Hansard, 1996-02-27

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Dr Beng Kian Lam, Arthur - from 22nd to 23rd January and from 16th to 21st February, 1996. Mr Chay Wai Chuen - from 22nd to 25th January and from 12th to 24th February, 1996. Dr Wan Soon Bee - from 27th to 31st January and from 24th February to 1st March, 1996. Dr John Chen Seow Phun - from 30th January to 3rd February, 1996. Mr Peh Chin Hua - from 30th January to 6th February, 1996. Mr Chew Heng Ching - from 30th January to 2nd February, 1996. Prof. S. Jayakumar - from 1st to 3rd February, 1996. BG Lee Hsien Loong - from 1st to 6th February, 1996. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong - from 5th to 6th February, from 12th to 15th February and from 28th February to 1st March, 1996. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon - from 5th to 20th February, 1996. Mr Peter Sung - from 9th to 14th February and from 5th to 10th March, 1996. Mr S. Chandra Das - from 10th to 18th February, 1996. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon - from 11th to 14th February, 1996. Encik Sidek Bin Saniff - from 12th to 22nd February, 1996. Mr S. Dhanabalan - on 14th February, 1996. Mr R. Sinnakaruppan - from 17th to 22nd February, 1996. Mr Stephen Lee Ching Yen - from 20th February to 3rd March, 1996. Mr Heng Chiang Meng - from 23rd to 27th February and from 4th to 19th March, 1996. Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng - from 27th February to 8th March, 1996. Mr Davinder Singh - from 27th February to 22nd March, 1996. Mr Bernard Chen - from 29th February to 8th March, 1996. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee - from 22nd March to 10th April, 1996. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the dates stated: 30th January, 1996 (i) Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill 1996; (ii) Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Bill 1996; (iii) Local Treasury Bills (Amendment) Bill 1996; and (iv) Evidence (Amendment) Bill 1996. 2nd February, 1996 (i) Government Securities (Amendment) Bill 1996. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what will be the impact on Singapore's economy of the proposed land bridge linking the Andaman Sea with the Gulf of Thailand.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed land bridge is part of Thailand's Southern Seaboard Development (SSB) plan. It is not the only land bridge project being proposed in the region. Malaysia has also proposed a Penang-Songkhla land bridge within the Indonesian-Malaysian-Thailand Growth Triangle economic cooperation framework. The two projects will involve substantial investments in roads, pipelines and port infrastructure. The viability of the projects will depend on how competitive the costs of unloading, transportation and reloading of cargo are, in relation to the existing alternatives. As the preliminary feasibility study into the project has not been completed yet, it is premature to assess the projects' full impact on Singapore. The two land bridge projects are being proposed at a time when the Asia-Pacific is growing rapidly and trade is expanding. The port of Singapore will grow with the region as long as we continue to provide the shipping community with good service at competitive rates. In particular, the Port of Singapore Authority must strive to maintain its competitiveness through skills upgrading, sound management and investment in infrastructure and technology. This way, Singapore can meet the keener competition posed by emerging regional ports and other infrastructure projects like the proposed land bridges.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied that Singapore Power has done enough (i) to improve efficiency and productivity and (ii) to control costs internally, as means to improve company profitability rather than through tariff increases.

Sir, I am satisfied that the former PUB Electricity and Gas Departments, and now SP, have been operating efficiently. I am requesting the Clerk to hand out the comparative charts for Members' reference. Mr Speaker, while waiting for the charts, could we proceed to the next Question first and I will take up this Question in a few minutes' time?

All right. [Later - After Question No. 5]

Mr Yeo, your charts are ready. Would you like to give your answer now?

Thank you, Sir. As I was saying just now, I am satisfied that the former PUB Electricity and Gas Departments, and now SP, have been operating efficiently. The Clerk of Parliament has distributed the comparative charts (Cols. 749 - 762) and Members may wish to refer to them. charts -

Sir, does the Minister agree that even before corporatisation PUB was already very efficient? Since corporatisation, have we seen substantial improvements or do we expect to see substantial improvements? My second question is on the gearing. If SP is now asked to gear to one-third, who are they borrowing from and what sort of interest rate do they have to pay and what impact does this interest have on the bottom line?

Sir, as the charts show, the former PUB had actually run a very tight ship in terms of capacity per employee, sales per employee, thermal efficiency, etc. So it has already been performing well. But I think there is still room for improvement. As SP regionalises and as they gain access to different modes of operation, I think they should be able to transfer those lessons to their operations in Singapore. We hope to see SP continue to improve on the foundations that PUB handed to them. Secondly, in terms of the gearing, Mr Lee has asked about the impact of the borrowings on the bottom line. Sir, when we corporatised SP and SP geared up to 30%, the Government actually provided SP with an interest-free loan of $1.7 billion, rather than requiring SP to go out into the commercial market to borrow. So in actual fact, the interest-free loan of $1.7 billion represents a subsidy of over $100 million a year to SP.

Sir, can the Minister enlighten the House whether or not the Government plans to continue to extend the interest-free loan to SP or whether this is an interim measure and, if so, for how long?

Sir, this is an interim measure. The Government will extend the interest-free loan to SP for a few years. SP is still in the process of finalising their accounts and their accounts will be ready in a few months' time and we will know the actual picture. Over the next few years, as SP's operations are consolidated, and as the figures become more readily available, we will review whether we need to continue giving the interest-free loan.

Is the Minister aware that the vast majority of Singaporeans would prefer to keep the old structure of PUB where they pay lower tariffs as opposed to paying higher tariffs to Singapore Power so that Singapore Power can be attractively profitable and it could then go on to pay good dividends to shareholders, some of whom may not even be Singaporeans? If this is so, what justification is there to list Singapore Power and what are the advantages to the Singaporean?

Sir, now that we have corporatised SP and the full data are available, I think it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that the tariffs are correctly priced in order to obtain a reasonable return on this very crucial infrastructure. So whether or not we privatise SP, SP would need to raise its tariffs to obtain a reasonable rate of return. In terms of the privatisation programme, that is a separate matter. As I mentioned just now, the tariffs will have to be correctly set regardless of this privatisation programme. But the main reason for privatisation is to enable Singaporeans to have a direct stake in the economy. This is part of the asset enhancement programme of the Government. We will decide on the privatisation of SP in the coming years.

Sir, the Minister has said that the Government has given SP an interest-free loan. If we were to impute the interest cost into SP, will we still be operating a profitable or loss-making entity?

With the interest-free loan of $1.7 billion, the return on equity for SP is 7.6%, based on the figures that we currently have. If SP had to borrow, at prime rate, this sum of $1.7 billion, its return on equity will go down to 6.4%. SP will still be profitable. It is just that the return would be lower.

Sir, the employees have transferred their gratuity to Singapore Power as a result of the restructuring. With the delay in listing, what will happen to their gratuity? And will there be retrenchment in Singapore Power's bid to want to be efficient? If there is retrenchment, will the retrenchment benefits be calculated to include the service of the employees since the PUB days?

Sir, the gratuity which has been agreed upon will remain. On the question of retrenchments, I have not heard of any plans to retrench. What SP intends to do is to consolidate the operations and to make sure that the existing staff are deployed meaningfully.

Just now the Minister mentioned about reasonable return on capital investment, and whether or not it is going to be privatised, the increases in tariffs are inevitable. That is what I understand. The question now is: who is the return for - the 12%-14% increases that the Minister proposed over the next three years? Is it for the Government?

Sir, the proposed increase of 12% to 14% over the next three to four years will result in SP having a return on equity of 10% to 11%. Who owns SP? At the present moment, the SP shares are owned by the Government and this represents assets of the people. Why should we ensure that electricity tariffs are set properly? The main reason is that electricity is consumption. It is better that we price electricity properly and let the people and companies decide on how much to use. For example, if a company wishes to have its building lit up like a Christmas tree the whole day, and is prepared to pay the price, so be it, because it is paying the economic price. If companies feel that they want to save on power, then they can decide to light up for a shorter number of hours. And similarly at home, whether to leave the lights on the whole night or to switch them off when they go out for dinner. This is a decision which is within the capability of each of us to make. So once it is priced properly, we leave the decision to you, because at the end of the day we have not just to import all the fuel but the cost of building new stations is also very, very high. A new power station now costs billions of dollars. So it is better that we price properly and encourage Singaporeans to use electricity efficiently so that we do not have to incur any more expenses than we need to.

Sir, I suppose I was right to say that the return right now is for the Government's investment, and not whether or not SP is going to be privatised. The next supplementary question is this. Based on the Minister's answer about tariff, is he saying that electricity tariff in the past was not set properly? And if it is so, why? And when did he discover that it was not set properly?

Sir, it is not that the tariffs were not set properly. The tariffs in the past were set based on the accounting system that PUB had. And based on that accounting system, PUB appeared to be making very reasonable returns. What was the old accounting system? In earlier years PUB had to borrow from the World Bank. As a World Bank borrower, the World Bank imposes on the borrower the requirement that the borrower must use the World Bank's system of accounting. This is so that all the borrowers have the same system. The World Bank's system, like most public sector systems, was a simpler system of accounting and which did not take into account the working capital and operating capital needs of a company. So when SP was corporatised, and SP used the normal commercial accounting system and standards, all these other operating costs were then captured. And these are real operating costs because the working capital of the company can be very significant. We have to price that capital into it. When SP was corporatised, all these figures came to light, and that was when we realised that the old set of tariffs was based on a different accounting requirement and therefore we should use what is the normal accounting system now, which is being applied to all the statutory boards and all private sector companies.

Is the Minister saying that in the past, the operating cost of PUB was not taken into account in the accounting system?

Yes, in the past, under the World Bank's accounting system, for example, work-in-progress was not taken into consideration. And as you know, it now costs about a billion dollars to build a power station. So from the time you start to the time you finish, all those requirements were not captured in PUB's accounts. But under the normal accounting system, all these costs - work-in-progress and working capital - have to be in the accounts. Is the World Bank's system wrong? I do not think so. It is an accounting system which is required by the World Bank and which measures a certain level of capital needs. I think what we failed to recognise was that the World Bank's accounting system was a very simplified form of accounting system. If it had realised that, then PUB would have, I think, moved away from the World Bank's system much earlier.

Two supplementary questions, Sir. Firstly, do we owe any more money to the World Bank where Singapore Power is concerned? And secondly, if Singapore Power were not privatised, what would the Minister consider to be a reasonable return on equity?

The answer to her first question is no, PUB does not owe any more money to the World Bank and therefore we could have moved away from the World Bank's accounting system earlier. Secondly, if SP were not privatised, what would be a reasonable rate of return? A 10%-11% rate of return would be reasonable. In fact, that is close to what PUB was obtaining when it was using the World Bank's system of accounting.

The Minister was saying earlier that even after accounting for the interest cost, SP will achieve a 6%-plus return, and he mentioned that a 12%-plus return is even more justifiable. But compared to, say, the case of SBS that obtained listing and aimed for 8% return, why not go for a lower percentage like 8%, rather than going for a higher 12% return? Because in the end, if you are going for a higher return just for the sake of getting a listing, then is it worth it? Should we go for a listing for a higher return?

Sir, I did not say 12% return. I said, 10% to 11% return, lower than what SBS is earning today, and lower than what all the other utility companies are earning today.

Sir, I refer to the Charts distributed by the Minister. The productivity indicators show that the productivity of countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand is much lower than Singapore, whereas in terms of average tariffs charged by regional power companies, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia are able to charge lower tariffs than Singapore Power. Why is this so?

Sir, two reasons. Firstly, wages and land cost are lower. Secondly, their energy costs are also lower, because these are all energy producers as well.

Sir, the Minister said that SP intends to maintain the 10% to 11% rate of return under the new accounting system. What is the expected percentage increase of the tariffs if it intends to maintain the 10% to 11% of return?

Sir, as I mentioned just now, SP would need to raise its tariffs by 12% to 14% over the next three to four years. I think what Members may also be interested in is to have a picture of what such increases translate into at the individual level. A 5% increase in tariff - we are saying 12% to 14% over three to four years - would mean that the tariff will increase by about 3% to 5% per year. What will the 5% increase in tariff translate into at the household level? For a 3-room flat, a 5% increase in electricity tariff will translate into a bill size increase of $1.40 per month. For a 5-room flat, the 5% tariff increase will translate into $2.20 increase in the SP bill size per month. And for private housing, since they use more electricity, the private households would incur an increase in bill size of $5.30 per month.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether SP has plans to build new power plants. If so, how many new plants will be built and where will they be built?

Sir, the Government has under construction at this present moment a new power plant in Tuas. This new power plant would have a generating capacity of 1.2 gigawatts or 1,200 megawatts of electricity and the investment would be in the region of about $1.8 billion for the plant. The plant would be ready and operational in the year 1999.

Sir, just now the Minister said that because the cost of other countries is lower than ours, that is why they can afford to charge lower tariff. But please refer to Chart 5 where it is shown that Indonesia's cost per unit produced and distributed, compared to Singapore, is only less than a cent lower. And their loss as percentage of units generated is 14%, compared to 9.2% for Singapore Power. Whereas the tariff charged by Singapore Power, compared to Indonesia, is more than 3 cents. Would the Minister explain that?

Can he repeat that again?

In Chart 5, Indonesia charges 7.36 cents per unit (that is the cost per unit); Singapore Power, 8.04 cents. The difference is less than a cent. In Chart 6, under "Losses as Percentage of Units Generated", Indonesia, 14%, compared to Singapore Power, 9.2%. And in Chart 12, Indonesia charges 9.77 cents while Singapore Power charges 12.37 cents.

Sir, there is a chart which is not available here, and that is, the return on equity of the regional companies. It shows that the rate of return for the Indonesian utility companies is extremely low.

Will there be a tax on electricity consumption when SP is finally listed?

There is a 10% tax on SP bills?

Yes.

Whatever the present figure is, it will still remain.

That means there will still be a tax on electricity.

Yes. Whatever tax there is now on utility bills will remain unchanged when SP is privatised.

What is the purpose of a tax then? Is it to cover the present tariffs which are not properly worked out? Or is it really for consumption? As the Minister has said, anybody can use any amount of light they like as long as they can pay. An hon. Member: You pay more.

Yes. But is the tax to cover for the losses which PUB would have made if the tariffs were properly priced?

Sir, this tax on utility bills goes to the Government. If Mr Chiam were to refer back to the time when the tax was first implemented, the tax is meant to encourage conservation, since utilities are the biggest users of fuel oil.

asked the Minister for Communications whether the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit Pte Ltd has published its financial statement and annual report.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit Pte Ltd (SMRT) is not a publicly listed company, it is not required to publish its annual report and financial statements for public information. However, it is the practice of SMRT to release its financial results to the press after the end of each financial year, covering the period from April to March the following year.

Sir, does the SMRT release the whole set of the financial accounts or is it released in the form of only a press statement?

Sir, the financial results are contained in the annual report and copies of the annual report are circulated widely, including, I believe, grassroots advisers as well as all statutory boards. Of course, copies are available in the libraries.

Is SMRT Pte Ltd part of Government's investment or is it solely owned by private individuals?

The shareholders of SMRT at the moment are 100% Government.

Since it is 100% Government-owned and according to the annual report of MRTC it is an investment, why were the accounts not incorporated into the MRTC's annual report?

Sir, I am not quite familiar with what the Member is driving at but MRTC, if I hear the Member correctly, was actually a statutory board. SMRT, on the other hand, is a company that has been set up to run the mass rapid transit system. The two entities are quite separate and distinct. SMRT, which is the subject of the Member's question in this case, is a public company but not listed at the moment and therefore it has to comply with all the rules and regulations pertaining thereto. It publishes an annual report and all the financial statements that are required under the law are contained in that report.

Should MRTC, which is solely owned by the Government as the Minister has said, be considered as a subsidiary of the Government?

The Member has got the wrong information. MRTC was a statutory board until recently when it was ---

SMRT.

SMRT is a company. MRTC was actually a statutory board. So there is really no reason why the SMRT accounts should be contained in MRTC's report.

Is the investment of SMRT through the MRTC which holds a special rights share?

No, Sir. The MRTC is not the shareholder of SMRT. The shareholder of SMRT is actually the Government, mainly through Temasek Holdings.

Since the shareholder is the Government, where is the investment reflected in the Government's financial report, if it is not MRTC?

As I said earlier, the shareholder of SMRT is Temasek Holdings.

Can I take it that it should be reflected in Temasek Holdings' report?

It should be reflected in the report of Temasek Holdings in the same way that Temasek's other investments in other companies, such as SIA, etc. are reflected.

Does SMRT lodge its report with the Registry of Companies and Businesses (RCB)?

As the SMRT publishes an annual report and the annual report contains financial statements, the answer is that if the RCB requires such reports, then the SMRT will comply.

Since SMRT is of importance to the public because it operates the public transportation system, would the Minister require the SMRT to submit its report to Parliament as well?

I do not know what the Member is driving at. As I said earlier, the SMRT, as a company, publishes an annual report. Copies of the annual report are available to Members of Parliament, all Government statutory boards and, in fact, to any member of the public who wishes to get a copy of it. It is publicly available. There is nothing that the SMRT wishes to hide and those reports are available to the Member himself if he so wishes. There is no question of the SMRT making extra efforts to publish its report. All the requirements of a company are complied with by the SMRT and copies of the report are available.

asked the Minister for Communications why the announcement of the stations and details of the North-East MRT Line has been delayed.

Sir, on 19th January 1996, I informed Parliament that Cabinet has decided to proceed to build the North-East MRT line immediately. I had then said that further details will be announced in due course. Presently, the Land Transport Authority is still finalising these details in conjunction with other relevant agencies. This is a major project, there are many planning and technical issues to resolve. An announcement will be made as soon as these issues have been settled, which is expected to be within the next few weeks.

Sir, what are the technical issues or other issues which the Minister mentioned had to be resolved? The second supplementary question is: is it true that the SMRT was scheduled to make the announcement before the Chinese New Year?

In planning for a new rail line, there are many land use planning issues that have to be settled. There are many land acquisition issues that have to be settled. These are issues which will have to involve many different Government agencies and as a result of this it is not wise for us to rush the relevant agencies when they finally make their recommendations. In so far as the second question is concerned, I am not aware of what the Member has said.

Would the Minister confirm that the details will be released within the next two weeks?

Sir, the details will be released as soon as they are finalised. As I said in my answer just now, I expect them to be finalised within the next few weeks.

When will it be announced? I suppose the details will include the stations. Am I right?

I thought I made it quite clear that it will be announced as soon as the details are finalised.

asked the Minister for Communications whether he will consider introducing legislation to amend the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act and other relevant laws to allow the Land Transport Authority to develop land above or near MRT stations.

Sir, section 6 of the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act spells out the functions and duties of the Land Transport Authority. In addition, it provides for the Authority to undertake such other functions as the Minister may assign to it. The Government can decide whether to allow the Authority to develop land above or near MRT stations under this section of the LTA Act.

Sir, is the redevelopment at the bus interchange near the Toa Payoh MRT station undertaken by the LTA?

Sir, the redevelopment of land around bus interchanges at the moment is undertaken as part of a comprehensive redevelopment scheme carried out primarily by the HDB in conjunction with other relevant agencies.

The Minister has said that section 6 of the LTA Act covers areas in which the Minister will assign to the LTA. But does the Minister agree with me that such provisions are too wide? Would it not be necessary to have an amendment to specifically say that the LTA has the authority to develop land near or at MRT stations? At present, if there is any development, it will probably be done by the HDB.

Sir, it is not necessary for the LTA to develop every single piece of land around every MRT station. Neither is it wise to do so, because obviously the expertise that is vested in the LTA is not primarily concerned with land development. There are many other agencies in Singapore which are probably better placed, including the private sector. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to specifically require the LTA under the Act to develop land around the stations. Nevertheless, we recognise that the LTA has a useful role to play in this regard. And this is why the Act has been worded in such a way that it does not exclude the LTA from performing this function if we feel that it is advantageous for the LTA to do so, rather than making the Act narrow. By making it more flexible, we are able to make use of LTA's expertise as and when it is necessary.

If the LTA is allowed to develop land at or near MRT stations intensively, would the Minister not agree with me that, in fact, massive profits will be made from the development of land, especially if it is intensive development of land? Would the Minister allow the LTA to use the profits to keep MRT fares low, in particular, the new MRT stations on the North-East line.

Sir the financing of the MRT lines is something that we debated in Parliament earlier. I think it was made very clear at that time that the Government is prepared to pay for the MRT lines, including the North-East line. The financing of these MRT lines would then have to come from the Consolidated Fund. In the course of the development of MRT lines, it is prudent for the Government, where possible, to intensify development around MRT stations. When I say "where possible", what I mean is that it is not possible for us to immediately overnight redevelop every single piece of land around MRT stations. There has got to be some phasing. There has got to be some planning involved in it. And these decisions are taken by agencies other than the LTA. What the LTA is charged to do is to study and look into the feasibility of possible MRT extensions, and now LRT extensions as well, to make a recommendation to Government whether or not this is a feasible or viable project. It is not in the business of developing or redeveloping land around MRT stations. But having said that, we do recognise that, in some instances, there may be a role for the LTA to play. These instances are primarily where there are technical or engineering difficulties involved in building around the station. Because LTA is the builder of the MRT lines, it is prudent for us, in some cases, to actually involve the LTA in the redevelopment around some of these stations which require a little bit more inputs from the original builder of the stations. This is where the LTA's expertise comes in and this is where we would involve the LTA in the redevelopment. Apart from that, we should leave the redevelopment of land to the people who are better placed, in other words, planning agencies like URA, development agencies like HDB and, as I said earlier, the private sector.

Sir, I have two supplementary questions to follow up from what the Minister has just said. One, would the Minister not agree with me that if the LTA is allowed to source for new funds through the development of property at or near MRT stations, it would have more income other than running the MRT lines? And it can use this income or profits to keep the fares down. This is one way. As it is, the Minister has said that the commuters of the North-East line are going to pay higher fares. Because for the next four years after development, the SMRT is going to lose money. So if new funds are coming in from the development of land, then the fares could be kept down. This is one question. The other matter is that there is already redevelopment around the Toa Payoh MRT station and I think the Minister is probably looking for other sites where intensive developments can be carried out. Can the Minister tell us which are the possible existing MRT stations where such intensive development could be carried out?

Sir, let me take the second question first. The comprehensive redevelopment around the current Toa Payoh MRT station is undertaken, as I said, by the HDB in conjunction with other relevant agencies. Whether such redevelopments can take place around other MRT stations is a question for the Ministry of National Development to address. It will have to take into consideration many other issues including, I suspect, the overall redevelopment plans for Singapore. In so far as the lowering of MRT fares by ploughing back revenues from redevelopment is concerned, I think the two are quite separate matters. We have, in the course of our discussions on the MRT lines, made it very clear that the users of the MRT are not going to pay for the capital cost. In fact, all the capital cost will be borne by Government. But the commuters will have to pay for the replacement cost of the trains as well as the running cost of the line including manpower cost, electricity cost and so on. So the question of ploughing back revenues from redevelopment around MRT stations does not arise. In other words, we have not factored in the cost of building the MRT. We have not factored in the depreciation of the viaducts, etc, into the running cost. What we have done is only to include the direct operating cost as well as the capital cost of the first set of trains. What the Government is doing is to only assess the overall viability of the project, whether it is worthwhile, whether it brings benefits to the people in the region that the MRT serves, as well as whether the people are prepared to pay fares that will cover the running cost. In fact, the running cost for the North-South-East-West line, the Woodlands line and the North-East line in future is sufficient only to cover the direct operating cost as well as the cost of replacement of trains. It does not cover the capital cost of building the system. It does not cover the amortisation of building the MRT line. If, for example, we were to ask a private operator to build the system and it has to recover the direct operating cost as well as the capital cost of building, then it is an entirely different matter. But as it stands at the moment, Government policy is to pay for the total cost of the system, $5 billion in the case of the North-East line. If we were to amortise $5 billion and include it in the cost of the fares, I think the whole project would be a non-starter, because the fares would be so high. The Government has not done that and this is the reason why fares are kept at the affordable levels that they are today. The reason why the North-East line fares will be slightly higher is, as I have explained many times, because the operating cost as well as the projected ridership does not make the line viable at the current fares. That is all. But if we consider the additional fares that are required of the commuters of the North-East line in future, it is insignificant compared to the overall cost of building the line. So the Member is quite wrong in assuming that if any part of the redevelopment funds goes to the LTA it will be able to lower the fares. The fares are already low under the financing regime that we have adopted. Therefore, the proposal that the Member has raised is not workable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think the Minister should have a policy that is so rigid. The present policy is that the Government will pay for the capital cost and the replacement and running costs will be the resonsibility of the MRTC. Of course, the capital cost is very high - $5 billion, as the Minister has said.

Order. Mr Chiam, this is not a debate. Could you ask your question? We have to proceed as we have other Questions.

Sir, I am coming to my question. I think the Government should have a more flexible policy. Would the Government allow the LTA to develop land near MRT stations so that it could have more revenues and source for more funds, not to pay for the capital cost but to pay for the running cost, as the Minister has said that the North-East line would be losing money for the next four years? What is wrong with changing the policy a bit and allow land to be developed? The LTA would get more income and cover up for the losses in the running cost. We leave the capital cost aside. Is the Minister willing to do that? In fact, I believe this is done in Hong Kong. I stand corrected. I believe that this question is a follow up from the last debate when it was mentioned that in Hong Kong, laws were made to allow the company there to develop land, obviously to recover some running cost and capital cost.

Sir, the Member has taken part of the Hong Kong example and tried to extrapolate to Singapore. Let me explain what happens in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, the MTR, the company which runs the mass rapid transit rail system, also develops land and revenues accrue to the company. But that company also pays for the capital cost of building the system. It does not have sufficient revenues from the redevelopment proceeds. So what it does is that it goes out and borrows money to build the system. This is an alternative model. We have decided not to follow the Hong Kong model because it has got other implications. But you cannot take part of the Hong Kong model and apply it to Singapore. In Singapore, what we have done is for the Government to undertake to build the whole system. If we want to follow the Hong Kong model and we allow the company to redevelop land around the MRT stations and to keep the proceeds, then we must also require that the company pay for the total cost of building the system. In other words, pay $5 billion. If you do not have enough, go out and borrow, which is what Hong Kong has done. Is this a better model? We do not think so. But we cannot be taking part of the Hong Kong model and apply it to the Singapore model and say, "Government pays for the total cost of building the system but, at the same time, you allow the company that is running it to redevelop land and keep the proceeds." You cannot have the cake and eat it!

First, developing land near MRT stations by the LTA is not to keep the profits, but to keep the fares down. The Minister has said that after developing the North-East line, it will be making a loss for the next four years at, I believe, $250 million a year. If there is development of land by the LTA, such profits can be used to cover the $250 million loss, so that commuters need not bear the brunt of higher fares. At the same time, there will be development of good high-rise buildings. Does the Minister agree with me that this is a good scheme to make sure that fares are kept down? In fact, from what the Minister has said about the Hong Kong case, they can even pay for the capital cost. I think it will be easier if the LTA develops land just to pay for the running cost. Should the Minister not consider this proposal?

Sir, if we adopt the Hong Kong model, let me say that the fares for the MRT system will not be lower than what they are today. In fact, I dare say that they will be higher because there will be additional cost involved and also there will be borrowings that would be required of the company. We have structured the financing of the MRT line by having two components - capital cost and running cost. Government undertakes to bear the capital cost. We will build but, at the same time, the Government will keep the proceeds from redevelopment of land. Commuters and the company running it will undertake to pay for the operating cost. This is the way that we have structured the financing. The Member says no, we should now take some of the money from the development of land and use it to subsidise the operating cost. As I have explained, this is not how Hong Kong does it. What Hong Kong does is to put the two together into one, ie, undertake to build as well as to run the system. If we want to follow the Hong Kong model, we can. What the Member is proposing is to take part of the Hong Kong model and part of the Singapore model, but the answer is that it is not a prudent way to do things because it opens up all the problems that we have highlighted earlier. In other words, by not covering the operating cost, we actually do not know whether we are building a line that is needed or not. You do not know because you are subsidising the running cost of the line and there is going to be no end to such lines. Therefore, the acid test of whether a line is viable or not is really whether the line is able to meet its operating cost. We have gone through this debate many times. We have used this same acid test for the existing lines as well as for the new lines, the North-east line as well as future lines. If what the Member proposes is to change this formula, then I think we can reopen the debate that we had when we debated the White Paper on a World-Class Land Transport System. But we cannot be taking part of what Hong Kong is doing and bring it to Singapore and say, "Look, this is what Hong Kong is doing." I think that is looking at it from a very narrow point of view. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Chiam, I suggest that if you want to pursue this point further, you raise it in the coming Committee of Supply and you can have a debate on it. Do you have any new questions to ask?

Does the Minister agree with me that no model is sacrosanct? It does not mean that we have to apply the Hong Kong model or the Singapore model.

Mr Chiam, do you have any questions?

Are there any plans to have intensive developments near or at future stations along the North-East line? If so, which are the stations?

Sir, I am not in a position at this stage to answer that question. I think this is all part and parcel of the study that is going on in relation to the North-East line. It is better for me to hold my answer on this question until such time as the agencies have finalised the details of the North-East line. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

I think you have taken enough time on this question. We have many other questions. 1.30 pm [After Question No. 2]

Order. End of Question time. [Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Question Nos. 6 to 12 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 11th March, 1996.]

"to amend the Housing and Development Act (Chapter 129 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Matthias Yao Chih); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Commercial and Industrial Security Corporation (CISCO) Act was enacted in July 1972 to establish CISCO. Its objective was to take over from the Singapore Police Force the function of providing security services and armed guards to banks and other commercial and industrial establishments. Since then, the Act was amended in 1973 and 1976 in respect of the provisions concerning financial procedures. This Bill seeks to amend the CISCO Act in three areas: (a) to widen the functions of the Corporation to enable it to assist the Singapore Police Force and other Government departments and statutory boards in the discharge of certain functions and duties; (b) to clarify the scope of the Corporation's legal powers; and (c) to refine the provisions relating to the administration of the Corporation, in particular, the status of its auxiliary police force. Main Amendments Widening the Corporation's functions and clarifying its powers Over the years, CISCO has advanced from providing armed guards to also providing other forms of security services. For example, it has been involved in the training of officers of the other auxiliary police forces (eg, the CIAS APF, SATS APF, CIS APF, Sentosa APF) at the CISCO Training School and staff of private security agencies. CISCO also provides security consultancy services and operates the central monitoring system for ex-drug addicts and criminal law supervisees placed under electronic supervision by the Prisons Department, Singapore Police Force and Central Narcotics Bureau. The Corporation has also gone into computer security and is now offering a range of computer security software packages for computer users, both in the Government and in the private sector. There is scope for the various enforcement agencies to delegate more of the functions to the Corporation, for example, police crowd control at major public events such as soccer matches and enforcement against illegal parking. Such duties do not require the officers to have the same level of training which regular police officers undergo. Given the limited manpower of the Police Force, it will be wasteful to deploy regular police officers for such duties. The Police should concentrate on its core functions of crime control and leave peripheral policing functions to CISCO. Some of the other functions which Police could delegate to the Corporation include issuing summons for illegal parking, enforcement against illegal betting at the Turf Club, execution of search warrants, enforcement of intellectual property rights, security checking at the Causeway and the issuing of driving licences. Clause 4 of the Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact section 7 to enlarge the existing functions of the Corporation by providing expressly in subsection (1)(c) that it is the function of the Corporation to assist the Singapore Police Force in the maintenance of law and order and any department of the Government and statutory board in the discharge of their duties and functions under any written law. The new paragraphs (j), (k), (l) of subsection (2) now specifically provide that the Corporation has the power (i) to provide training to persons employed for the provision of security services; (ii) to provide training of guard dogs and other animals for security-related operations; (iii) to supply, install and maintain security systems including fire safety and computer security systems; and (iv) to provide consultancy services in the area of security including fire safety and computer security. Overseas commercial activities, joint ventures and forming of subsidiaries Over the years, the Corporation has also acquired expertise in a wide range of security services for which there is an overseas market, eg, monitoring of central fire alarm systems and the provision of security consultancy services for buildings. To facilitate the Corporation's overseas commercial activities, it has formed subsidiaries and entered into joint ventures with foreign or Singapore companies, including investing in other companies. The Corporation intends to expand further its overseas commercial activities as part of Singapore's regionalisation effort. Currently, there is no specific provision for this in the Act. Clause 4 of the Bill seeks to re-enact section 7 by creating new paragraphs (g) and (h) to expressly provide CISCO with the legal powers to form or participate in the formation of a company or companies or to enter into a joint venture or partnership in Singapore or elsewhere and that it can subscribe to stocks, shares, bonds and debentures of a company. Similar provisions are also found in the Acts of a number of statutory boards. Control of Corporation by Minister In view of the expanded functions of the Corporation, clause 5 of the Bill seeks to create a new section 8A to empower the Minister to give such directions to the Corporation in the exercise and the performance of its functions. Under the new section 8A(2), the Corporation is also required to provide whatever information the Minister requires or to facilitate in providing such information to the Minister in relation to its functions and activities. Similar provisions are also found in the Acts governing other statutory boards, eg, PSA, URA, HDB and EDB. Protection of Corporation's name and logo As a statutory board with substantial commercial goodwill, it is important for the Corporation to enshrine into the Act adequate protection of its acronym "CISCO" and its logo. This is to prevent any misuse or tapping of its goodwill which it has accumulated over the years by other persons or organisations. Clause 9 of the Bill seeks to create a new section 22A to make it an offence for anyone to use the acronym "CISCO" or any of its symbol or representation without written permission. The penalty is a fine of not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months. Similar provisions are also found in the Acts of a number of other statutory boards (such as JTC, URA, PUB and HDB). Better control of uniformed personnel in the Corporation Currently, the Corporation derives its auxiliary police force status from section 73(1) of the Singapore Police Force Act. Section 73(1) provides that the Commissioner of Police, with the approval of the Minister, may authorise the creation of an auxiliary police force within the limits of any specified geographical area. An example of an auxiliary police force formed under this section is the PSA Police. However, CISCO uniformed officers are not confined in the operation to any specified geographical areas. They are deployed all over Singapore to support the Singapore Police Force. For this reason, it would be more appropriate to provide for the establishment of an auxiliary police force under the CISCO Act itself while still allowing the Commissioner of Police to have overall control over the CISCO auxiliary police force with regard to professional and disciplinary matters. Clause 7 of the Bill therefore seeks to repeal and re-enact section 12 to authorise the Corporation to set up an auxiliary police force for the purpose of carrying out its functions under the Act. The new section also makes provisions relating to the auxiliary police force and the appointment of a commandant of the auxiliary police force. The commandant will have disciplinary powers over the CISCO uniformed personnel subject to the overall control of the Commissioner of Police. Other Amendments Mr Speaker, Sir, we have also taken the opportunity to make a number of other minor amendments to the Act. Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to amend section 4(1) of the Act by repealing the proviso to remove the maximum number of persons which can be appointed to the Board of the Corporation. This will enable the Board to appoint more persons with the necessary expertise to help its regionalisation efforts. We have also proposed a number of amendments to bring the Act in line with the other statutory boards' laws, including those on financial procedures. Clause 6 seeks to repeal and re-enact section 9 to provide for the appointment of a chief executive officer to be known by such designation as the Corporation may determine. With regard to financial procedures, clause 8 seeks to repeal and re-enact section 22 to remove the deadline of 30th June of each year in which the Corporation must submit its financial report to Parliament. Clause 11 also seeks to amend the Schedule to the Act relating to financial procedures to introduce a new paragraph 2A to provide for the auditor to be an approved company auditor under the Companies Act before he can be appointed as an auditor of the Corporation. Furthermore, under the revised paragraph 6, the auditor will be allowed to submit his report direct to the Minister. The penalty for non-compliance with an auditor's request has also been enhanced from $500 to $1,000. These amendments will bring the practice in CISCO in line with the practices of other statutory boards. Finally, Sir, the proposed amendments are needed to improve the management of CISCO in its role in helping the Police and other law enforcement agencies, and to facilitate its future development expansion.

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." Sir, from time to time, the Ministry of Home Affairs reviews the laws under its purview to ensure that they serve current needs effectively. Hence, the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act was recently reviewed. Several provisions in the Act require updating. Sir, this Amendment Bill seeks to introduce changes in the following areas: First, it seeks to create three new offences. They are: (1) making nuisance or silent calls on public emergency telephone lines, ie, 999 or 995 calls; (2) using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards a person to provoke violence, cause fear, harassment, alarm or distress; and (3) appearing nude in public or exposed to public view. Secondly, it seeks to regard the offence of fortune telling and related practices as an offence only if such an act affects public order. Thirdly, the Bill seeks to refine certain provisions in the Act to enable more effective enforcement and to increase the penalties for certain offences to enhance their deterrent effect. New offence of making nuisance or silent calls to public emergency telephone lines Sir, let me first talk about the new offence of making nuisance or silent calls to public emergency telephone lines. Sir, the "999" emergency service line is meant for calls for immediate police assistance in emergencies. However, recent Police statistics show that about 75% of all 999 calls are nuisance, silent or obscene calls. A nuisance call is a telephone call to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass the emergency telephone line operator. Examples which Police have encountered include callers who whistled, laughed or giggled before hanging up the telephone or who spoke nonsensically, incoherently or mimicked the operator. Such calls substantially load or hog the emergency line at the expense of genuine callers who need quick access to the emergency service where every second counts. Some members of the public have complained to the Police that they cannot get through quickly enough to our "999" line. Let me quote you a real-life case of repeated nuisance calls. For six years, Police received countless nuisance calls from the same person. The person made a total of 1,326 calls to "999" in a matter of two weeks. Various measures were taken. Police sent a letter of advice, issued warnings, instituted investigations and even apprehended the person red-handed once while the person was calling "999" from a public telephone. The problem ceased only after the family replaced the house phone with a telephone with locking facilities. Sir, the Police has been dealing patiently with such false calls. They trace the calls and send advice and warning letters to the subscribers of the telephone lines. More than 500 advice letters and 200 warning letters are sent out each month. This is a waste of Police resources. This measure is over and above the many public exhortations to the public not to abuse emergency lines. Since 1989, we have on many occasions alerted the public to the situation, calling for greater restraint and supervision of children. In my speech when I launched a public campaign in March 1995, I said that if the situation remains unabated, more effective measures must be found. A year has passed. Unfortunately, the problem remains serious. The current situation is untenable. To let the House know the magnitude of the problem, let me cite some figures. In 1994, Police and SCDF received 173,588 nuisance calls, an average of 476 calls a day. In 1995, the figure rose to 178,430. Sir, the Police has identified three principal factors causing this unsatisfactory state of affairs. First, our current laws are an inadequate deterrent. We can only prosecute callers who make obscene calls or who transmit false information. Our laws do not cover nuisance and silent calls. Secondly, it is extremely difficult to nab culprits who call from public telephones. Thirdly, Police estimates that young children account for some 78% of nuisance calls. We do not want to prosecute young children if there are better ways to deter or discourage them. A better solution would be for their parents to control them. Sir, to deal with this problem more effectively, clause 8 of the Bill seeks to create new sections 14A, 14B and 14C. Under the new section 14A(1), it will be an offence for any person to make a telephone call to an emergency telephone number with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person who answers that call. An emergency telephone number has been defined as any number which has been gazetted as an emergency telephone number. For this purpose, police and civil defence emergency telephone numbers will be gazetted as emergency telephone numbers under this section. The penalty for making a nuisance call is a fine of up to $5,000 or one year's jail or both. Similarly, under section 14A(2), it is an offence for any person to make an obscene call to an emergency telephone number. The penalty is a fine of up to $10,000 or three years' jail or both. Under subsection (3), persons who use public telephones to make nuisance calls will be liable to a higher penalty of $10,000 fine or two years' jail or both. For obscene calls made from public telephones, the penalty is a fine of up to $20,000 or five years' jail or both. The higher penalties under section 14A(3) also take into account the fact that public telephones are public facilities, and that it is more difficult to apprehend the culprits. Under the new section 14B, a subscriber (other than subscribers of public telephones) whose telephone lines have been used to make such calls will also be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he had exercised due diligence to prevent these calls from being made. The penalty under this new section is a fine of up to $5,000. No imprisonment is prescribed. Let me assure parents that the Police will not adopt a blunderbuss approach. Two warnings will be issued prior to prosecution. Parents would therefore have been alerted to their children's wrongful acts. They should then exercise due diligence by taking appropriate actions to stop their children from continuing with these acts. They could, for example, firstly, closely supervise the telephone's usage, especially when young children are seen using the telephone. Secondly, educate their children on the importance of emergency numbers and the consequence of misuse. Thirdly, keep the telephone physically out of reach of small children who are too young to understand the gravity of their action. And, fourthly, use locking devices. There are two such devices in the market. The "Dial Stop 102" gadget can be used to prevent outgoing calls to "999". It comes either with or without an emergency sticker. Alternatively, the subscriber can use a telephone with locking facilities. A new section 14C will empower the Police to obtain from a person or organisation information regarding the particulars of the subscribers of the telephone lines. The penalty for non compliance with Police's request is a fine of up to $2,000 or six months' jail or both. The section also grants the custodian immunity from legal suit for such disclosure. This is necessary in respect of the unlisted telephone number service provided by Singapore Telecom. Currently, it would be a breach of contract for Singapore Telecom to disclose such information. New offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour to provoke violence or cause fear, harassment, alarm or distress. Sir, under the existing section 13(f), a person is guilty of an offence of abusive language or behaviour only if he intends to provoke a breach of the peace, ie, fighting or causing violence in public, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be caused Thus, section 13(f) deals with conduct that is likely to lead to unlawful violence. Mr Speaker, Sir, in practice, it is difficult to prove intention to provoke a breach of the peace under this section. For example, case law has decided that a person shouting at a police officer or an old lady currently cannot be convicted of the offence of abusive language under section 13(f) as the police officer or old lady cannot be provoked into committing a breach of the peace, ie, to fight with the person. We cannot therefore charge him under this provision. In the UK, where our public order law originates, this concept of breach of the peace under their Public Order Act 1986 has been replaced with the causing of fear or provocation of violence. I will elaborate on this later. To deal with this problem and to update our laws relating to public order, clause 6 of the Bill seeks to create four new sections 13A to 13D. Section 13A is modelled after section 4A of the UK Public Order Act and deals with the situation where a person uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any such sign to another person with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress to that person. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $5,000. Let me quote you a recent example reported in the New Paper. Installers from a window grille company used scare tactics such as talking loudly or using vulgarities to intimidate a poor housewife. They threatened her when she decided to change her mind over the installation of new window grilles. She was so shaken by the whole experience that she could not sleep well at night and worried for her children's safety. If this incident were to take place after this Bill is passed, the installers could be prosecuted under this new section. The new section 13B deals with a situation where a person uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or displays any such sign within the hearing of any person which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to that person. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $2,000. This section is based on section 5 of the UK Public Order Act which was introduced in the UK in 1986 to criminalise nuisance behaviour, both in public as well as in private property. It was intended to deal with minor acts of hooliganism and was aimed at protecting the elderly and the minorities in the UK from harassment. Although we do not have widespread problems of this nature in Singapore, it is necessary to update our law on public order to empower the Police to take action should such a situation arise. A new section 13C will replace the existing section 13(f) of the Act. It deals with threatening, abusive or insulting words that are likely to be taken as a prelude to violence by the victim. The penalty for this offence is a fine not exceeding $2,000. This section is modelled after section 4 of the UK Public Order Act which, I have briefly mentioned earlier, was enacted in the UK to remove the problems caused by proving breach of peace. The new section 13C obviates the need to prove likelihood of a violent reaction to the threatening words. All that is required is a likelihood of the victim fearing that violence or threat of violence will occur. Thus an offence under this section will be committed even if the victim is unable or unlikely to react with violence, eg, in the case of the old lady which I mentioned. Sir, to protect a police officer or other public servant from being abused or threatened, the new section 13D makes it an offence for any person to use threatening, abusive, insulting words or signs at a public servant carrying out his duty. To reflect the seriousness of this offence, the penalty is set at $5,000 fine or one year's jail. New offence of appearing nude in public view. Members of the House may recall the strong public sentiments over a case of a couple who was seen nude in their Yishun Town flat. Although one has a right to privacy in one's home, this should not, however, be at the expense of public decency such as nude exposure. This is especially so in the context of our public housing. With an increasing number of Singaporeans living in close quarters in high-rise buildings, such behaviour must be checked. We must maintain a certain level of public morality and behaviour. The purpose of this section is therefore to protect the morality and dignity of neighbouring residents and passers-by. Clause 11 of the Bill seeks to create a new section 27A to make it an offence for any person to appear nude in a public place or in a private place which is exposed to public view. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $2,000 or three months' jail or both. To facilitate enforcement, the police officer is given the necessary power, including the use of force, to enter a private place to arrest such an offender under subsection (4). Here again, Sir, as in the case of abuse of emergency lines, Police will be judicious in invoking the provision. In most cases, Police would very likely be acting on complaints. Complaints are unlikely to be lodged unless the offensive acts are regular or blatant. To fine-tune the offence of fortune telling and the practice of related trades Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's law on fortune-telling as found in the Miscellaneous Offences Act originated from the Minor Offences Ordinance of 1906 which was based on the UK Vagrancy Act 1824. As worded, section 27(b) of the Act currently prohibits the telling of fortune, in all forms, including geomancy and palmistry. Such a prohibition is wider than intended. Geomancy, palmistry and astrology have been practised for many years and such a law would not be fully applicable. Our main concern here is that operators and practitioners, especially roadside operators, do not cause a public nuisance or under the guise of fortune telling, commit other offences such as cheating. Since 1985, there have been some 64 convictions involving itinerant fortune-tellers. As it is already an offence to use fortune telling and any subtle craft to deceive and impose on any person, clause 10 of the Bill seeks to amend section 27 to make it clear that section 27(b) applies only to those persons whose act of fortune telling causes or is likely to cause a public nuisance. Examples could be fortune-tellers setting up make-shift stalls in the public, especially in crowded places causing obstruction to human and vehicular traffic flows, or fortune-tellers touting their services to passers-by in public places and thereby causing annoyance. Other amendments The Bill also seeks to refine other provisions of the Act to facilitate enforcement. First, currently under section 14(2), Police is empowered to enter any private premises to remove any instrument that is used to create excessive noise. However, this section does not extend to the removal of the instrument from a public place. This is an anomaly. Therefore, clause 7 of the Bill seeks to amend section 14(2) to extend the power to deal more effectively with noise nuisance in a public place. It will enable police to stop any person in a public place from making excessive noise and to remove the instruments causing the noise should the need arise. Secondly, under the existing section 22(1)(a), it is an offence for a person to be armed with a dangerous or offensive instrument with intent to commit an offence This requires the prosecution to prove not only that the person is armed with a dangerous or offensive instrument but also that he intended to commit an offence with it. Unless the accused admits it, it is impossible to prove his intent. To overcome this problem so as to facilitate prosecution, clause 9 of the Bill seeks to create a new subsection (1A) to place on the accused the onus of proving that he has a lawful purpose to be armed with the dangerous or offensive instrument. Enhancement of penalties for certain offences Sir, I come now to the remaining amendments which are minor amendments. Clause 3, 4 and 5 seek to amend sections 9, 10(1) and 13. Sections 9 and 10 deal with dog owners who negligently permit their ferocious dog to be let loose without a muzzle or whose dogs cause injury to another person. Section 13 deals with persons whose acts cause an obstruction on public road. We are proposing to enhance the penalties for these offences from a maximum fine of $1,000 to $5,000. These amendments are necessary to maintain their deterrent effect. In particular, I wish to highlight section 10(1). Incidents of ferocious dogs attacking and causing injuries to innocent passers-by must be checked. The offence is a growing menace and is fairly prevalent. In 1993, there were 47 cases. In 1995, the number rose to 65 cases. The punishment for this offence must be enhanced to maintain its necessary deterrent effect. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. The new sections 13A and 13B are especially welcome as, amongst other things, they address the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace. And with your permission, Sir, may I distribute a survey form on sexual harassment to the Members, please. [Copies of document distributed to hon. Members]. Sexual harassment in the workplace is any form of unsolicited, uninvited, unreciprocated and unwelcome behaviour of an offensive and insulting nature which causes harassment, alarm or distress to another person. An Aware Survey of 1,600 women working in 56 selected companies in Singapore (done in 1993) showed that sexual harassment exists in the Singapore workplace and Members can see the table which shows the more serious forms of harassment encountered by the survey respondents. In all, 184 women, or 11% of the 1,600 women surveyed, reported some form of sexual harassment which caused them distress and anguish in the workplace. Cases of sexual harassment have also been reported to hotlines. To the extent that women's productivity can be improved and distress and anguish reduced if sexual harassment is controlled, greater efforts must be made to ascertain the extent of sexual harassment in the workplace. A more comprehensive survey should thus be made. Efforts to educate workers as to the nature of sexual harassment and the possible responses to it should also be intensified. Sir, I am therefore very glad that there is now a legal remedy for cases of sexual harassment in the workplace as provided by the new sections 13A and 13B. However, there is one area which has not been addressed in the amendments, and this refers to telephone harassment, not to an emergency telephone line, but where a person rings up a stranger, usually of the opposite sex, and makes lewd and obscene remarks. Some of these phone calls are made from public booths. What recourse do these victims have to this form of harassment or nuisance which causes distress and anguish? I would like a response from the Minister, please. Finally, Sir, I would like to suggest one further amendment to the main Act - Section 27(d), which reads as follows, and I quote: `... every person wilfully, openly, lewdly and obscenely exposing his person in any street, road or public highway, or in the view thereof, or in any place of public resort, with intent to insult any female ...'. Here, the word "female" should be changed to "person" because I am sure that with this offence of flashing, males would also feel insulted. I am sure every male Member of this House will feel insulted. Would the Minister please consider this amendment?

Sir, I thank Dr Kanwaljit Soin for supporting the Bill. Indeed she is right that all Singaporeans, not just females, I am sure, welcome these amendments. Sir, she makes three points. The first point that she has made is that she welcomes the provisions in section 13 and that it provides, in her mind, an outlet for those female workers who are subject to sexual harassment in the workplace. One point that I would like to raise first is that currently women who are subject to such harassment in the workplace is not entirely devoid of an avenue. I am sure Dr Soin is aware of section 509 of the Penal Code which is wide enough to cover a situation where a woman who feels that her modesty has been insulted can have recourse under that section. In so far as situations of harassment in the workplace are concerned, as she has mentioned, the provisions are very wide. And in so far as any situation may fall within section 13, then section 13 may provide an alternative route. The other point that Dr Soin mentioned is telephone harassment. Here again, Sir, section 509 is a section which is invoked under the law to prosecute persons who call the emergency lines and if the person receiving the call is a female, the obscene caller can be prosecuted under section 509. Here again, it is not as though there is no provision under which a person who is subject to telephone harassment cannot find recourse. The problem, as the Police tells me, of telephone harassment, not to an emergency line, is that it is a matter of proving. In an emergency line, everything is recorded. It is easy to trace. But if it is a private line, it is difficult to prove and track a person down and to discharge the burden of proof. She has suggested specific provisions to cover telephone harassment. This is a suggestion on her part and I would ask my officials to study it and consider her suggestion. The other amendment that she suggests is in fact not covered under the Bill. It is on another section, ie, section 27(d). Here again, she says why not widen the ambit so that not only females will be protected but also males as well. I would be careful to amend any provision which is designed to specifically protect females, particularly from sexual offences, lest in amending the section, the protection is diluted. But since the Member has raised it, here again I will ask my officials to study it and see whether there is indeed a need for such an amendment.

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.

Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, line 7, to leave out from "14A" to "be" in line 10, and to insert "and who knowingly permitted the commission of the said offence, shall". I have heard the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explain the rationale for new sections 14A to 14C and I have no quarrel with those sections. What bothers me is the width of new section 14B. If Members will look at section 14B, they will see that this is a provision that basically makes the subscriber responsible for what people do with their phone. Look at section 14B, which states: `Any person being the subscriber to a telephone service which has been used to commit an offence under section 14A shall, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court that he had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.' So all that has to be proven by the prosecution is that you are the subscriber of the service and that your phone has been used to commit an offence under section 14A. Then the burden shifts to you, the subscriber, to prove to the satisfaction of the court that you had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. May I ask hon. Members what steps do they normally take to prevent people using their phones to commit offences? Do you lock up your phone as a matter of course? Do you monitor the usage of your phone by your house guests? If you have parents staying with you, do you watch what they do and listen in on the extension? What about your maid? Is your maid incapacitated while you go out? What is meant by "due diligence"? May I say, Sir, that most people leave the phone alone when they go out, and they have no idea what people in the house do with the phone while they are out. You are putting a burden on subscribers to prove that they have taken steps to prevent a commission of the offence. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Police will not take a blunderbuss approach. We are all glad of that, no doubt. But that is not built into the law. If the section had said that the subscriber is guilty of an offence after an offence is committed when he has been given two written warnings, then I would have no trouble with this at all, because he has got two written warnings. Then he can take due diligence. Right now, nothing is said about prior warning, nothing is said about prior conviction. Nothing. You are the subscriber, you have to show due diligence. Most people take no steps. No steps cannot be "due diligence". Therefore, if you are a subscriber, and you have taken no steps to prevent a commission of an offence, and God forbid, somebody does commit an offence with your phone, technically you are guilty. Now, may I say, Sir, that as a matter of drafting technique, it is unwise, and I think undesirable, to draft the section so wide that everybody commits an offence, and the Police decide who to prosecute. This is a driftnet. It is a legal equivalent of a driftnet. You put it out 200 miles into the ocean, and catch everything, and then decide which fish you want, which fish you throw back. That as a drafting technique, I would say, should not be adopted. Hence, my suggestion is that we amend section 14B so that only those who knowingly permit the commission of the said offence will be guilty of an offence. If this is unacceptable to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, may I suggest that he propose some amendment so that there is a built-in warning mechanism so that people are not guilty of an offence without prior warning, and therefore have to depend upon whether the Police are going to be reasonable or not reasonable in prosecution.

Sir, I would like to add my view on this point. I do not understand why Prof. Woon mentioned about a driftnet. I am not a lawyer, but if you were to listen to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's speech carefully, 78% of the calls are from children. And therefore it is important for us to make sure that the parents are responsible for it, and they take the necessary preventive measure. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary has already assured the House that ample notice will be given to the parents, in particular, who are the telephone subscribers. Therefore, I do not think that Prof. Woon should make use of the legal terminology "driftnet", as far as this particular amendment is concerned. I support and agree that this approach will ensure that responsible parents control their children so that they do not make crank calls or nuisance calls, thereby making the Police ineffective and unproductive.

Sir, I am sure Prof. Woon is well-meaning in his suggestion. But I think we should look at things in perspective. We have to make it such that the situation will improve. We have all these years been going on public education. However, the situation remains bad and it is untenable. The most practical way, therefore, is to put the burden on the person who has control of the instrument to take reasonable steps to ensure that the lines are not abused. I think a corollary would be the approach we took when we made contractors responsible for the security measures in their workplace, because they are the best people to take the necessary measures. Currently, in fact, Police does not take a blunderbuss approach. So it cannot be that when we enact a law like that, we are going to make it even tougher all-round. The penalty will be tougher, yes, but we will continue with the warnings. After two warnings are given, the due diligence part will be looked at from the viewpoint of what you have done or not done after the warnings have been given to you. And if despite the warnings, calls are still continued, then I think for the sake of all Singaporeans who are delayed in making emergency calls, these amendments are needed. The other point is that once we make nuisance calls an offence under the law, a parent or a subscriber who knowingly permits his phone to be used for such a call will be guilty of abetment. I am sure Prof. Woon agrees. Therefore, if we take his amendment, it adds no additional teeth to the law. It is a restatement of the current position but in a different way. Therefore, to arrest this trend, and to make sure the situation improves, I would urge him to re-think, and withdraw his amendment and for the House to agree that indeed the steps that are being suggested in the Bill are reasonable steps.

With regard to Mr Choo's point, I think he has missed it entirely. It is not just children we are worried about. Anybody could go into your house and use your phone. It could be your maid. It could be your parents. It could be a lodger. It could be a house guest. Anybody. Are we going to turn ourselves into something that George Orwell did not envisage in 1984 - a nation of big brother overlooking the phone? This is the point. As a matter of drafting philosophy, what the Senior Parliamentary Secretary says here is fine, if only they would put it in the law. Why can they not put it in the law? Why must the law be drafted so wide that the offence is automatic and the Police have the discretion whether to prosecute or not. As a citizen, I feel very uncomfortable with laws that wide. Because that means it is not the courts that decide any more, it is the Police that decide whether you are going to be prosecuted and convicted. As far as the point on abetment is concerned, may I correct, with respect, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. You are guilty of abetment if you instigate or if you assist. "Knowingly permit" is not abetment. It was not when I last looked at it. I do not know whether that has been changed in the meantime. So, I would say, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I would say to Members of this House, that if we let this through, that is fine, if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's assurance on warnings can be written in. Otherwise, we set a very unfortunate precedent where you got a law that is so wide that once an offence is committed, there is really no defence. If they choose to prosecute you for whatever reason, it is practically impossible to defend yourself unless you are paranoid and lock up your phone beforehand. Amendment negatived. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 -

Sir, I beg to move, (1) In page 7, line 32, after "who", to insert "intentionally". The first amendment that I am proposing to section 27A is self-explanatory. As it stands, section 27A merely says that "Any person who appears nude ... shall be guilty of an offence ...". If these were Victorian times, the mere appearance "nude" might revolt people's sensibilities. But we are 90 years removed from Queen Victoria, and the question of whether or not just the sight of a nude body is so disgusting that we have to criminalise it becomes an issue. If you do not have the word "intentionally", you are going to have arguments in courts between lawyers as to whether or not this is strict liability or not strict liability. Remember that apart from prosecution which is brought by the Police and by the prosecutors, there are things called private prosecutions. Do we want to open the door to this kind of situation where some prudish prim busybodies have seen a nude body and are so revolted and try to bring a private prosecution because they cannot stand the sight of nudity? So to make things clear, I have proposed that we insert the word "intentionally" in the first line of section 27A. The person only commits an offence if he intentionally appears nude. That cuts out all the problems of those who accidentally appear nude or do not intend to expose themselves. The problem of proving intention is one that the courts are well capable of handling. The laws are full of sections that require intention and prosecutors have thus far no problem of proving intention even in serious crimes like murder. I do not think it is beyond the wits of our public prosecutors to prove intention in something like appearing nude.

Sir, I find that the proposed amendment by Prof. Woon to add the word "intentionally" before the phrase "appears nude" quite problematic. First of all, Sir, I cannot understand how a person can unintentionally appear nude. Can a person take off his clothes when he has no intention to do so? Not unless this person is sleepwalking or is unconscious and being stripped off by someone. But, I think, Sir, this provision actually seeks to protect the public from the embarrassment and harm that can be caused, especially to children, by the sight of a naked human body parading around in his own apartment. The case cited by Prof. Ho, which was widely publicised, is indeed a very good point. When it comes down to protecting public morals and decency, especially those of our children's, I agree that we should take a strong stand. I am happy that Prof. Ho has assured the House that the Police will not take a blunderbuss approach. I think ample notice and warnings will be given to the so-called telephone subscribers and people who appear nude. I am sure sufficient notice and warnings will be given to them. Prof. Ho has actually assured the House. I do not think it is necessary for Prof. Woon to ask the House to consider adding the word "intentionally" just before the phrase "appears nude".

Sir, I would like to thank Mr Choo for his comments. He has mentioned the key point in my speech where I have mentioned that the Police will not take a blunderbuss approach. The intent behind this provision is to ensure that those who are exhibitionists, those who are regular, persistent or blatant, there will be in the law a tool by which Police can hit at them. I think the Yishun case brings up very clearly that Police should not be made to stand helplessly by, not being able to do anything, especially where public morals and decency are involved. Given the fact that we live very closely to one another, and I am sure our children will live even more closely to one another, this provision is necessary. Quite apart from the conceptual point that Mr Choo raised, ie, whether a person can really be nude unintentionally, from a practical point of view, if we insert the word suggested by Prof. Woon, it will in fact give an outlet for a person who actually is an exhibitionist to say that, "Oh, I was absent-minded about it." or "I didn't know that I was nude." How do you prove that he intentionally took off his clothes unless you have a video camera, and that Prof. Woon would not want because he will say there is big brother overlooking him. He may think it is an overkill, but given my assurances in this House and given the practical need to ensure that the situation in Yishun does not repeat itself, I hope that this Bill, as it is, will be passed.

Sir, if Mr Choo cannot imagine how people can be accidentally nude, I suggest that he is a man of very limited imagination. You go to a beach, you do not have proper changing facilities, you change behind the bush and, for some reason, your towel gets caught in a gust of wind, or pulled away accidentally. Is that intentionally nude? Assoc. Prof. Ho has been the Master of a Hall of Residence. No doubt, he has heard of student pranks where on somebody's birthday, they decide that he should appear in his birthday suit. They strip him. They take him to the end of the road. They dump him in the bushes. Is that intentionally nude? Is this what you mean to prosecute? He is after all appearing nude in a public place. "Intentionally" is there to make it clear that only those who intend to appear nude are prosecuted, not those who through no fault of their own or through accident appear nude. This is the point. Does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mean to say that if a person is nude in a public place, whether it is a fault or not, he is guilty of an offence and can be prosecuted? It is not the police that I am worried about. It is private prosecution by over-zealous members of the public, by people who are brilliant, by people who are prudish. This is the kind of thing that we worry about. "Intentionally" nude makes it quite clear that you have to have the intention. As far as proving intention is concerned, like I said, the Penal Code and the whole corpus of statutes are full of sections that require the proof of intention. If the public prosecutor can prove sufficient intention to convict people of murder, why can they not deal with the intention in something like this?

Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has already assured the House that the police is not going to take that kind of approach. I do not go to beaches as often as the Member does. I do not know about bushes. I am sure along the East Coast Park, there must be a proper place for you to change. While you are changing clothes, something drops off and you appear nude, I am sure the AG's Chambers and the police will have the view that you are doing it unintentionally. Someone must prove beyond reasonable doubt that he appears nude unintentionally. So let us look at it from a wider scope, from a macro point of view. How many Singaporeans appear nude at home and walk or parade around, or they change in the bushes? How often and how many of them really intentionally appear nude in public places? We are not trying to catch the general public, ie, the law-abiding public in Singapore. Not at all. I think we are trying to catch the exceptional ones. And I do not think Prof. Woon should be so eager in wanting to add the word "intentionally".

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support Prof. Woon's proposal to amend clause 27A by inserting the word "intentionally" because some people are in the habit of sleeping in the nude. If suddenly there is a fire, they would have to rush out naked as they would probably have no time to put on any clothing. Even if they are clothed, their clothing may have been burnt and they may end up being naked. Under the amended law, they could be prosecuted. Therefore, the word "intentionally" is important here.

I take it from Mr Choo's speech that he does not think that people who accidentally appear nude should be prosecuted. Am I correct? Then why the resistance to making it plain in the law? Why leave it unsaid? This is the point. I think it is very unfortunate that we should have laws that are very wide, leave the definition to debates in the House, and when it goes to court, the court's hands are tied because the court does not have recourse to Parliamentary debates unless there is an ambiguity in the language. If the language is clear, the court must apply this. This is why I am saying that when we draft these laws, we have to be very, very careful about what we are doing. It is not just a philosophical point. It is also a practical point. We do not want to have a situation where people can be accused of breaking the law where there are no merits to the accusation because the law has been drafted widely and sloppily widely. Amendment negatived.

Sir, I beg to move, (2) In page 8, at end, to add, "(5) It shall be a defence to a prosecution under this section that the accused reasonably believed that he was not exposed to public view.".". The last amendment that I have proposed is a defence to section 27A. Section 27A provides that if you are in a private place and you are nude and exposed to public view, you can be prosecuted for an offence. May I ask Members of the House again how many of them have sometimes appeared nude in their houses without thinking that anyone was watching? But somebody might be watching. We are talking about public housing here. You have situations where you could, not realising that your window blinds are not properly closed, not realising that your lights may be on, and therefore people can see into your house, appear nude. We are making it an offence for a person to be nude in a private place when exposed to public view. I am saying that it should be a defence and you reasonably believe that you were not exposed to public view. For those people who are offended by the sight of nudity in their neighbours' houses, may I give a little simple piece of advice, "Stop looking into your neighbour's windows!" But for those people who are accidentally exposed, as it were, because they do not realise that people can see them, why should we make it an offence? Why should it be a police case? Police come banging on your door. The embarrassment of being seen is already enough without having a police officer knocking on your door, seeking entry as well to arrest you. I am merely asking that we should have a little bit of reasonableness here so that the person can show that he did reasonably believe he was not exposed to public view, he has not committed an offence.

Sir, I am quite amazed by what Prof. Woon is trying to propose because I think the amendment seeks to protect the public, and it appears to me that the Member is trying to protect the nudists. In our Asian society, how many of us have the habit, like what Mr Cheo said, of walking in our sleep without clothes on and, like what Prof. Woon said, accidentally walk around in private homes without any clothes on? How many of us do that? And I think if these people who appear nude and walk around in their own apartment and it is within sight, it will give rise to public embarrassment. If the public complains, the police will take the necessary action to investigate and find out more about it before the police and the AG's Chambers decide whether to prosecute them. I am sure the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can confirm it. So I do not think Prof. Woon should be too worried about adding the word "intentionally" and talking about nudity at home as an excuse. Is that what he is trying to say? I do not understand.

Sir, again, I think Prof. Woon is well meaning in his suggestion. Here, again, I hope that he would take a closer look at my speech where I put in context the reasons for the amendment. The police will not take a blunderbuss approach. Before the case goes to court, the AG's Chambers, which is the prosecutorial arm, in exercising its discretion, will look at all the circumstances of the case. Indeed, a person can be nude in his own home in many circumstances. It can be intentionally. It can be absent-mindedly. It can be unknowingly. But the point is that harm is done. If it is once-off or irregular, those factors would be taken into account by the police and the AG's Chambers in deciding whether or not to prosecute.

May I ask Mr Choo whether he baths fully clothed? Or is there some occasion on which he disrobes completely? The problem is not just nudity. If you look at subsection (2) of section 27A, you will see that "for the purpose of this section, the reference to a person appearing nude includes a person who is clad in such a manner as to offend against public decency or order." Does Mr Choo keep himself fully clothed at all times? Is there not some time when he is partially disrobed at least? This is the problem that this kind of wide drafting gives us. You are in your bedroom. You do not realise that the blinds are partially open. You are in a state of partial disrobement. Somebody has peeped in. They call the police. They say, "That is an offence under section 27A, please nab the fellow." Police come and bang on your door and say, "I am sorry, you have committed an offence." The embarrassment is already there. It is not just the police that we are worried about. In fact, it is not the police I am worried about. I am not worried about the AG's Chambers. The people in AG's Chambers have got commonsense. I am worried about private prosecutions by people who want to use this kind of thing as a means to harass their neighbours. Have you not heard of vindictive neighbours who will try and get other people into trouble? You leave the door open for them literally in a case like this. All I am asking is that we have a simple section that says, "If you didn't realise that you are exposed to public view, you haven't committed an offence." What is so difficult about that? Or are we saying that merely exposing to public view is so heinous a crime that you must commit an offence? I do not think our society is that prudish. At the end of the 20th century, we do not have this kind of Victorian aversion to flesh that existed when these sections were first drafted. So all I am saying is, let us have a little bit of reasonableness so that the person can say, "Look here, I really didn't realise that these doors were open, the windows were open, the curtains were open." It is a defence.

Since Prof. Woon asked about my private life, I think I ought to reply. As a result of my upbringing, I am properly clothed at all times. I do not know about the Member. Since I am properly clothed at all times, I am not giving any chance for the public to complain about me walking around in my house nude. So probably, the Member has a chance to explain to the House about himself? Amendment negatived. Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.10 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.45 pm until 3.10 pm Sitting resumed at 3.10 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main purpose of the amendments is to introduce measures which will enhance road safety, ensure smoother traffic flow and streamline procedures for more effective and efficient traffic enforcement and investigations. Before touching on the amendments, let me briefly explain why the new measures are necessary. Singapore's road accident situation has improved since the mid-1980s. However, we still have a long way to go. Our accident death rate is relatively high. In 1995, there were four deaths for every 10,000 vehicles and this was more than twice that of countries like Britain, the United States and Sweden. Almost all road accidents here can be attributed to the behaviour of motorists and pedestrians, all road users, in fact. An average of 7,200 people were killed or injured on the roads every year from 1991 to 1995. Although pedestrians were sometimes at fault, statistics show that 90% of these cases were due to the negligence or rashness of the motorists. The Police, therefore, has been proactive in its education campaigns and strict in its enforcement efforts to persuade motorists to use the roads safely. Whilst the majority has responded positively, a small minority has continued to display irresponsible and dangerous driving habits. This has led to certain worrying trends which must be checked. Let me now elaborate on the measures to achieve this. Measures to Enhance Road Safety Raising of age limits for motorists First, the raising of age limits for motorists. Our young is over-represented in accidents. Statistics show that motorists aged between 16 and 17 years old are the most vulnerable on the roads. Compared with the average accident rates, those in this age group are about six times more vulnerable. Take the case of Jeffrey Tan Yew Hwa. He was only 17 and had just passed his riding test in July last year. Barely two months later, on 29th September 1995, he lost control of his motorcycle while making a right turn along Pasir Ris Avenue 3 and hit a lamp post. He was flung onto the road and died on the spot from severe head injuries. Exactly three months earlier, another 17-year old had met the same fate when his motorcycle hit the side of Benjamin Sheares Bridge and the impact threw him over the bridge. Another tragedy is the case of National Serviceman Private Choy Ying Keong. He was on road marshal duty along Fort Road in June last year when he was fatally hit by a speeding car driven at 191 km per hour, by one Yong Kar Seong who was 17 years old then. Death from accidents is always tragic, but it is more so when the victims are so young. It is heart-breaking to think that they will never grow into adulthood. It is a loss to the nation and to their families. We cannot afford such carnage of our young. Even one death is one death too many. There are many others like them. They died tragically young. Should we allow this situation to continue? The answer clearly must be "no". We need to protect our young from doing harm to themselves and to others. Clause 5 of the Bill therefore seeks to amend section 62(2) to raise the minimum age limits for motorcyclists and drivers from the current 16 and 17 years old respectively to 18 years old. Enhanced punishment for collision against overhead structures Sir, I come to collision by public service vehicles or other heavy vehicles into structures or buildings. Over the last few years, there have been a number of such cases due mainly to the negligence of the driver. For example, six passengers were injured when a SBS double-decker bus crashed into a gantry post at Stadium Link on 19th September 1993. A more serious accident happened on 1st July 1994 when a lorry carrying an electrical cable drum hit the passage way of a building in Selegie Road. The impact pinned two passengers against the cable drum, killing them instantly. Then on 6th October last year, a crane-mounted lorry hit a gantry post along Ayer Rajah Expressway causing the post to fall. The result: a massive 3-hour gridlock that seriously inconvenienced all motorists. And just in this month alone, two double-decker buses crashed into the structures at Ang Mo Kio bus interchange on two consecutive days. In one of the cases, the bus driver and three passengers were injured. It could have been worse. These collisions not only cause extensive damage to structures and buildings but, worse, also endanger lives. The drivers of such vehicles must be made to exercise greater care and responsibility. Passenger vehicle drivers especially owe a duty of care to their passengers whose lives are literally in their hands. Clause 8 of the Bill seeks to create a new section 65A to make it a specific offence for a driver of a heavy motor vehicle or a public service vehicle to collide with any building or structure. First time offenders will be fined not more than $5,000 or jailed for not more than two years or both. Repeat offenders will be fined not more than $10,000 or jailed for not more than five years or both. This amendment will impress upon the drivers of such vehicles that they have a special responsibility to ensure the safety of the people whom they carry or on the streets. Enhanced penalties for hit-and-run accidents The number of fatal hit-and-run accidents has been rising over the years from two in 1991 to eight and seven in 1994 and 1995 respectively. We take a serious view of such accidents because fleeing from the scene after knocking down a person is an irresponsible act. The driver has a moral obligation to stop after an accident and assist the victim. It can make a difference between life and death. One is reminded of the case of teenager Moses Seow who was fatally injured after being hit by a van on the road shoulder of East Coast Parkway (ECP) on 31st June last year. The driver sped off without even stopping to check on the youth. But he left behind a piece of hard evidence: the van's season parking coupon had fallen out with part of the windscreen during the accident. Police later tracked him down and arrested him. Had it not been for this clue, the culprit would have got away scot-free. We need to address this problem urgently, firstly, because fleeing from the scene of accident is an irresponsible act and, secondly, because it is difficult to trace such culprits in such cases, and finally, because the number of deaths in such accidents has been on the rise. Clause 13 of the Bill therefore seeks to amend section 84: (a) to create a new subsection (7) to increase the fine to not more than $3,000 or one year's jail for first time offenders of fatal or serious hit-and-run accidents. Repeat offenders will be fined not more than $5,000 or jailed up to two years. (b) to create a new subsection (8) to provide that in cases where the offender has been convicted and sentenced for the offence of causing death or serious injury and failing to render assistance, the court shall order the imprisonment terms for these offences to be served consecutively. Enhanced penalties for inconsiderate and dangerous driving offences We have also proposed to increase the penalties for reckless and dangerous driving and inconsiderate driving. The number of such incidents has been rising, from 1,431 cases in 1991 to 2,695 cases in 1995. If this trend continues, more people will needlessly be killed or injured on our roads. Clause 6 of the Bill seeks to amend section 64(1) to enhance the penalty for reckless or dangerous driving from a maximum of $1,000 fine or six months' jail to a maximum of $3,000 fine or one year's jail in the case of first timers. For repeat offenders, it will be enhanced from a maximum of $2,000 fine or 12 months' jail to a maximum of $5,000 fine or two years' jail. Clause 7 of the Bill seeks to amend section 65 to enhance the penalty for driving without due care or reasonable consideration. For first time offenders, the penalty will be increased from the present maximum of $500 fine or three months' jail, to a maximum of $1,000 fine or six months' jail. For repeat offenders, the penalty will be increased from the present maximum of $1,000 fine or six months' jail to a maximum of $2,000 fine or one year's jail. Enhanced punishment for repeat offenders where serious injury or death is caused The Bill also seeks to increase the penalties for repeat offenders of serious accidents involving death or serious injury. Currently, the Court can impose up to three times the maximum penalty for certain serious offences. These offences are: (a) driving under disqualification or suspension; (b) reckless or dangerous driving; (c) causing death by dangerous driving; and (d) drink driving. But he is liable for the enhanced penalty only if he had two previous convictions for the same type of offence. If death or serious injury was caused on the third occasion, the court can also impose caning of up to six strokes. These offences are deliberate manifestations of irresponsible behaviour on our roads. They must be rigorously deterred. Clause 10 of the Bill seeks to amend section 67A. With the amendment, the enhanced penalties, including caning of up to six strokes, can be imposed as long as the offender has two previous convictions for any of the serious traffic offences and has also caused death or serious injury while committing another serious traffic offence. In addition to this, we also proposed to include two more offences to this category of serious traffic offences: (a) Refusal to provide blood or breath samples. As mentioned above, section 67A of the Act provides for enhanced penalties for repeat offenders of serious offences, including driving under the influence of alcohol. Currently, however, a motorist who is suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, cannot be given the enhanced penalties if he refuses to provide a blood sample. In such an event, he can only be charged for refusing to give a blood sample and the penalty is only a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000 or imprisonment of up to six months for a first offender and a fine of between $3,000 and $10,000 and an imprisonment of up to 12 months for repeat offenders. The new section 67A has therefore been amended to include the offence of refusal to provide blood sample under section 70(4) as one of the offences which will attract the enhanced penalty. A recalcitrant motorist will not escape the enhanced penalties simply by refusing to provide his blood or breath samples. (b) Excessive speeding, ie, speeding in excess of 40 km per hour of the speed limit. Speeding, especially excessively, is a major cause of accidents. Speeding can result in minor, serious or fatal accidents. In 1992 and 1993, there were 93 and 96 cases of speed-related fatal accidents respectively. This works out to be about 41.3% and 39.8% of the total number of fatal accidents in both these years. Speed-related fatal accidents rose to 118 cases in 1994, accounting for about 48.6% of the total number of fatal accidents. In 1995, while the number of such accidents has decreased to 81, they still account for 37.9% of the total number of fatal accidents. The case of Private Choy again comes readily to mind. The car that hit him had earlier been seen speeding along the ECP, and an expressway patrol had clocked it moving at a speed of 191 km per hour. Before the patrol car could catch up with him, the car had turned towards Fort Road and killed Private Choy. Excessive speeding is another manifestation of irresponsible behaviour on our roads and must be treated as a very serious offence. The inclusion of excessive speeding in this category of serious offences will impress this fact upon errant motorists. The new section 67A(1) thus includes speeding under section 63(4) as one of the offences which will attract the enhanced penalty and caning. But this is only if the offender had driven a vehicle 40 km per hour above the speed limit and an accident happened as a result, and death or serious injury caused. Raising of composition fines Under section 135 of the Road Traffic Act, Police may compound certain traffic offences by offering a composition fine of not more than $200. This ceiling for composition fine, set 11 years ago, is inadequate. Clause 15 of the Bill seeks to amend section 135(1) to raise the fine from $200 to $500. This amendment will give Police the flexibility to offer composition fines in cases where it may not be necessary to produce the offender in court. Smoother traffic flow Sir, I now come to the measures for smoother traffic flow. The traffic density on our roads is high. The Government has introduced many measures to keep congestion to a minimum. However, even with the best of efforts it will fail if motorists continue to park illegally. Illegal or indiscriminate parking causes inconvenience, obstruction, congestion and disrupts the free flow of traffic. Despite intensive efforts by the Police at enforcement, illegal parking in certain areas continues to remain a serious problem During the first week of an illegal parking enforcement by Traffic Police last month, 139 motorists were summoned daily at the 12 areas where the problem was worst. Three weeks later, it was an average of 250 motorists summoned daily. Clause 14 of the Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact section 123 to allow the Minister, amongst other things, to make rules to provide for wheel clamps to be fixed on vehicles which have been parked illegally on the road. We hope that this measure will deter motorists from parking illegally, especially in the areas where the situation is extremely bad. Streamline procedures for drink driving Presently, under section 70 of the Act, a person is presumed incapable of having proper control of his vehicle if he has alcohol content in his blood in excess of 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. To ascertain this, police has to escort the motorist to the hospital for a blood test and the result will only be known after two weeks. The current procedure is therefore inefficient and manpower intensive. We thus propose using a device called Breath Evidential Analyser (BEA) to assess the alcohol level. This device measures the alcohol level in a motorist's breath and produces a printout of the result immediately. The printout can also be tendered in court as evidence. As the test can be performed by police officers at any police station, there is therefore no need to bring the motorist to the hospital for a blood test. The use of the Breath Evidential Analyser is expected to save police about 1,500 man hours per year. The breathalyser technique has been successfully used in UK, Sweden, Norway and the United States. Clause 12 of the Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact sections 69, 70, 71, 71A, 71B, 71C to deal with drink driving. Essentially, the new sections are a re-enactment of existing sections but with suitable modifications to give effect to the new regime of Breathalyser test and to provide for its results to be admissible in court. Other Amendments Apart from the measures I mentioned above, we are also introducing other amendments. These are meant to tighten the various provisions of the Road Traffic Act. These are: (a) Presumption of incapability for drink-drivers Currently, under existing section 70 of the Act, a person is presumed to be incapable of having proper control of his vehicle if the amount of alcohol found in his blood is above the prescribed legal limit. This has given rise to a situation where the defence tries to rebut this presumption by trying to prove in each case that the defendant did not lose control of the vehicle. To prevent unnecessary debate, clause 9 of the Bill seeks to re-enact section 67(1)(b) to make the presence of alcohol exceeding the legal limit in a driver's blood or breath an offence in itself without linking it to the control of vehicle. The new section 67(1)(b) makes it clear that an offence is committed once the driver's alcohol content exceeds the prescribed limit. This provision is similar to the provisions in Malaysian and UK legislation. (b) Driving under the influence of intoxicating substance Presently, it is not an offence for a person to drive or to be in charge of a vehicle whilst under the influence of an intoxicating substance. This is an anomalous situation. To plug this loophole, the re-enactment of section 67(1)(a) has been expanded to make driving whilst under the influence of any intoxicating substance specified in the Intoxicating Substances Act, such as Toulene which is commonly known as glue, an offence. The same penalty for drunken driving will apply to this new offence. The presence of or an intoxicating substance in the body will be determined by a blood test in the same manner as it is currently done for alcohol or drug. (c) Testing of alcohol content by medical practitioners Presently, the Road Traffic Act requires consent of the motorist to be obtained before his blood can be taken to determine the alcohol content. However, in some circumstances, the consent cannot be given or sought, such as when the motorist is unconscious. In such cases, the alcohol content in the blood of the motorist cannot be ascertained and the motorist cannot be charged for driving under the influence of alcohol. Under the new section 71B(1), the police will be given the power to direct the doctor to send a sample of the blood of the motorist taken by him while treating the injured motorist for a laboratory test to determine the proportion of alcohol or drug or intoxicating substances. Sir, recently, there have been some letters in the press on the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. Some writers said that the enhanced penalties are too harsh while others demanded even harsher penalties. One even suggested making hit-and-run drivers donate one of their kidneys as an act of penance. There is a need for balance and proportion. We cannot veer towards extremes of leniency or toughness. The proposed measures in the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill are commensurate with the seriousness of the offences after taking into account the penalties for other crimes. Whatever one's views may be, the bottomline is this: the enhanced penalties are targeted only at a minority of reckless and dangerous drivers. The majority of responsible, law-abiding motorists have nothing to fear. In fact, the amendments are for their protection and for the safety of other road users. The interest that this Bill has generated among the public only confirms that the time is right to make these amendments. We are also of the view that these amendments addressed the concerns expressed. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill seeks to provide greater safety for road users by amending traffic laws such as empowering police officers to take stern action against traffic violators and enhance penalties for traffic offences. The main points of the amendment, as outlined by the Minister, are raising the minimum age for drivers of motorcars and motorcyclists, making it an offence for a driver who drives a heavy motor vehicle or a public service vehicle to collide with any building or structure, and enhancing penalties for driving under the influence of alcohol. I would like to focus my discussion on the raising of minimum age of car drivers and motorcyclists. In recent years, despite the increase of motor vehicles on the road, the total number of casualties arising from motor accidents has steadily declined. In 1985, the total number of casualties, including motorcyclist casualties, was 9,506 and it declined to 6,727 in 1995. However, the number of motorcyclist and pillion casualties has remained high. Out of the total casualties of 9,506 in 1985, 3,899 were motorcyclist and pillion casualties. In 1995, out of 6,727 casualties, 3,538 were motorcyclist and pillion casualties, which account for 52.6%. In fact, for the last 10 years, the number of motorcyclist and pillion casualties had increased steadily and it has accounted for more than half of the number of total casualties since 1993. This shows that while the number of casualties caused by other motor vehicles has declined significantly, the number of motorcycle casualties remains high and is still increasing. This is a worrying problem which has to be tackled. It is even more alarming if we look at the number of fatalities. Although the total number of casualties has declined, the number of fatalities remains more or less unchanged. From 1985 to 1995, there were more than 200 persons killed in traffic accidents every year. The number of motorcyclists and pillion riders killed in accidents accounts for more than 40% of the total number of people killed. In 1995, out of 225 persons killed in traffic accidents, 117 persons were motorcyclists and pillion riders, which was 52% of the total number of fatalities. In terms of the number of people killed in accidents, the traffic situation in Singapore during the last 10 years had not improved. If we look at it in another way, of course, we may say that we have been successful in preventing the number of fatalities from increasing, despite the increase in traffic volume during the last decade. Whatever is the case, the fact remains that we lost more than 200 lives on the road every year in the past 10 years and about half were motorcyclists and pillion riders. The trend is likely to continue, and it is a serious problem. If we look at the age groups of fatalities, one realises that most people killed were under 30 years old. In 1990, 102 persons who were under 30 years old were killed and out of which 64 were motorcyclists and pillion riders, accounting for 62.7%. The same pattern continued in subsequent years, except 1995, in which out of 103 persons killed, 80 were motorcyclists and pillion riders. In particular, the fatality rate for the 15-19 age group was the highest. In 1990, within the age group of 15 to 19, 13 persons were killed in accidents and out of which 12 persons were motorcyclists and pillion riders. In 1995, 25 persons in the same age group were killed in accidents and 22 of them were motorcyclists and pillion riders. It is sad to see that so many young persons have lost their lives every year as a result of motorcycle mishaps. A motor vehicle or a motorcycle can be a killer or a suicide machine. The person who drives a car or a motorcycle should be a mature and responsible person. Judging from the casualty and fatality statistics, it is obvious that young drivers have the highest probability to be involved in accidents and as a result, suffer from injuries and death. It is therefore sensible to raise the minimum age of car drivers and motorcyclists in order to reduce the number of accidents. For this reason, I support the Minister's move in raising the minimum age of motorcyclists from 16 years to 18 years and the minimum age of car drivers from 17 years to 18 years. A motorcycle can be a convenient transport equipment as well as a suicide machine. It can also be a nuisance which creates disturbing sound and pollutes the air. The road can be a safer place without the zigzagging of motorcycles. We should therefore keep the use of motorcycles to the minimum which is necessary for supporting economic activities and traffic control. We should consider the possibility of confining its use to productive purpose and excluding it to be used for pleasure riding. No one, especially young persons, should be allowed to own and ride a motorcycle without proof that it is job-related and required in his work. If this is practical and feasible to implement, we can increase road safety, and reduce casualties and fatalities. We can expect to save many precious lives which are dear to their families and to the country. Sir, I support the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill.

( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill which is presently being debated. The new measures to be introduced to ensure that road accidents can be further controlled are developments which should be welcomed by all road users. Mr Speaker, I commend the steps taken to increase the minimum age to obtain motorcycle licences and car licences, mindful that the majority of lives lost on our roads involve our citizens who are still very young. In this regard, I would like to ask the Ministry of Home Affairs why is the minimum age for obtaining a motorcycle licence increased by two years, and not one year, in line with the increase in minimum age for obtaining a car licence. I make this suggestion because I am aware that a number of our people, aged between 16 and 17 years, and who are from the lower income group, need a motorcycle licence to earn a livelihood in order to support their families and parents. I am referring to those who are compelled to work as a result of not being able to pursue their education further. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I would like to know whether the Traffic Police can consider reducing the minimum age for obtaining a motorcycle licence from 18 to 17 years for this group of people. In other words, I would suggest that the Traffic Police consider increasing the minimum age by stages, say, by one year initially, and thereafter monitor its developments before raising further the minimum age. Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. It gives me little comfort in reading the figures released by the Traffic Police Commissioner. The traffic accident rate dropped from 7,000 in 1994 to 6,900 last year and there were fewer fatal accidents, ie, 214 as compared to 243 in 1994. I consider there is no such thing as a low enough statistic for traffic accidents. As the Minister has just mentioned, one fatal accident is one too many. Most traffic accidents are avoidable. It happens mainly as a result of careless, inconsiderate, or, worse, reckless driving. For those of us who drive every day, we have the tendency of being complacent and never really feel that we could be involved in any accident. It is borne out by the fact that, after every serious accident, invariably the driver is usually in shock and total disbelief. It is to the Traffic Police great credit in constantly policing our roads so as to ensure that motorists drive in a careful and orderly manner and that traffic laws and regulations are also being constantly updated to keep up with the increase in motorcar users on the road. However, we do need constant reminders that everyone behind the wheel is a potential candidate for road accidents and the enhanced punishment in the proposed Bill is but another such effective reminder of the serious consequence that can result from our driving behaviour. I think most of us should have no qualms about the enhanced punishment proposed in the Bill. But some feel strongly that it may not be appropriate to introduce caning as punishment for traffic offences. It should be administered only in more serious criminal offences. My own knee-jerk reaction tends to agree with that view. However, after going through in detail clause 10 which stated that caning may only be imposed by the judge if the offender had, on two previous occasions, been convicted for causing serious or fatal injury to any person through reckless or drink driving, I am convinced that this amendment is not excessive as anyone who has been convicted twice for such serious offences and went on to commit a similar offence under the same circumstances a third time should have no excuse whatsoever and should be dealt with severely. This applies especially to those who have committed offences under drink driving. Accidents, as a result of drink driving, can and should be avoided at all costs. Those who drink should never be allowed to drive as any intoxicated person behind the wheel is a potential killer. I am glad that there are constant reminders from the Traffic Police reminding us not to drink and drive. But despite that, accidents caused by drink driving increased from 76 cases in 1994 to 92 cases last year. This has to be checked. Finally, I suggest that perhaps it is timely for the authority to make it compulsory when granting a liquor licence to any premises that they should provide some kind of breath evidential analyser so that the patron can make sure that their alcoholic level is acceptable before they drive off. Otherwise, they should find other means of transportation. This would help those who may not be aware that they have consumed alcohol that exceeded the acceptable level and also eliminate any excuses by anyone claiming that they have committed the offence without knowing that their drinking has exceeded the permissible limit.

Sir, could you please give me permission to seek a clarification from the Minister? If a person is convicted for speeding more than 40 km above the prescribed limit and is a third offence, would this person still be liable for caning if he has not been involved in an accident causing injury or fatality?

That person who speeds excessively, that is, more than 40 kmph, and is caught for committing a serious offence a third time, he will attract caning only if that accident causes death or serious injury.

Thank you, Sir. I would first like to make some general comments on the principal Act before turning to some specific amendments. The Road Traffic Act has been amended umpteen times - to be specific 13 times since 1980 and this will be the 14th time in nearly so many years. The Act is unwieldy to read and is difficult to comprehend and co-relate. For example, the areas relating to disqualification are all over the place. Statutes should be written not just for lawyers and judges but for ordinary people as well, especially when it relates to road safety. If statutes cannot be read easily and understood by the general public, then the deterrent effect of many of the punishments is lost and we will continue to make more and more amendments to increase penalties without seeing positive results. It can give us legislators little joy to make such amendments when the message is not clear to the road users. I would therefore urge the Minister to have the principal Act tidied up and have parts of it tabulated, if necessary, so that the whole Act becomes clear, coherent and readable. Now, I would like to turn to some specific amendments. Raising the minimum age for driving a car A Traffic Police study, as reported in the media, found that the accident rate dipped as the age of motorists increased. The maturity of a motorist seems an important factor in road safety as young motorists are more accident prone than older ones. If we believe this, then just increasing the age for motorists by one year from 17 to 18 years appears to be a feeble amendment. We should not be diffident on this matter but instead consider an amendment that would more certainly make a difference. We should raise the minimum age for motorists to 20 or 21 years. This will not only contribute to road safety but also reduce the number of drivers on the road and translate into reduced road usage. Sir, we are increasing prison sentences for first-time offenders by doubling the prison sentences. I am not referring to fines but prison sentences. If you look at clause 7, we are increasing the prison term for a first-time offender for inconsiderate driving from three months to six months. For a first-time offender convicted of reckless or dangerous driving, the prison term is being increased from six months to 12 months. Sir, what evidence has been presented to this House to justify the doubling of prison sentences for first-time offenders? We have heard that serious accidents are occurring. But how many of these are by first-time offenders? What statistics do we have to show how judges are meting out these sentences? How much of the maximum prison sentence is being meted out to first-time offenders by judges? Are we convinced that doubling prison sentences for first-time offenders is a good deterrent? Personally, Sir, I feel that if the threat of six months' imprisonment is not enough of a deterrent for a first-time offender, then how can we imagine that the threat of 12 months' imprisonment will be a better deterrent? Furthermore, the longer a first-time traffic offender spends in prison, the longer is his family being penalized, especially if he is the financial breadwinner. The taxpayers not only have to support the offender in prison, but at the same time the social consequences of a family without a major breadwinner for a prolonged period of time will also be borne by society. Therefore, Sir, we have to give serious consideration to all these matters before we double prison sentences for first-time offenders. And, here, I repeat again that I am not referring to repeat offenders who, I think, deserve what they are getting. Sir, I think it is time for us to look at this whole issue of crime and punishment in road traffic offences in a holistic manner.

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

Debate resumed.

Sir, I thank Members for speaking in support of this Bill. Some questions have been raised about sentences and some Members have raised the question of raising the age limit for motorcyclists and motor vehicle drivers beyond 18 years to 20 or 21 years. One Member has even suggested not to increase the age qualification for riding a motorcycle to 18 years but only to 17 years. There was a suggestion about making it a condition for the issue of liquor licence to whoever who wants to run clubs and pubs, to install a breath analyser equipment, and so on. Sir, I thank Members for all their suggestions. I think we want to take an incremental approach by looking at our traffic situation. We have amended this Act, as Dr Soin rightly pointed out, 13 times in the last 16 years because we have to react and respond to changing circumstances. The situation has changed because more people can afford cars and motorcycles, and people need vehicles to go to work. Therefore, more vehicles are seen on our roads and accidents do happen. Despite the strict enforcement action and education campaigns, we still have serious accidents happening in Singapore. We still have people violating traffic laws. So we have to change these laws from time to time to deal with specific situations. Looking at the age limit, for instance, I think by raising it from 16 years to 18 years for motorcyclists is one step that we should take right now. To go beyond that, we will have to see whether the situation will improve. If it does not, then we will definitely look at it again and see whether we should increase it to 20 years, or even 21 years. But we have to consider that any change in the age limit, whether it is for motorcyclists or motor vehicle drivers, will have an impact on other parts of our society and the economy. I think we have to bear that in mind. For instance, if we were to raise the driving age limit for motor vehicle drivers to 20 years, what will happen to the National Servicemen who were called up and have to become drivers in the SAF? Do we give them an exemption? Or what happens to those who leave school at the age of 18 years and are not required to do National Service, like females, and they need to work, and they become drivers? Do we say that they cannot become drivers? Of course, we can look at all these special circumstances and give exemptions. But I think I want to move step by step as far as age limit is concerned. On Dr Ker's suggestion to limit motorcyclists on the road only if they use it for work, it is possible, but I think there will be a lot of practical implementation problems. We will then need to set up a section in the Traffic Police Department to decide who needs a licence for work, who does not need it for work and who needs it for riding for pleasure. Actually, there is no harm in riding for pleasure, provided, of course, that the person who goes on the road, whether in a car or on a motorcycle, does so responsibly and follow all our traffic rules. If he does all that and no accident is caused, then we should not stop him from riding on our roads. On Mr Zulkifli's suggestion to increase the qualification age for motorcyclists to 17 years, I think statistics have shown that it is not wise to do so. In fact, we know people in the age group of 16 and 17 do have a higher preponderance to accidents. The older a person gets and becomes more mature, the probability of an accident happening will be less. So I am not keen to just raise it only to 17 years. I would rather raise it to 18 years. On Mr Kenneth Chen's suggestion to require pubs, hotels and whoever that has got a liquor licence to instal a breath analyser equipment, I think this suggestion can be considered, but it will be difficult to make it a requirement, although we can. Because I want to guard against a situation where customers going to such a place with a breath analyser equipment, take a test and say, "Oh, it is OK", but that machine may not be functioning. If it is not functioning or poorly maintained and eventually he is caught outside the pub for drink-driving, then what happens? I think a lot of difficulties will arise as a result of that. While we want to encourage pub owners to do that, I think they should do so only if they properly maintain the equipment. This can help the customers but it is not the final test. The final test is when the Police brings the person to the doctor or his test result on the new BEA shows that it is positive or over 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, that is the final test. On Dr Soin's question about increasing the sentence, we have increased the fine. But in today's circumstances, paying a fine is not a problem to many people. What is $1,000? What is $5,000? Many people can afford it, especially when they need the licence for making a living. But going to jail is quite a different matter. So if three months is too little, which we have seen to be too little, we increase it to six months. Although the law provides for six months, we know that the courts seldom impose the maximum penalty, unless there are very strong reasons to do so. We should leave the court with a wider discretion to decide whether to impose a sentence of imprisonment of up to six months. That is the reason why we are increasing the jail term because we see the need for it. It has a stronger deterrent effect. No doubt the family may suffer as a result of the person going to prison. But that person, before he commits a traffic offence, should seriously think about his family before driving or riding recklessly. The point made by Dr Soin about the Road Traffic Act being a bit difficult to read or understood by the layman is well taken. I will ask my officers to take this up with the Attorney-General's Chambers. And the next time we have a law revision of all the other laws, we can then take a look at it.

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.

4.05 pm Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Objective The objective of the Bill is to provide the legal framework for the Executive Condominium Housing Scheme to be established. Let me begin by explaining why we are introducing Executive Condominiums. Background Private property prices rose by 42.2% in 1994 and 10.3% in 1995. A typical 100 sq metre new unit in a private condominium in a suburban location will cost around $650,000. To service such a loan to pay for such a unit would require a gross monthly household income or at least $10,000. Our young polytechnic and university-educated couples, who aspire to own private properties, find it increasingly difficult to afford such properties. When private properties rose sharply in 1972, the Government introduced HUDC developments to meet the aspirations of our young professionals. In 1979, when the Government stopped building new HUDC flats, it introduced the HDB Executive Flats. HDB Executive Flats do not quite meet the aspirations of our young, tertiary-educated couples. Furthermore, the queue is very long - more than 30,000 are in the queue. Last year, the queue grew at approximately 1,000 applications per month. There was thus much unhappiness and frustration because new applicants would have to wait a long time to be allocated their Executive Flats. The sharp increases in private property prices in the last few years have again created a "sandwich class" of young people who are beyond HDB's income ceiling, but who cannot afford private property. The Government could have reverted to building new HUDC flats again. But we have already embarked on the exercise to privatise HUDC flats. Instead of building new HUDC flats and privatising them later, the Government therefore decided to create a new housing scheme which would enable young professionals to move directly into housing of private condominium standard and which after some years would automatically gain private property status. As these new flats will be no different from private condominiums in terms of design and facilities, we have decided to call them Executive Condominiums. Eligibility and Ownership Conditions Executive Condominiums will be strata-titled apartments built by private developers, with facilities and finishes similar to new private condominiums. But for the first five to 10 years, they will be governed by some restrictions. These restrictions will bring down the price and help to make the Executive Condominiums more affordable. In order to qualify for Executive Condominiums, applicants will have to meet eligibility conditions similar to those for HDB flats, such as citizenship, family nucleus and non-ownership of private property. But the income ceiling is raised to $10,000 to accommodate those who are beyond HDB's ceiling. If applicants are discovered as having falsely represented their eligibility, the Bill gives the developer legal power to cancel their applications. After they have taken possession of their flats and until the end of the first five years, the owners will be governed by restrictions similar to HDB flats. They must continue not to own private property, nor should they illegally sublet their flats. These restrictions are necessary to make sure that Executive Condominiums are owned by those who genuinely need them, and not for speculative purposes. If any contravention is discovered, the Government will have the power to take back the flat, or to prescribe penalties on the owner. Executive Condominium owners will not be allowed to sell their apartments until the end of the 5-year period. At the end of the five years, the restrictions are lifted. The owners can then sublet or sell if they wish, or purchase other private properties. However, any sale to foreigners will be prohibited until the end of the 10th year. Again, this measure is to keep prices affordable. After the 10th year, this restriction will also be lifted, and the Executive Condominiums will be no different from private condominiums. Affordability Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government will not be providing HDB mortgage loans for the purchase of Executive Condominiums. This is because Executive Condominiums will be developed by the private sector, and not by HDB. Applicants will therefore need to seek their own financing from banks and financial institutions. However, due to the restrictions I have mentioned, the land for Executive Condominium developments will be valued at about 30% below market price. The prices of Executive Condominiums will thus be lower and comparable to private condominiums. Based on preliminary calculations, this price difference would be around $100,000. First-time applicants who have not enjoyed subsidised housing before will also be eligible for the $40,000 CPF Housing Grant. This will help to make Executive Condominium affordable to first-time applicants. In other words, instead of paying $650,000 for a private condominium unit, first-time applicants are expected to pay only $510,000 for an Executive Condominium unit of similar size, design, finishes and facilities. In other words, they enjoy the equivalent of a $140,000 market subsidy. Developers Mr Speaker, Sir, for a start, the land for Executive Condominiums will be directly alienated to the developers by the Government. Coupled with the discounted land price, this necessitates a strict policy on land allocation. Thus, in order to protect the Government and the taxpayers' interests, only wholly-owned Government-linked companies and non-profit-making organisations will be appointed to develop Executive Condominiums initially. Pidemco has been appointed as the first developer, and NTUC has also formed a housing cooperative in order to undertake Executive Condominium developments. Other developers will be announced as and when they are identified. We aim to release enough land for about 2,000 units to be built per year as a start. We will adjust this figure in subsequent years depending on the response to the scheme. In summary, the passage of this Bill will allow the Government to establish the Executive Condominium Housing Scheme. It will be another step in meeting the aspirations of younger Singaporeans to own private property. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. This housing scheme is timely as it enables a group of young and upwardly mobile Singaporeans more opportunities and easier access to private properties. Although I applaud the introduction of this housing scheme, I feel that the Bill has left open a number of issues. First, the Bill seems to cover only the end-user part of the Executive Condominium Housing Scheme. No provision has been made on the land allocation to the developer - the developer's right to mortgage land, control on and end-pricing of the apartments and what are the pre-determined margins. Currently, the HDB receives Government grants to buy development land from the Land Office at market values. The extent of the Government subsidy for public housing and the site allocation mechanism are therefore transparent. But there is no similar arrangement for the Executive Condominium scheme. Also, the Bill is not clear if the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act and the Housing Developers Rules apply to the developers. In time to come, as the Minister has indicated, the Executive Condominiums will be privatised. Second, it is unclear whether the power to sell to buyers who satisfy the eligibility conditions implies that such developers will either have to be given certain investigative powers to verify the truth of the buyer's statements as to their eligibility or that they will be assisted somehow in this process. Perhaps the Minister has in mind that this will be managed by the Housing and Development Board. If this is to be maintained by HDB, will the Executive Condominium Housing Scheme be perceived as just another HDB scheme which I think is not the Government's intention. Thirdly, the power to re-possess the apartments of those who breach these conditions or die whilst waiting for their apartments within 10 years of issue of the TOP for the apartment needs further consideration. In the case of death, such situations should be distinguished from cases of wilful deceit and handled more sensitively. Why should the deceased's co-applicant who is also eligible for the Executive Condominium or his next-of-kin be dealt a double blow of losing a loved one and a home at the same time? An Executive Condominium is a very substantial investment and it appears grossly unfair for such an apartment to be re-possessed by the Government in the event of death of the owner. Fourthly, since the concept of the Executive Condominium is intended to be the same as that of private housing, it is not clear in the Bill if strata title is to be given to these developments. If this is the intention, then provisions should be made for this and the incorporation of management corporations to manage the estate. The administrative aspect of the Executive Condominiums after the minimum occupation period is over is also left open. Unlike the HDB flats which are naturally and logically handled by the HDB and the Town Councils, there is no similar mechanism or institution that Executive Condominiums can readily turn to unless it is the Government's intention to also let the appointed developer handle this as well. Lastly, Sir, as the Executive Condominium is a major investment asset for Singaporeans, the amount of compensation to be paid for compulsorily acquired apartments is left entirely to ministerial discretion. This may be too arbitrary and I suggest that the Ministry should work out a formula and put this formula in place for arriving at the compensation for the purposes of more transparency.

May I ask the Minister to clarify certain points, Sir. He says 2,000 units will be built a year. Can I ask the Minister when will the first lot be built and where will it be situated? What sort of tenure do these buildings have? Is it going to be a 99-year lease or less than that? As regards applications, there are a lot of problems in the application of HDB flats. Will it be the same for these Executive Condominiums or will it be on a first-come-first-served basis? If this is so, then you may find long queues overnight. Maybe the Minister can clarify these points.

Sir, I thank Mr Chng Hee Kok for his support of the Bill and I will address some of the issues raised. The first point he raised was that the Bill addresses more the end-user and not the developers. As I have explained in my speech earlier, we are starting this scheme and the land will have these restrictions tied to it. We think this will require a 30% discount to the land price, but we are not sure. But to get the scheme going, we will get the wholly-owned Government-linked companies to start the project - Pidemco and also NTUC Co-operative. In this way, if we make any mistake in the land price, whether it is too high or too low, these two bodies will be in a better position to adjust than if it were a private developer. Subsequently, it is our intention to put these sites on the market so that private developers can also develop with all these restrictions in place and over time a proper market value will be established for such properties. But to get the programme going, we need to appoint some developers in the first instance, and because it is land allocation directly alienated to the developer, we wanted to start conservatively with wholly-owned Government-linked companies and with NTUC Cooperative. But the intention is that the developer, having got the land in the first instance directly alienated by the Government and in later phases through open tender of the land, will develop just like any other developer and he would use his market assessment to make sure the design is marketable, the price is right and it will be transacted just as in the open market. So there is no reason for the Government to set pre-determined profit margins or to have any particular rules on the developers over and above what is existing under the Housing Developers Rules. So the developers developing this scheme will have to follow the rules just like any private developer in private developments. We are confident that the prices will be competitive because whoever is developing the Executive Condominium has, on the one hand, the subsidy from the Government in that the land is 30% cheaper. On the other hand, he can only sell to people who are eligible for such properties, principally, Singapore citizens; he cannot sell to foreigners; with a family nucleus and household income of less than $10,000. So any developer building Executive Condominiums will find that he would have to price it competitively. He cannot price it too high because then he would not be able to find the market for that kind of property. So we are quite confident that the prices that we are talking about will be lower than comparable prices in the private condominium market today. The third point that Mr Chng raised was whether the developers would be in a position to assess the eligibility of the applicants. Let me explain that HDB will assist the developers to process the applications so that all the eligibility criteria will be met. Mr Chng also asked about the handling of the cases in breach of conditions of the sale, particularly in situations of death. Let me assure the House that we will handle this as sensitively as we handle HDB flats. There is no intention to re-possess the flat upon the death of the owner. As long as the surviving family meets the eligibility conditions, they will continue to retain the flat and they will continue to own the flat. What is provided in the Bill is in situations when the owner dies and the property, whether intestate or given to the next-of-kin, does not quite meet the eligibility conditions as laid down, then there is provision for the Government to recover the flat because the surviving family unit does not meet the conditions. Under such situations, the Government will lay down the regulations to make sure the compensation is transparent. The compensation will be based on the original purchase price or the current market price, whichever is lower. So the same rules will apply as in HDB flats. The final query raised by Mr Chng was whether the units will be given strata title. Yes, they will be, and therefore they will also be managed by management corporations. All the rules which apply to strata titles will also continue to apply for Executive Condominiums. Mr Chiam asked when will the first lot be built and where it will be put up. We plan to announce the marketing of the first lots of units some time in the middle of the year, in May or June. Pidemco has completed the design and is going through the various processes of getting Government approval to sell the units. So we are confident that the first lot of units can be marketed around May or June. As we have announced sometime in September last year, the first lot of units will be marketed by Pidemco and the sites will be in Pasir Ris and Jurong East. We will announce subsequent sites to make up the first 2,000 units as and when we identify the developer and as and when the developer is in a position to present their designs and plans. Mr Chiam also asked about the tenure of the flats. This will be for 99-year lease, just like any other sale of sites by the Government. He also asked how we handle the applications. As we have explained in September last year, 80% of the units will be set aside for those in the existing HDB Executive Flat queue, according to their queue position. The remaining 20% will be open to new applicants on a balloting basis. So there is no need for an overnight queue. The reason for this is to make sure that applicants on the existing HDB Executive Flat queue will have a chance to buy the Executive Condominiums. But at the same time, we also keep 20% for new applicants who may not have qualified previously under the HDB income ceiling. Because the ceiling is now raised to $10,000, these applicants become eligible and therefore we provide an outlet for them to also participate in this programme. But this 20% is set aside and they will be balloted.

Can I seek a clarification from the Minister? Will the racial mix principle that we have in HDB flats apply also to these Executive Condominiums?

Sir, the ethnic ceilings will not apply to Executive Condominiums because it does not apply to private properties.

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 Lim Hng Kiang]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in the name of the Minister for Law as it appears on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Cap 113) approves the reclamation by the Government of the foreshore and seabed between Pulau Seraya, Pulau Ayer Merbau, Pulau Ayer Chawan, Pulau Sakra, Pulau Pesek and Pulau Pesek Kechil containing an area of about 440.4 ha as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 1/95" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, Parliament at its sitting on 28th May 1993 approved Stage 1A of the reclamation of approximately 166.59 ha of foreshore/seabed between Pulau Seraya and Pulau Merlimau, Pulau Ayer Chawan, Pulau Ayer Merbau and Pulau Sakra to form the proposed Jurong Island. Stage 1A of the reclamation works is expected to be completed in 1998. The schedule for the reclamation to form the Jurong Island has to be accelerated in order to meet the projected demand for industrial land in Singapore and to turn the amalgamated Jurong Island into a world class chemical and petrochemical complex, with related supporting industries sooner than projected. There is therefore a need to proceed with Stages 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B and 2C of the proposed reclamation to reclaim the foreshore/seabed between Pulau Seraya, Pulau Ayer Merbau, Pulau Ayer Chawan, Pulau Sakra, Pulau Pesek and Pulau Pesek Kecil as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/95", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. The proposed reclamation will yield an additional 440.4 ha of land for industrial development. Fills required for the proposed reclamation will be imported. The Jurong Town Corporation will be appointed as agent of the Government to oversee the reclamation works, which is estimated to cost approximately $1.199 billion. The reclamation works will commence in mid 1996 and are estimated to be completed by mid 1998. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Cap 113) approves the reclamation by the Government of the foreshore and seabed between Pulau Seraya, Pulau Ayer Merbau, Pulau Ayer Chawan, Pulau Sakra, Pulau Pesek and Pulau Pesek Kechil containing an area of about 440.4 ha as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 1/95" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in the name of the Minister for Law as it appears on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Cap 113) approves the reclamation by the Government of the foreshore and seabed at Tuas View containing an area of about 372.6 ha as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND RECLAMATION PLAN NO 2/95" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, Parliament at its sitting on 27th July 1982 approved the reclamation of about 600 ha of foreshore/seabed at Tuas View at a cost of $1,769 million to meet the increasing demand for industrial land in Singapore. The reclamation works were completed sometime in January 1988. The Jurong Town Corporation has estimated that the available stock of industrial land in Singapore would only be able to meet industry needs up to the year 2003. In order to meet the demand for industrial land beyond 2003, Jurong Town Corporation therefore proposes to reclaim an additional three parcels of land at Tuas View as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2/95", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. The proposed reclamation will yield an additional 372.6 ha of land for industrial development. Fills required for the proposed reclamation will be imported. The Jurong Town Corporation will be appointed as agent of the Government to oversee the reclamation works. The reclamation works, estimated to cost approximately $825.8 million, will commence in mid 1996 and will be completed by end 1999. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Cap 113) approves the reclamation by the Government of the foreshore and seabed at Tuas View containing an area of about 372.6 ha as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND RECLAMATION PLAN NO 2/95" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn till 3.15 pm, Wednesday, 28th February, 1996." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes to Five o'clock pm to, Wednesday, 28th February, 1996.

asked the Minister for Law how many percent of Singapore's land is owned by the Government.

52% of Singapore's land is State land. Another 21% of land is held by Statutory Boards, some of which then sub-lease the land to private industrial or commercial companies. The data on such subleasing is not readily available. charts -