Scheme has largely been met. As at July 1994, 9,493 new cars have been registered as weekend cars (WECs). Of these, 93% are owned by owners who do not own another car, and 90% are small and medium sized cars below 1600 cc. However, recently more big cars above 1600 cc are being registered as WECs. The number of such cars forms about 34% of WEC registrations this year compared with 6% last year. This trend can be attributed to the increasingly larger difference in COE premiums between WECs and big cars. As a result, owners of big WECs enjoy large savings which in some cases more than compensate them for the cost of day licences and allow them to use their cars like normal cars. This is not the intention of the WEC Scheme. If this trend is left unchecked, the WEC quota will be dominated by the big cars. My Ministry is therefore reviewing the WEC Scheme to ensure that the objective of the WEC Scheme is preserved.

asked the Minister for the Environment whether he will ensure that all pre-packed food products have the manufacturers' names and factory addresses on their packaging.

The Sale of Food Act requires locally manufactured pre-packed food products to be labelled and show the name and address of the manufacturer or packer. This has been in force since 1974. For imported pre-packed food products, the name and address of the local importer, distributor or agent, together with the name of the country of origin must be shown on the labels of the imported prepacked food products. The name and address of the foreign manufacturer are not required. The information provided on the label will be sufficient for the Food Control Department to trace the source of the food supply. Regular checks are made on the labelling of food products when our officers visit retail outlets on inspection rounds, or when complaints are received. Those who violate this requirement can be fined up to $1,000 for the first offence and up to $2,000 for the subsequent offences.

asked the Minister for the Environment how many times in a year, from 1991 to 1993, have we breached international standards for air quality.

We use the World Health Organisation Long Term Goals and the United States Environmental Protection Agency Primary Air Quality Standards to assess our air quality. Both the World Health Organisation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency have short-term (hourly, 8-hourly and 24-hourly) and long term (3-monthly and annual) air quality standards for individual air pollutants. From 1991 to 1993, the air pollution levels in Singapore have not exceeded any of these short-term or long term air quality standards. However, with increasing fuel consumption, the amount of pollutants emitted into the air will inevitably increase. My Ministry is studying measures to ensure that the levels of these pollutants such as suspended particulates and sulphur dioxide will ontinue to remain within acceptable levels prescribed in international standards.

asked the Acting Minister for Community Development what are his Ministry's plans to develop the swimming lagoon at East Coast Park and whether he will consider converting the area into a public park.

The East Coast Park Swimming Lagoon site has been leased to a private company since April 1992. One of the conditions of the lease is that the site be developed into a recreation park. Since then, the company has been discussing its plans with the relevant authorities. The process is still going on and the company hopes to start construction work soon. As long as the lease is in force, the nature of the development will have to comply with the conditions therein.

asked the Acting Minister for Community Development where is the location of the proposed new Nee Soon Central Community Centre/Club; what is the budget for its total facilities and construction cost; and where does the budget come from.

Nee Soon Central Constituency has a void-deck community centre at Block 770, Yishun Avenue 3. To better serve the residents, it will be relocated to Block 749, Yishun Street 72. Like other void-deck community centres, the Housing and Development Board will bear the cost of its external walls and sanitary provision. Its Management Committee will pay for the internal renovations and furnishing of the new void-deck centre. Annex 1 - BEDS IN PUBLIC SECTOR ACUTE HOSPITALS BY CLASS, 1985 - 1987, BEDS IN PUBLIC SECTOR ACUTE HOSPITALS BY CLASS, 1988 - 1990, BEDS IN PUBLIC SECTOR ACUTE HOSPITALS BY CLASS, 1991 - 1993 (Cols. 503 - 508)