Hansard, 1998-04-20

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: NameFromTo (1998)(1998) Mr Zainual Abidin Rasheed22 Mar24 Mar Mr Zulkifli Baharudin25 Mar31 Mar Mr R Sinnakaruppan 27 Mar27 Mar 4 Apr9 Apr Mr Choo Wee Khiang31 Mar3 Apr Dr Hu Tsu Tau, Richard1 Apr6 Apr 14 Apr19 Apr Mr Hawazi Daipi3 Apr6 Apr 29 Apr29 Apr Mr Yeo Guat Kwang3 Apr6 Apr Mr Lim Swee Say3 Apr7 Apr Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon3 Apr10 Apr 20 Apr25 Apr Encik Yatiman Yusof4 Apr5 Apr NameFromTo (1998)(1998) Mr Lim Boon Heng4 Apr7 Apr Dr Ho Tat Kin5 Apr9 Apr Dr Lee Boon Yang 6 Apr6 Apr 27 Apr1 May Mr Leong Horn Kee6 Apr8 Apr Mr Shriniwas Rai6 Apr13 Apr Mr Harun A Ghani6 Apr17 Apr Mr Peter Chen7 Apr12 Apr Dr Aline K Wong8 Apr9 Apr Mr Ong Kian Min8 Apr10 Apr 12 Apr20 Apr Dr S Vasoo12 Apr15 Apr Mr Peh Chin Hua12 Apr17 Apr Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap13 Apr16 Apr Mr Chew Heng Ching13 Apr18 Apr BG George Yong-Boon Yeo13 Apr27 Apr Mr Loh Meng See15 Apr19 Apr Mr Tang Guan Seng17 Apr19 Apr Dr Toh See Kiat19 Apr22 Apr Dr Ow Chin Hock19 Apr23 Apr RAdm Teo Chee Hean19 Apr25 Apr Mr Abdullah Tarmugi19 Apr3 May Mr Davinder Singh 20 Apr20 Apr Dr Wan Soon Bee20 Apr11 May Mr Matthias Yao Chih21 Apr24 Apr 28 Apr30 Apr Mr Goh Chee Wee22 Apr1 May 6 May12 May Mr Koo Tsai Kee 23 Apr23 Apr 26 Apr4 May Mr Tan Soo Khoon23 Apr27 Apr Mr Charles Chong23 Apr29 Apr Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam24 Apr28 Apr Mr Bernard Chen25 Apr4 May NameFromTo (1998)(1998) Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng1 May10 May 15 May17 May Dr Yaacob Ibrahim1 May11 May 14 May24 May Mr Lew Syn Pau6 May23 May Mr Ahmad Md Magad20 May31 May 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: 27 March 1998 Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill 1998. 28 March 1998 Singapore Armed Forces (Amendment) Bill 1998. 31 March 1998 (i) Supply Bill 1998; and (ii) Supplementary Supply Bill 1998 TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Prime Minister if he will give more details on the bilateral trade financing guarantee scheme that he has offered to assist the Indonesian Government to overcome the currency and economic crisis.

asked the Prime Minister how soon can the proposed US$3 billion bilateral trade financing scheme for Indonesia be implemented and whether the details of the proposed scheme can be given to businessmen early to prepare themselves to resume trade with their counterparts in Indonesia quickly.

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

Yes.

Thank you. The Singapore Government originally proposed a Multilateral Trade Finance Guarantee Scheme to help resolve the trade finance problems faced by Indonesian firms. However, the G7 countries, whose participation is vital since they are the largest trading partners of Indonesia, prefer their own bilateral trade financing schemes. On 28th February 1998, then Minister for Finance Mar'ie Muhammad asked our Finance Minister Richard Hu to have Singapore launch the Multilateral Trade Finance Guarantee scheme on our own. On 2nd March 1998, then Minister for Trade and Industry Tunky Ariwibowo repeated the request to our Ambassador in Jakarta, Edward Lee. On 20th March, in Jakarta, the Minister for Trade and Industry Muhammad Hasan made the same request to Ambassador Lee. In response to these requests, Singapore decided to launch a Singapore-Indonesia Bilateral Trade Finance Guarantee (BTFG) Scheme. I wrote to President Soeharto on 31st March informing him of Singapore's decision to establish the BTFG after Indonesia and the IMF have reached an agreement on their latest round of negotiations. He called me up in London on 2nd April to thank Singapore for its decision. The BTFG is a bilateral scheme to enhance confidence in trade financing transactions undertaken by banks in Indonesia. The aim is to help restore established trade between the two countries. As Singapore has no experience designing or operating a government-sponsored trade finance guarantee scheme, we have to start cautiously and modestly. Initially, the scheme will only provide export credit insurance for our domestic exports to Indonesia. After we have gained experience with the scheme, we will expand it to cover retained imports from Indonesia. Singapore will use US$3 billion out of the US$5 billion that it has earlier pledged to Indonesia for its IMF package to back this facility. We will eventually expand the scheme further to cover exports through Singapore by Indonesia's trading partners who do not have their own bilateral export credit schemes. The remaining US$2 billion of the US$5 billion that Singapore has pledged to Indonesia will be used for this purpose. Conceptually, we have the following mechanism in mind. ECICS Credit Insurance Ltd will administer the Scheme. ECICS is an unlisted public company that is in the business of insuring Singapore exports against risks of non-payment. The Singapore Government will select several banks operating in Indonesia to be designated as Trade Finance Banks (TFBs). We will also identify a group of Singapore exporters to participate in the scheme. Indonesian importers will approach one of the approved TFBs to issue a Letter of Credit for a sales transaction secured with an approved Singapore exporter. The TFB will bear the commercial risk on this transaction. The Letter of Credit will be presented to the Singapore-based bank of the Singapore exporter. Bank Indonesia will guarantee fully the obligations of the TFB to this Singapore-based bank. The Singapore Government, in turn, counter-guarantees part of Bank Indonesia's obligations under the scheme. The Singapore exporters, the Singapore-based bank and ECICS will share in some of this risk. This is necessary to ensure that each party in the scheme does due diligence. If the TFB fails to honour its obligation on the Letter of Credit it has issued, Bank Indonesia's unconditional guarantee will apply. The Scheme will run for an initial period of two years or until the Indonesian trade finance cycle is restored, whichever is earlier. However, the Government of Singapore reserves the right to discontinue the Scheme in the event of a change in circumstances which renders it no longer relevant or valid. Singapore and Indonesian officials will meet to flesh out the scheme soon. I am unable to say now the exact date when the BTFG scheme will come into operation. We will need some time to work out the procedures and rules to create an effective scheme which will achieve its objectives. We are seeking help from international experts. We know its importance for Indonesia and will endeavour to get it going as soon as possible.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether his Government is still of the view that no approval is needed from Parliament and the President before the Government embarks on this guarantee scheme despite the opinion given by the Attorney-General on Article 144 when the Attorney-General said it did not apply to loans but only apply to guarantees? Would the Prime Minister explain why he thinks this guarantee is also not caught by Article 144?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the same question has been asked several times by Mr Jeyaretnam of both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Finance Minister, and both Ministers have explained the situation quite clearly. I am of the view that the Attorney-General has advised me very well. As to the guarantee part, this comes under the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). MAS will issue the guarantee and under the MAS Act there is provision for the Authority to do so without our having to come to Parliament or going to the President. I can assure the Member and also the other Members of the House that we would do things in accordance with the Constitution. If there is a need to come to Parliament, we will come to Parliament. There is no question about that. There is no difficulty in that. If we have to seek the President's approval, we will seek the President's approval. In this particular case, the MAS Act has allowed us to proceed with the scheme without our having to come to Parliament or to seek the President's approval.

Another supplementary question for the Prime Minister. We have heard about the MAS Act. But is it not his view and the Government's view that the Constitution is the supreme law of the country and takes precedence over any Act?

Mr Jeyaretnam is a lawyer. The Attorney-General is the person to answer the question. I have been advised by the Attorney-General that what we do is perfectly constitutional.

Has the Attorney-General now advised that Article 144 does not apply to guarantees as well?

He has not advised me but I have read the arguments between the Finance Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister with Mr Jeyaretnam, and that advice was given to the Deputy Prime Minister and it is part of the advice to the Government.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the number of illegal immigrants arrested is on the rise; (b) whether the number has reached a level which will endanger our security; and (c) whether our resources are being stretched in trying to put this problem under control.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of illegal immigrants arrested in January 1998 and February 1998 were 431 and 644 respectively. The number for March 1998 was 2,086. The increase in arrests is due mainly to more intensive enforcement action by the Police. There is no cause for alarm. Police operations are aimed at containing the illegal immigration problem to prevent it from getting out of hand. They are a warning to potential illegal immigrants that they should not come to Singapore as there is no work for them and that the Police are alert. The fact that more illegal immigrants are arrested does not indicate a deterioration in the security situation in Singapore. For March 1998, the number of illegal immigrants arrested for criminal activities was only 32. The security, and law and order situation in Singapore is firmly under control. The arrests of illegal immigrants demonstrate that the Police and the other Home Team agencies such as Singapore Immigration and Prisons are, for the present, well-equipped to deal with this problem.

Sir, could the Minister comment on the adequacy of the current penalties to deal with the various immigration offences: overstayers, illegal immigrants, syndicates who run such rings, and if they are not adequate, whether he intends to revise them in the future?

Sir, the current penalties for most of the offences under the Immigration Act are adequate. But we are now looking at amending some parts of it to make the penalties heavier for certain types of offences, for example, attempting illegal entry, abetting in bringing in illegal immigrants into Singapore, and so on. When the details are finalised, I will move the amendments in this House.

Sir, may I ask the Minister if it is true that there have been recent cases in which we have caught illegal immigrants actually leaving the country?

Yes, these are well publicised in the newspapers. It is true.

May I ask the Minister what is the reasoning behind this: why do we want to catch people who are already leaving the country?

The reason is that when they come in here illegally they have committed an offence. If they have committed an act which is not lawful and when the police has received such information they must act. It is only natural that they must act. If not, they are not doing their job.

Sir, it is comforting to know that the situation is under control. Would the Minister take the matter to its source where these illegal immigrants came from and inform the governments and media there to spread the news of the consequences of coming here illegally? There are people who come here illegally and get arrested and sometimes they are not aware of the situation till they come here. I am asking whether the Minister will be prepared to liaise with the governments concerned and the media as well.

Sir, it requires more than just government effort to tell these people who come from China, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia all the countries around us that they should not come here illegally. I am sure the embassies here also do their job. They know that our Police are taking enforcement action against people who had come in illegally or overstayed beyond the validity of their social visit passes. They report back to their governments and they could also help us by telling their people not to come here illegally. On our part, we have already passed the message to all these illegal immigrants and overstayers that when they go home, please tell their friends not to come here illegally. We give them newspaper cuttings and a lot of information, for example, when they are in prison, we educate them to come here legally, if they want to, otherwise they should not try to come here. The programmes on our television are being watched in parts of Malaysia and Batam and I am sure those who watch television would also know that police enforcement action is very intensive and they should not try to enter Singapore illegally.

asked the Minister for Manpower, in the light of the number of illegal immigrants coming into Singapore, whether there has been an increase in the number of employers hiring illegal workers, and, if so, whether he intends to amend the legislation to increase the penalties for such employers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry's enforcement officers arrested 1,884 illegal foreign workers in 1997. This includes 333 foreigners who had entered Singapore illegally or had over-stayed beyond the validity of their social visit passes. For the first two months of this year, an average of 234 illegal foreign workers were arrested per month compared to the monthly average of 157 last year. Out of the total 468 illegal foreign workers arrested in January and February this year, 117 were immigration offenders. The presence of illegal workers creates social problems, affects our law and order and undermines economic upgrading. In view of the current threat of illegal immigration, we will intensify our efforts and work closely with the Police to ferret out the illegal foreign workers. Illegal foreign workers and those caught employing them face stiff penalties under the law. They can be fined or jailed. Employers of more than five immigration offenders will be caned. My Ministry prosecuted 540 employers for employing illegal foreign workers in 1997. While the Employment of Foreign Workers Act provides for mandatory imprisonment for a second offence, my Ministry has sought deterrent sentences on some first-time offenders. This had resulted in three first-time offenders being sent to jail in 1997. The maximum jail sentence meted out was 100 weeks to a proprietor of a construction company which employed more than 100 illegal foreign workers. The principal contractor of that particular work site was also fined nearly $1.5 million. Furthermore, three employers of immigration offenders had been caned. Notwithstanding the increase in the number of illegal workers arrested recently, the penalties are still adequate. However, my Ministry will monitor the situation closely and, if necessary, adopt more deterrent measures to check illegal employment.

From the numbers given by the Minister, I get the impression that illegal immigrant workers constitute about one-third of illegal foreign workers. The number seems to be stabilising. So there is no cause for concern that the economic incentive is attracting people across our borders illegally to find jobs. Is that a correct assessment of the situation, Sir?

Sir, while that may be so from the figures that I have just given, we should not be complacent. There is always an incentive for some illegal immigrants to sneak into Singapore to look for employment opportunities. We will continue to maintain the pressure of enforcement action at the work sites where such illegal immigrants tend to crop up.

May I ask the Minister, Sir, whether the Ministry makes any distinction between people who enter the country illegally to work here and those whose stay in this country is rendered illegal by the employers terminating their employment well in advance of the term for which they were granted work permits?

Sir, I do not see the relevance of the point that the Member has raised. But just to answer him, those who enter the country illegally to work, of course, face the penalties under the Employment of Foreign Workers Act and also under the Immigration Act. In the case of foreigners who enter Singapore legally to work and had their work permit cancelled by the employer, they are given a special pass for a short period, during which they should make preparations to leave the country. The understanding with the foreign worker is that he can remain in Singapore so long as he holds a valid work permit. If his work permit has been cancelled or revoked for other reasons, then he must leave the country. We will give them a short period to make the necessary arrangements to leave the country.

Is the Minister aware that these foreign workers, especially those coming from further afield, have paid substantial sums to the agents on the promise that they will be allowed to work for the number of years stated in the work permit, and suddenly after two or three months, they find their stay rendered illegal by the employer terminating their employment and informing his Ministry? Does the Ministry make any distinction for them?

Sir, we understand that some of the foreign workers have to pay certain sums of money to the agents in their home country in order to make the necessary arrangements to come to work in Singapore. But such arrangements are completely beyond the control and influence of my Ministry. The concern and arrangement of a foreign citizen with a foreign agent is totally beyond our control. For those who come to Singapore to work, they enter on the condition that they can only remain here so long as they have a valid work permit and so long as the employer requires their presence here. There is no promise that they will be here for the full duration of the two years for which we grant a work permit, because there is no way that my Ministry can assure every foreigner who comes to Singapore that his employer will have a job for him for four years or six years or whatever period of time that he has indicated. It is entirely up to the foreigner whether to accept or not to accept the job offered by his employer in Singapore. If, for whatever reason, the employer is unable to retain the foreigner in Singapore on a particular job that he has in mind, then he has to cancel the work permit and the foreigner has to leave Singapore. This is the risk of coming here and they are aware of the risk. They have to be prepared to take this risk.

Sir, for those workers whose employment has been prematurely terminated and should they find a job within two weeks, will his Ministry consider favourably giving them a work permit?

Sir, our approach towards the non-traditional source workers coming here to look for work is that they must have prior approval before they enter Singapore. For those who are here, once their work permit is terminated, and unless there are very exceptional circumstances, they should leave the country. What we cannot afford to have is a very large pool of non-traditional source workers hanging around in Singapore and saying they are looking for work and seeking extension for their immigration permits in order to remain here. They are dragging the process over a long period of time, which means that the number of such people hanging around and looking for jobs will increase. That will cause a lot of the problems that I have mentioned earlier on, ie, social problems, and law and order problems. How are they going to support themselves when they are here looking for jobs? What is there to guarantee that they will find a suitable job in two weeks? In fact, our policy has always been that, for work permit applications, if you are a foreign worker, you must apply for prior approval before you come to Singapore. If you do not have prior approval, we will not entertain any application for work permit in Singapore.

Sir, my question to the Minister is along the same line as what Mr Rai has asked. In some cases, some of these workers have got sufficient experience. They have worked in the industry for some time but, unfortunately, due to reasons that their companies have to terminate them for whatever reasons, they are forced to go back. But they could be valuable to other companies in Singapore.

Order. Mr Singh, can you ask your question?

My question is: will the Minister consider setting up an agency that could provide placement services for such workers?

Sir, it is not easy to offer such placement services to foreign workers. We have placement services to assist Singaporeans who have been retrenched or who have lost their job for other reasons. In the case of non-traditional source foreign workers who are in Singapore, we have had, in the past, on compassionate grounds, tried to place some of those workers who were in fact asked to leave by the employers. We found to our disappointment that our efforts were usually unsuccessful. The number of foreign workers who could be successfully placed and the number of employers whom we could persuade to take up these displaced foreign workers were minimal. As a result, most of the foreign workers had to go back. I think we should stick to this fundamental policy that they come to Singapore to work with valid work permits and with prior approval. If, for whatever reason, the employer is unable to keep him in employment, then he will have to go back. This is the risk that some of them had paid money to come here and this has to be their own look-out. They cannot assume that Singapore streets are paved with gold and they can come here and just continue to have a good job, earn a high salary, and regardless of what happens, they would be able to remain here on various pretexts.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Government has made any study on the possibility of using underground water resources in Singapore to supplement our water supply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's water supply comes entirely from the collection of surface runoffs from rainfall. With the help of experts, PUB has carried out geo-physical and hydro-geological investigations on ground water resources. The findings reveal that there are no significant ground water sources available, even at relatively great depths.

Sir, is there any other effort that the Government would put in to develop water resources locally, in order not to be over-dependent on water supply from foreign countries?

Yes, Sir, we have been doing it all these years. Water is very important for us. So we have been developing our own water resources to the maximum. We are now looking into desalination as well, as Members have been informed. We are also looking into other sources of water which are not so usable. They are non-potable water, but they could be used to supplement our sources for non-potable uses.

Is there any target set by the Government in terms of self-sufficiency in water supply, ie, a certain percentage of water supply would be developed locally rather than depending entirely or the bulk of the supply from foreign sources?

PUB has been working on the basis of about 50% from local sources. But as demand grows, it may not be easy to maintain that percentage.

May I ask the Minister, in view of the assurances that we are now getting from the Malaysian Government, in particular the Prime Minister of Malaysia, whether his Government intends to keep the tax on water as a permanent measure or whether the Government proposes to do away with it in the near future?

The water taxes and the higher tariffs on water are very important to drive home the importance of water to Singaporeans and that we must always conserve our water resources. Whatever happens with our neighbours, whether we are able to get supplies, that is still uncertain. We must continue to look after our own security.

Is the Minister aware that the reason for introducing the tax was this fear that Malaysia was perhaps going to reduce its supply of water or even to cut it off? Was that not the reason for introducing the tax? Now that we are told that there will be no such thing, what is the purpose?

May I ask the Member whether he will just carry on on the basis of such assurances, or should we look after our own security, not only on water, but in other aspects? Because water is really crucial. You need water to live on. So we must continue to have efforts to drive home the message and get people to conserve water. The purpose of the tax is to get people to conserve water. It is not to address the point whether Malaysia will cut off supply or not.

Is the Minister saying that he cannot accept the assurances given by the Malaysian government, particularly the Prime Minister? And secondly, is the Minister saying that there has been a significant drop in the consumption of water as a result of the tax and are there no other ways of getting people to reduce their consumption of water?

Sir, I am not saying that we cannot take the assurances of our neighbours. But that is not sufficient. We need to have firm agreements. We need to be able to enforce them. If there are disputes, we need to be able to go somewhere to try and resolve the matter. The impact of the tariff increases has been very evident. Each time we increase the tariff, the consumption goes down. So we have to keep up the efforts, not only through tax means but through educating our public that water is very important to us, please conserve it.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether additional tax or other incentives can be offered to improve water and electricity conservation, especially by industries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, currently, there are three incentive schemes which companies can make use of to help them implement water conservation measures. The Investment Allowance Scheme offers companies an investment allowance of up to 50% of their fixed capital expenditure for water conservation and recycling. The Resource Productivity Scheme provides financing to companies for automation and resource-saving equipment. The Resource Productivity Feasibility Scheme provides a grant of up to 50% of the qualifying cost of engaging external consultants to conduct resource productivity feasibility studies. There are also several existing incentive schemes which encourage the adoption of energy-efficient technologies and equipment, including the Investment Allowance Scheme, the Local Enterprise Technical Assistance Scheme (LETAS), and the accelerated depreciation scheme. The LETAS can be used by local enterprises to engage external expertise to modernise and upgrade their operations, including making them more energy-efficient. The accelerated depreciation scheme has been revised recently to allow companies to depreciate their energy-saving equipment in one year instead of three years. Besides these tax and financial incentives, companies that want to improve their water and energy efficiencies can approach the Public Utilities Board for water and energy audits. An Inter-Agency Committee on Energy Conservation chaired by the Ministry of National Development has also been set up to co-ordinate the efforts of the various agencies involved in setting energy conservation policies and to further improve energy conservation in Singapore.

Sir, the incentives relate largely to consultancy fees and incentives such as tax depreciation. Will the Government consider rebates for those with infrastructure needs for greater efficiency?

I am not clear what the Member means by rebates. If he has some good ideas, he can suggest to me and we will look into them.

By rebates, I mean basically actual cash outputtings rather than simple depreciation which in times of present economic downturn may not mean very much to companies which may be making little or no profits. So that is the basic idea of rebates. But more generally, will the Government consider setting efficiency targets in the areas of both energy and conservation, just as we set economic targets of growth?

Yes, this is something we can do.

asked the Minister for the Environment whether the recent ASEAN Environment Ministers' meeting has made significant progress towards addressing the problems of the South East Asian fires and haze pollution.

Sir, the ASEAN Environment Ministers were able to make further progress in their recent meeting in Brunei in their efforts to address the problem of forest fires and haze. The Ministers agreed to form two sub-Regional Fire-fighting Arrangements (RFA) under the Regional Haze Action Plan: one to tackle fires in Kalimantan and the other to prevent fires from developing in Sumatra and the Riau Islands. Under the RFAs, the affected countries in the sub-regions will share fire-fighting resources and deploy international assistance when available. The ASEAN Ministers agreed that top priority must now be given to efforts to prevent fires from developing in Sumatra and the Riau Islands. The fires in East Kalimantan are now so massive and widespread that efforts are best directed at containing these fires and preventing them from spreading to Central and West Kalimantan. The ASEAN Environment Ministers also affirmed the UN Environment Programme or UNEP's role in helping to mobilise international assistance to deal with the forest fires. Indonesia, in particular, had welcomed UNEP's initiative at the highest political level. This is an encouraging development as we believe that UNEP is in a position to reach out to more countries for assistance. Already, UNEP has sent a UN experts mission to assess the situation in Kalimantan, and there will be a UN level meeting in Geneva on 21st April among potential donor countries to assess the types of assistance needed by Indonesia. While in Brunei, I had conveyed to Prof Juwono, the new Indonesian Environment Minister, Singapore's concern over the threat of smoke haze this year. He had assured me that he was fully aware of the magnitude and seriousness of the Indonesian forest fires and their impact on the region last year. He also stated that he would do his utmost to get his government, his people and those in the private sector to understand the economic costs and the health impact of forest fires and haze, and seek their cooperation in stopping illegal burning activities. The ASEAN Environment Ministers also discussed the forest fires raging in the East Malaysian states of Sarawak and Sabah, and were briefed by the Malaysian Environment Minister on their efforts to bring these fires under control. The Malaysian Minister informed us that many of these are peat fires, against which conventional methods of fire fighting are not effective. The drought in Kalimantan, Sarawak, Sabah and Brunei has been particularly severe and prolonged, and rain is not expected till the later half of this year. The dry season in Sumatra is due to set in around the middle of this year. Whilst efforts are being made amongst the affected ASEAN countries to jointly tackle the forest fires with international aid where available, at home we have been advising Singaporeans to install air cleaners and special filters to mitigate the effects of haze on their homes, schools and offices. We have tested these devices and found them to be effective.

Sir, may I ask the Minister: (1) what measures are being taken to contain the fires in Kalimantan; and (2) is there any evidence of illegal burning in Sumatra?

Sir, at the present moment, a team from UNEP, as well as experts from Germany, are in Kalimantan helping to assess the situation. I believe they will be presenting their report to the Indonesian government and subsequently we will be getting an update from the Indonesian Minister at our next ministerial meeting, which will be in May. The second question is about whether there is any evidence of illegal burning in Sumatra. Sir, fortunately, Sumatra is presently fairly free of fire, and that is why we have agreed to put the highest priority on maintaining the current situation in Sumatra. We have set up the sub-regional fire-fighting arrangement which will be organised to operationalise what we had agreed upon in terms of cooperation to spot the fires and to deploy the necessary people to prevent those fires from taking hold when they do break out.

Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he does not consider it really a mockery to tell people, those who have not sufficient funds even to meet their daily expenses, that they should install air purifiers and cleaners in their homes to avoid any health impact? May I ask the Minister whether the Government has any plans to use some of the US$5 billion that they have set aside to help Indonesia to help the needy here who may be in need of respiratory equipment and other medical aids to help them get over the haze problem?

Sir, our attempt to advise Singaporeans was in response to the appeals by Singaporeans for information of what action they can take to mitigate the effects of the haze. Even at the worst period last year, the PSI level in Singapore, on a 24-hour basis, was in the region of about 138, which is in the unhealthy region but not in the hazardous region, most Singaporeans really would be able to cope with the haze without any equipment, such as purifiers and filters. However, for those Singaporeans who suffer from health problems - the asthmatics, the elderly who are sick and who require medical treatment - they can easily go to the polyclinics. First, the fees in the polyclinics are already very heavily subsidised, but for those people who require additional financial assistance, we have the Medifund which can then help to pay for their polyclinic fees in full. So there is no reason for any Singaporeans at all to feel that they are being deprived of assistance from the Government.

Sir, may I ask the Minister, regarding the fires in Kalimantan last year and the haze which it caused, was it not known that a large percentage of it was actually caused by illegal burning on large plantations?

Sir, in fact, the Indonesian Minister at our last ministerial meeting in Brunei had stated that he believed that the present fires in Kalimantan were largely caused, in the initial stages, by illegal burning. But because of the extreme dryness of the island due to the prolonged drought, those fires have spread very rapidly into the nature reserves and other areas which are by and large uninhabited. So in terms of the genesis, yes, the fire originally was started largely by illegal burning but, however, the present scale of the fires is caused largely by the prolonged drought.

Sir, could nothing be done then about illegal burning which is really the genesis of the fires? When you talk about the fires in Sumatra and about the highest priority being taken, could not also measures be taken against illegal burning, which probably would be the genesis of these fires again?

Sir, indeed that is true and which is why all the Ministers have been urging our Indonesian colleagues to impress upon its government the need to enforce the existing laws in Indonesia against illegal burning activities.

Regarding the preventive actions in Sumatra and the Riau Islands, given that Singapore companies have substantial investments and timber companies are often based in Singapore, will the Minister consider sending a directive to Singapore-based companies to observe Indonesian laws?

Sir, indeed that is what we have been saying publicly. We do not really have information on which companies in Singapore are involved in plantation investments. I think the point is that it has already been very well publicised time and again on the need for the companies to comply with the laws in the host country. In the case of Indonesia, it means they should not engage in illegal burning.

The Minister is right that people know it in the Straits Times or the media. But there is another thing, would the Minister not agree, to receive a letter from the Ministry pointing out the directive? And surely on the question of which companies are doing it, is the Minister saying it is beyond the powers of the Government to find out which ones are doing it?

Sir, we will look into that, as to whether we will be able to get the full information from the various sources.

Sir, if the Indonesian government is not sufficiently encouraged by the pressures from external sources to take action against illegal burning, does that mean that we, in Singapore, would have to suffer the haze again this year and next year and subsequent years then?

Sir, we have been engaged in very extensive discussions with the Indonesian government as well as with our other ASEAN colleagues and we hope that all these extensive discussions and the message which I believe is being put across very strongly through the mass media as well as through our direct discussions will cause the Indonesian government to be more vigilant in the future.

asked the Minister for National Development what is the rationale for the $40,000 government grant given to first-time home buyers to finance the purchase of their Executive Condominiums and whether his Ministry will consider extending such grant to first-time home buyers who wish to take advantage of the falling property prices to buy a private residential unit straightaway instead of joining or remaining on the long waiting list of home buyers for Housing and Development Board flats or executive condominiums. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Koo Tsai Kee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, the CPF Housing Grant Scheme was implemented in 1994 to assist young citizen families who have not previously enjoyed any housing subsidy to purchase a resale HDB flat to set up their own homes, thus obviating the need to queue up for a new HDB flat. The grant is treated as a housing subsidy enjoyed by the eligible recipient, in lieu of buying a new subsidised flat from HDB. In 1995, the Government introduced the Executive Condominium (EC) Housing Scheme to meet the aspirations of young couples, many of whom are graduates and professionals, who want to own private homes quickly. To encourage these couples to apply for an EC instead of joining the HDB queue, the Government decided in 1996 to extend the CPF Housing Grant to first-timers buying an EC. The grant of $40,000 makes the ECs more affordable, since the grant can be used towards the 20% downpayment. To the NMP's question: will the $40,000 CPF housing grant be extended to those who want to buy private properties, the answer is no. Because unlike private apartments or condominiums, ECs are sold under the conditions of the EC Housing Scheme Act and Rules which have several restrictions. The eligibility conditions are, however, similar to those of public housing. In addition, a purchaser is also subjected to the following conditions of ownership: (1) the purchaser must occupy the EC for the first five years after taking possession of the EC; (2) the purchaser can only sell the EC after completion of the 5-year occupation period, and from the 6th to the 10th year of ownership, he can only sell the EC to Singapore citizens or Singapore Permanent Residents; and (3) the purchaser and spouse are permanently debarred from buying subsidised public housing from HDB. In other words, they are totally out of the public housing scheme. In the case of private apartments or condominiums, they are sold by private developers under very different conditions. The Government does not control ownership of these residential properties which the purchasers can use either for owner-occupation or for investment or for speculation. The purchasers for private residential properties are also from the higher income groups. Hence, the Government has no plans to extend the housing grant to purchasers of private properties. Is the problem of housing shortage serious? It is not so serious. The waiting time to book the ECs is very short. Indeed, it is zero today. With the completion of HDB's referral of applicants on the Executive Flat (EF) queue to the Executive Condominium developers, 95% of all the ECs are now available for sale under the open category. In other words, anybody who meets the housing conditions can apply to buy an EC. Applicants are now able to book an EC immediately at the launch of any EC projects. Yew Mei is on the market for buying and Summerdale has just been launched last weekend. For those first-timers wishing to buy HDB flats, the average waiting time has also been lowered from the previous 4.5 years to 2.5 years now. If the applicant is not fussy about location, he can get a 4- or 5-room flat in the West Zone at an average waiting time of 1.25 to 1.5 years which, I think, is a reasonable waiting time. Hence, first-time couples today have many choices to own their own homes. They can either buy a private property if they have the means; or they can buy a more restrictive Executive Condominium with the CPF housing scheme; or they can buy a HDB flat from the resale market with the CPF housing scheme; or they can apply for a new HDB flat. Finally, there is the option to live with dad and mum, and that is the option I encourage most.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Chng Hee Kok 9. To ask the Minister for Manpower if he will provide statistics of the Central Provident Fund members who have profited or lost from investments at the latest available date.

Question No. 9, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 12 per cent of total CPF investors or about 50,000 CPF members made net realised profits from October 1996 to September 1997. 90 per cent of these members or about 46,000 members achieved less than $5,000 each in net realised profits. Although about 83 per cent of total CPF investors made profits on their CPF investments, about 310,000 of them had profits which were less than the CPF interest they would have earned in their CPF accounts, had they not used their CPF savings for investment. Hence, after offsetting for the CPF interest, these members do not have any net realised profits available for withdrawal. The remaining 17 per cent of CPF investors incurred realised losses, even before offsetting for the CPF interest. Of these, 76 per cent or about 56,000 members made losses of less than $1,000. Sir, the depressed stock market has added to the poor performance of CPF members' investment. It is also noteworthy that CPF members usually choose to invest on the local share market themselves rather than place their savings with professional fund managers in the form of unit trusts and fund management accounts. Secure and successful financial investments require adequate pooling of funds for more efficient portfolio management to reduce investment risks and achieve good returns over the long term. Most CPF members may not have a good understanding of financial investments and hence are unable to construct sound long-term portfolios to diversify investment risks. They also have relatively small balances to construct a meaningful portfolio of investments. Sir, the Government is therefore looking into the further refinement and liberalisation of the CPF Investment Scheme to give members more options to invest with professional fund managers. Members can choose from more fund managers and unit trusts. The fund managers of CPF-approved unit trusts will have greater flexibility to diversify portfolios to maximise risk-adjusted returns for CPF investors. In addition, the new rules to require greater disclosure of investment information by the fund managers will enable CPF investors to make better informed investment choices. Details of the changes will be announced soon.

The following Question stood in the name of Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon 10. To ask the Minister for Manpower, in view of the fact that members of the Central Provident Fund Board can use their funds to buy stocks and shares and as they may not be familiar with the operation of the stock market, whether he will cause (i) an education programme on investment to be conducted for them and (ii) safeguards to be introduced to prevent their funds from being unduly exposed.

Question No. 10, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the CPF Investment Scheme provides an opportunity for members to enhance their old age savings through long-term investments. CPF members participating in the Investment Scheme must, however, exercise prudence and judgement in their investments. Currently, CPF members who wish to participate in the Investment Scheme must first have sufficient CPF savings to meet the full Minimum Sum requirements. Thereafter, they can invest only up to 80% of the available savings. This provision serves to prevent CPF savings from being over-exposed to stocks and shares at the expense of CPF members' basic retirement needs. Sir, with regard to investor education, the CPF Board holds regular seminars for its member to encourage proper financial planning for retirement. Investor education is also provided by CPF Agent Banks and organisations, such as Investment Management Association of Singapore (IMAS). The Investment Management Association of Singapore has launched several initiatives to increase public awareness as well as educate the public on the benefits of collective investments and professional fund management. It has already provided fortnightly articles on investments in The Sunday Times and the Lianhe Zaobao. It is working towards providing more information and guidance at a website on the Internet. Sir, the Association is also working with Radio Corporation of Singapore (RCS) on investor education programmes over the radio. Other groups are actively developing TV programmes, seminars and magazine series for investor education. Such initiatives will help to educate the investing public and guide CPF members who wish to invest their savings. CPF Board encourages IMAS and other organisations' efforts to provide more investor education. Nevertheless, Sir, I would like to emphasise that at the end of the day, CPF members participate in the CPF Investment Scheme at their own discretion and must be accountable for the outcome of their investment decisions.

asked the Minister for Manpower if waivers will be given to the maid levy for households where a maid is specifically employed to look after a handicapped person.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the levy on foreign domestic workers is meant to dampen demand so that Singaporeans will not become over-dependent on them. We understand that some families require the services of a foreign domestic worker and our policy is not to deny Singaporeans of such service if they are able to afford it. However, there is still a need to ensure that the number of foreign domestic workers in Singapore remains manageable. Households employ foreign domestic workers for a variety of reasons. Some employ a foreign domestic worker to look after the aged and handicapped, others to look after young children, and yet others to attend to household chores or even to do all of these things. We should not favour any particular household or type of work by exempting them from the levy or granting a concession. The levy is a transparent pricing mechanism that applies equally to all employers. Waiving the levy for any particular group of employers will undermine Government's efforts to manage the demand for foreign domestic workers. Sir, I would like to point out that a working woman who employs a foreign domestic worker to look after a handicapped family member is also entitled to the double tax relief from the foreign domestic worker levy. Furthermore, the Government has provided various tax reliefs and assistance to help handicapped persons and their families. For example, the family member of a handicapped person is entitled to claim a handicapped dependant relief of $3,500 for the maintenance of the handicapped person. Government also provides other forms of assistance to voluntary welfare organisations which provide support and care for handicapped persons. These include residential and respite care centres, hostels, day activity centres and provision of technical aids for disabled persons. We should address the needs of the handicap-care from a total perspective rather than simply waiving the maid levy which would increase households' reliance on maids and undermine the development of alternative care systems. It would also draw us into unnecessary debate on which other groups, for example, those who look after the aged or very young children, should also be granted a similar waiver.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether there are statistics available on the number of handicapped persons in Singapore and what percentage of them are actually gainfully employed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have these numbers on hand. But I am sure there are such statistics. If the Member would like to raise a Question on the number of handicapped persons in Singapore, the appropriate Minister will be able to give him the answer.

Sir, according to the Handicaps Welfare Association, these statistics are not in the population census. So I would like to ask the Minister which Ministry should I direct this Question to, ie, to him or MTI.

I will always be happy to entertain such a question. But if it is not within my portfolio, I will direct it to the appropriate Minister. 1.30 pm

I think we have approached the end of Question Time. [Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Written Answers (Cols. 1961-1970) to Question Nos. 12-19 are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos. 20 and 21 have been postponed to the next sitting of Parliament.]

"to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act (Chapter 185 of the 1997 Revised Edition), to make a consequential amendment to the Registration of Criminals Act (Chapter 268 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and related amendments to the Extradition Act (Chapter 103 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and the Intoxicating Substances Act (Chapter 146A of the 1988 Revised Edition) and to enable Singapore to implement the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Administration of Muslim Law Act (Chapter 3 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the Subordinate Courts Act (Chapter 321 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Chapter 322 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill amends the Extradition Act in order to enable the continuation of the system of extradition with Hong Kong. Currently, the Extradition Act allows the extradition of fugitives to and from "foreign States" and declared Commonwealth countries. Extradition vis-�-vis Hong Kong was on the basis of the provision on declared Commonwealth countries. From 1st July 1997, Hong Kong ceased to be part of the Commonwealth. As a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong is no longer a Commonwealth State, nor is it, strictly speaking, a "foreign State" within the meaning of the Extradition Act. In order to enable extradition arrangements with territories which have a special status such as Hong Kong, it is therefore necessary to amend the Act. This Bill therefore amends the definition of "foreign State" to include any territory specified in the new Third Schedule to the Act, with which Singapore has an extradition treaty. Sir, for the benefit of Members, let me say that the United Kingdom has taken a similar approach on the ground that the Hong Kong SAR is a sui generis entity in international law. Last year, the United Kingdom made elaborate amendments to their Extradition Act 1989 so that its provisions pertaining to foreign States, designated Commonwealth countries and colonies also applied to the Hong Kong SAR. We, however, have taken a simpler approach of widening the definition of "foreign State" so that it covers not just states but also "territories" such as the Hong Kong SAR. Sir, the Bill repeals and re-enacts section 45 of the Act to empower the Minister, by order published in the Gazette, to amend, add to or vary the new Third Schedule when an extradition treaty between any territory and Singapore has come into force or has ceased to be in force, as the case may be. Sir, the new Third Schedule in the Bill sets out the territories with which Singapore has an extradition treaty. The Schedule lists the Hong Kong SAR of the People's Republic of China. Singapore and the Hong Kong SAR signed an Agreement for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders on 11th November last year. It will enable Singapore and Hong Kong to surrender persons accused or convicted of offences committed within the jurisdiction of either Party, who are found within the jurisdiction of the other, subject to the terms of the Agreement. When this Bill is enacted and comes into force, Hong Kong will be gazetted under section 4(1)(b) of the Act as a "foreign State" for the purposes of this Act and for the purposes of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) (Consolidation) Declaration (Chapter 103, Declaration 1) will be amended to remove Hong Kong from the list of declared Commonwealth countries. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Sir, my understanding of extradition is that it is dependent entirely on statute. My question to the Minister is that since Hong Kong is not a sovereign state, can it sign an extradition treaty with the Republic of Singapore? Unlike the UK, we have not amended our laws in this respect. As regards the extradition treaty signed between Hong Kong and Singapore, may I ask the Minister whether it was at the initiative of the Hong Kong government or was it on our Government's initiative? I would like to further ask the Minister what are the criteria he would look into before an extradition treaty is signed between Singapore and a foreign country. In this respect, may I ask how many of the countries in ASEAN have signed extradition treaties with Singapore other than Thailand? Sir, I would like to refer to section 3 of our Extradition Act. I note that in that section, English extradition laws are incorporated into our statute. Section 3 puts into effect in our Extradition Act all those foreign States which have signed extradition treaties with England as if they had signed extradition treaties with us. Since we are now making amendments to our Extradition Act, I would like to ask the Minister why he does not now also include the list of foreign States in the new Third Schedule. In the absence of the full list of foreign States in our Extradition Act, we have to look to the English Extradition Act to find out all the names of countries which have an extradition treaty with us by virtue of the said English Act. This is quite inconvenient, to say the least. Would the Minister consider putting the full list of foreign States in our new Third Schedule?

Sir, I have noted the various points and questions raised by Mr Chiam. As to who initiated it, my recollection is that there was a mutual desire by both sides that the arrangements, which previously existed, should continue. In other words, it was in the interest on the law and order grounds of both Hong Kong and Singapore that the arrangements, which had been in place for extradition before Hong Kong became an SAR, should continue. Secondly, on whether they had the competence, I understand that they had the competence and there was no objection by the People's Republic of China. Thirdly, as to which ASEAN countries have formal extradition agreements, the position is that we have extradition arrangements with Malaysia and Brunei and the kind of expeditious arrangements are set out in our criminal procedures. As to the provision which he referred to concerning extradition treaties entered into by the United Kingdom and other foreign countries, yes, before Singapore separated and became independent, the United Kingdom had its extradition treaties with other countries which may have listed Singapore in its scope of operations. It does not follow that, today, all those arrangements automatically apply. In other words, the Singapore Government will have to carefully consider whether all these treaty obligations are automatically binding on us before we can consider publication of the treaties. So this will be done periodically by the Attorney-General's Chambers in consultation with those countries concerned. But I want to make the point that it is not automatic that all those extradition arrangements will apply in each and every case.

Sir, I believe the Minister has left out one point, which is on the criteria for us to enter into an extradition treaty with another country. Also, in the case of Malaysia and Brunei, my reading of the law is that extradition can only be carried out when there is an extradition treaty. If we do not have an extradition treaty with Malaysia and Brunei, how do we force those governments to hand over a fugitive to Singapore?

If the Member will recall I do not have the statutory provisions with me right now there are statutory provisions for Malaysia and Brunei to provide for this and I shall be happy, at a later occasion, to refer these statutory provisions to the Member. As for the criterion for any extradition arrangements, not only for Singapore, it is whether the two countries concerned feel that there is a desire, a shared desire, that in the interest of law and order, it is mutually beneficial for there to be an agreement for the reciprocal handing over of fugitives. But that is a general principle. There also has to be agreement on the nature of offences which are known as extraditable offences and also on who are extraditable persons. Sometimes these arrangements are easier to conclude when countries have very similar legal systems and procedures. Where countries have rather distinctly different legal systems and procedures, it may be more difficult to conclude. So, the general approach is, first, there must be a mutuality of interest that they want to conclude these agreements and, secondly, flowing from that, they will have to examine the legal provisions whether they are compatible or not.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 1.45 pm.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time". This Bill seeks to amend the State Lands Act to establish a statutory office of the Chief Valuer. These amendments are consequential in nature, following amendments to the Constitution to make the Chief Valuer a safeguarded appointment passed at the last Parliamentary sitting on 20th March. At that time, DPM Lee had set out the background to these amendments. The Bill introduces new sections 2A, 2B and 2C to establish the Chief Valuer, currently a departmental title, as a statutory office. He will be appointed by the President on the advice of the Public Service Commission. The President has the discretion to disagree with the Commission's advice. Administratively, the Chief Valuer will be responsible to the Minister for Law on all state land valuation matters. The independence of the office-holder is safeguarded by provisions which stipulate that the Chief Valuer's remuneration and terms of service cannot be altered to his disadvantage during his tenure. The amendments also set out the Chief Valuer's functions and confer on him right of access to buildings and lands. He can exercise this right at reasonable hours and only for the purpose of discharging his functions. These amendments will help strengthen the institutions and systems for the effective operation of the constitutional safeguards over past reserves. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. 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." Introduction Sir, the number of foreign maids has increased from around 80,000 in December 1993 to more than 100,000 in December 1997. We also have a few thousand locals working as maids. Many could be working part-time. Domestic maids are female, work within the confines of their employers' home for 24 hours of the day, and except during their time-off, are isolated from the rest of society nearly all the time, and depend on their employer for food and lodging. Maids are therefore more vulnerable to abuse by employers and their immediate family members, than any other categories of employees. All employers have an obligation to treat their maids humanly and decently. The great majority of employers treat their maids well, but a small minority behave as if their maids are slaves. They get upset easily when their maids do not meet their expectations. Some even physically abuse them. Maid abuse could be in the form of simple assault or causing serious hurt. Some employers took advantage of their maids by outraging their modesty. The number of maid abuse cases reported to the Police nearly doubled, from 105 in 1994, to 192 in 1997. Of the 192 reported cases in 1997, 157 cases were substantiated with evidence, and appropriate actions had been or are being taken against the offenders. Although the number is still small relative to the maid population in Singapore, we should curb such incidents before they get out of hand. Maid abuse runs counter to Singapore's aspiration to become a gracious and civil society. Abuse of foreign domestic maids can also damage our international reputation and bilateral relations. The recent case of Hartati, the Indonesian maid, for example, was widely reported in the Indonesian media. Jakarta imposed a temporary ban on maids coming to Singapore, following that incident. Enhanced Penalties My Ministry proposes to designate certain offences in the Penal Code to carry 1.5 times the normal maximum penalties, if perpetrated upon a domestic maid (regardless of whether she is a local or a foreigner) by the employer or a member of the employer's household. This will signal clearly to employers of domestic maids that the Government takes a serious view of maid abuse. Specifically, these offences are: (1) Hurt or Grievous Hurt (section 323, section 324 and section 325) of the Penal Code; (2) Wrongful Confinement (section 342, section 343 and section 344); (3) Assault or use of Criminal Force with intent to outrage modesty (section 354); and (4) Insult of Modesty (section 509). Simple hurt and outraging of modesty are the two most common forms of maid abuse. These two offences together constitute about 92% of all cases in the last four years. Clause 2 of the Bill creates a new section 73 in the Penal Code, prescribing that the maximum penalties for the offences I have listed would be 1.5 times what the offender would otherwise have been liable for, when the victim is a domestic maid, and the offender is the employer or a member of the employer's household. For example, the current maximum penalty for voluntarily causing hurt is 1 year's imprisonment, or up to $1,000 fine, or both. The maximum penalty will become 1.5 years' imprisonment, or up to $1,500 fine, or both. Clause 2 will also make any attempt to commit or abet these offences punishable with the enhanced penalties. Applicability of enhanced penalties Sir, the enhanced penalties will apply whether the offences take place inside or outside the employer's place of residence. This is because the abuse need not necessarily take place within the four walls of the employer's home. Employer's household will be defined as family members of the maid's employer who are residing in the same home as the employer and the maid. It will exclude visiting relatives and friends, as they do not exercise any authority over the maid. The enhanced penalties will also not apply in situations such as when a maid's employer sends her to work in another household, say, his brother's home on an ad hoc basis, and a member of that household, say, his brother, subsequently abuses her. Of course, the employer should not have sent the maid to work in his brother's home in the first place, as this is against the Employment of Foreign Workers Act. But should he do that, the enhanced penalties would not apply because like visiting relatives and friends, the brother does not exercise any real authority over the maid. By the definition of domestic maid in the Bill, the enhanced penalties will also not apply to part-time maids. This is because part-time maids maintain their network of family and friends, and are consequently less vulnerable to abuse. Since I first introduced the Amendment Bill in this House, I have received feedback that some employers are concerned that their maids may exploit the special protection provided to them under the Amendment Bill to get out of their contracts or to spite their employers. Let me assure Members that we will continue to safeguard employers' interests against such maids. Police will warn and, where appropriate, prosecute a maid for giving false information to a public servant, under the Penal Code. Foreign maids who misconduct themselves stand to lose their work permit and can also be debarred from working in Singapore. Jurisdiction The Magistrate's and District Courts are currently empowered, under the Criminal Procedure Code, to impose sentences up to two years' and seven years' imprisonment respectively. To enable these Courts to continue to hear maid abuse cases carrying the enhanced penalties, clause 2 of the Bill provides for these Courts to continue to have jurisdiction over such cases and impose the enhanced penalties. Conclusion Sir, this Bill is intended to send a strong signal to those employers who have a tendency to abuse their domestic maids that we take a very stern view against such abuse. My Ministry will continue to monitor closely maid abuse trends after the enhanced penalties have been implemented. If necessary, we will take additional measures to tackle maid abuse, including expanding the situations when the enhanced penalties would apply. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill to enhance the penalties for offences against domestic maids. Sir, with growing affluence and the increase in dual income families, employing women foreigners to take care of our domestic chores and to tend to our children or elderly parents has become the trend in most families who can afford to do so. Even for families where the wife is not working outside the home, having a maid to do housework and to take care of children or the elderly sick is fairly common as well. However, and sadly though, affluence does not bring about a refinement in character or behaviour of some Singaporeans. In recent years, abuse of domestic maids, going by press reports, has become fairly common and there seems to be a worrying trend. The type of abuses, as reported in the media, has also become more bizarre and cruel. Abusers seem to be getting younger too! Of course, there are also reported cases of false accusations being made against employers but such cases are in the minority. Those maids invariably did so to get out of their contract of service so that they may return to their homes early. Sir, by and large, the majority of domestic maids are well behaved and discharge their duties admirably. They take a huge load off their employers, especially the career women and working mothers. There are also instances of domestic maids who had performed tasks beyond their call of duty and helped save the lives and property of their employers. Good employers are also happily in the majority and many grateful and understanding employers have also regarded trusted maids as members of their own family and take good care of their maids. Sir, notwithstanding this, it is still necessary for us to arrest the rising trend of domestic maid abuse. We must understand that domestic maids are human beings who are forced to offer themselves as maids because of financial hardship. They leave behind their families to come alone to a strange land so that they may sustain their families at home. Domestic maids are not like those in regular jobs. They have no co-workers to turn to for help or emotional support. They are very much on their own to fend for themselves. They do not work regular hours as those in regular employment do and there are cases of maids having to work literally 24 hours a day. They have also no homes to return to, to unwind like most of us, and are in constant contact with their employers. Lastly, they have no families to turn to for emotional support. All these make a domestic maid different from not only us, but also other foreign workers. Domestic maids are cooped up in their employers' homes day-in-day-out. They are totally cut off from the rest of the world, as it were. If they are abused, there is no one on hand to help them. It is for these reasons that the law must protect them and punish the guilty to deter others. There is a perception, Sir, that offences against domestic maids are committed by male employers. This is not so as there are several cases of abuse committed by women employers, their parents or children. Domestic maids are not only sexually abused, they can be physically and emotionally violated. Most of these incidences of abuse seem to be reported by third parties, and not by the maids themselves. These maids may be too intimidated to do anything but suffer in silence as they may have been put in fear of their life and limb and even repatriation, if they dare breathe a word of their ill-treatment. I also wish to address the concern of some Singaporeans who feel that the enhanced penalties seem to favour domestic maids more than abused wives. This is not so and I do not think that this is even our intention. Wives should not be compared with domestic maids as they are a special category of persons who enjoy the protection of the law and they have a special role in our society as our policies have always been family-oriented. Abused wives can seek redress in the Family Court by way of a personal or expedited protection order for herself, or a domestic exclusion order. They can also turn to their own parents, siblings, relatives or friends readily for assistance to deal with violent or abusive husbands. They can also bring an end to such abuse, of course, ultimately by divorcing their husbands. Maids do not have this ready access or privilege. Neither can they enjoy any other protection because they do not know how to access it and do not have the financial means to do so. Sir, perhaps in seeking to enhance the penalties for offences against domestic maids, we should also take this opportunity to look into the penalties for offences of family violence as well to see if they should also be brought up to date.

Sir, in the wake of a spate of maid abuse cases in the last few months, I think the Penal Code is timely, necessary and consistent with our national effort, as the Minister himself said, to create a gracious and caring society. No one can object to our Government severely penalising employers who exploit their maids and treat them like indentured servants or domestic animals. The concept of enhanced penalties for a specially vulnerable and defenceless category of victims is valid. It is a commendable example of State-sanctioned protection for the particularly vulnerable members of a domestic household. I would, however, take the point further and argue that the Amendment Bill has not gone far enough and should be extended to include enhanced penalties for other vulnerable victims like spouses, young children, handicapped and elderly dependants. Sir, let me elaborate. The Amendment Bill sends an inconsistent message on violence. If it is valid to regard domestic maids as a specially vulnerable category of victims for protection, why leave out the other potentially helpless and exploited members in any household? Does the Minister not feel equally compelled to also enhance penalties for child abuses, especially sexual abuses of minors and those who are intellectually disabled? Children are as vulnerable and powerless as maids in the hands of abusive parents. What about abuses of elderly dependants and spouses? Why single out maids? We need a consistent deterrent against domestic violence, regardless of who is the victim. Chief Justice Yong Pung How in the recent annual Workplan seminar said that "punishment policy must be clear, predictable and coherent". I cannot agree more. For me a punishment reflects a society's values about what it considers as unacceptable behaviour. Our message must be consistent. Insofar as abuse of maids is an act of domestic violence, the same principle of enhanced penalties should apply to all vulnerable victims such as spouses, young children, and the handicapped or elderly dependants. In this respect, I stress that injury need not simply be physical in nature, and extreme humiliation is certainly a form of psychological violence. My second point is the Amendment Bill highlights the discrepancy and discrimination in the treatment of wives and domestic maids. With enhanced penalties only for maid abuses, we may end up with an iniquitous situation whereby, if a man bashed up his wife he could get one year's jail, but if he commits the same degree of violence on the maid, he could get one-and-a-half time year's jail. Why do we make penalties for wife abuse lighter? Will we end up condoning spousal violence more than maid abuse? This is a case of equal treatment of women as a whole and respect for them. Our Constitution provides for equality before the law; any preferential treatment of one category of women, the domestic maids, as opposed to an equally important category of women, the wives, will violate this principle and create more resentment against the law at its apparent lack of comparable protection for local abused wives. We need to remove or address this discrepancy. If we do not address this two-tier punitive sanction, we are in danger of creating different classes of victims of domestic violence and it would be unfair to potential victims. It would appear that the drafters of this Bill are more sympathetic to the sufferings of the domestic maids than the pain of abused wives. I hope the amendment of this Bill is a start for an overall review of the sentencing guidelines on domestic violence. Only then we can clearly say to the community that domestic violence of any kind and to any helpless member of a household is wrong. I do not think it is highly improbable one day, a violent employer, who is about to hit a maid in a fit of rage, will suddenly think twice and will deliberately choose to hit a family member - child, spouse or elderly parent instead - because he or she will get away with a lighter sentence! Indeed, many wives may be compelled to claim that they are in fact domestic maids, in order to get greater protection under the law! I am sure, Sir, that such an unintended consequence is not what the Government has in mind when introducing this Amendment. My third issue, which is related to this Bill which I thought I should bring up, is the recognition that the Amendment Bill is only an enabling legal tool. It is a necessary measure but not a sufficient one to stop maid abuse. Other social policies must be established. An important reason why abuse of domestic maids occurs, Sir, is not because of inherent nastiness of Singaporean families. The same person who treats his subordinate at the workplace with respect, and waitresses or other service personnel outside the household, may abuse the maid at home. This apparent dichotomy in behaviour is due to the fact that our society has created certain normative standards of conduct towards people we deal with outside our household. The employer-employee relationship is bound by many laws which establish a web of mutual obligations. The State has created this web; otherwise, we would have workplaces that resemble Dickensian conditions, and workers' rights have gone a long way since the last century. Yet we do not have a codified, formalised web of mutual relationships and obligations for workers in the domestic household. The domestic household worker should have no different rights and responsibilities as a factory worker or office worker. It is precisely because they do not, and that their destiny is subject to the whims and random kindness of their employers. Sir, we cannot leave such relational harmony in a household to "luck" and ambiguous management. On one hand, we ask for greater deterrents against maid abuse; on the other hand, we must institutionalise the working arrangements of maids. There should be standard, properly drafted work contracts stipulating terms and conditions, mutual obligations - no less than what governs the working relationship between a factory operator and the employer. I urge the Ministry of Manpower to draft a standard employment contract for all domestic maids in Singapore, regardless of nationality. We should also consider extending the Workmen's Compensation Act and other relevant protective legislation for gainfully employed people, to domestic maids. Currently, only some embassies out of concern for their nationals who work as maids, do so. But we would like some standardisation. And more important than legislation is consistent enforcement of State sanctions on violations. Laws are only effective when they are activated. All these are not enough, Sir. We also should have education programmes to educate families about relationship dynamics and potential conflicts which can arise when a stranger enters the family with all the attendant stresses. Sir, we have countless programmes on parenting, on marital counselling, etc. Yet we have ignored the fact that a maid, within the confined space and privacy of household, has not been considered as a member of the family, for natural reasons. Yet we do not have programmes to teach employers and maids how to relate. Companies hold courses for supervisors to learn how to deal professionally with workers, but we do not think that employers, like housewives, for example, need to learn the same in dealing with their maids. The sooner we recognise the reality that domestic maids are going to be a permanent - and growing - feature of Singapore society (we have 100,000 of them now and there will be more, I think) and establish a professional relationship with them within the household, the better prepared we are as employers to tap them as a valuable resource to help us cope with the double burden responsibilities of most Singapore families. Sir, I support this Amendment Bill and I hope we take this opportunity to adopt a thorough and multi-pronged approach at all levels to address domestic violence within the coherent framework of fair and appropriate sanctions for all.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me this opportunity. First, I rise to support the Bill. The Bill is timely. The newspaper reports, both in the Straits Times and the New Paper, have highlighted the plight of these maids, especially the New Paper. Many thought it was sensational to have this news but I think it was a reminder, Sir, to Singaporeans at large that some members of our community are not being fair to these maids. Sir, the majority of our citizens treat their maids well, but there is a small minority who think they literally own these maids. They require them to do all sorts of things. With the proposed legislation, this small group is well warned that should they not change, they will meet the might of the law and the law will take all this into consideration. Sir, many may think that this is a bit harsh, but I do not think so. These maids have come all the way from different countries. They have left their families; they are in a foreign country with different cultural milieu and they have come here because of economic necessity in their countries. In fact, let us not forget when our forefathers came, they too came in this condition to earn a living here. These maids have left their families behind, some of them have young children. And instead of showing some sympathy, these perpetrators have in fact treated these maids with abuse. Sir, in earlier days, maids were a luxury. Only the rich could afford them. They were the traditional "black and white" ladies who, in most cases, were regarded as members of the family. And they, in fact, had authority of the family to punish errant children and many children regarded them as good as their parents. Why have we shifted the position? I think this is something that we ought to ask ourselves. Has our society lost its compassionate values? Because both the traditional "black and white" ladies and these ladies do the same thing. It is necessary for parents that they conduct with their maids in such a way that their children will pick the good habits from them - the language that is used, the way we address them, the way we deal with them, the way we take them out for lunch, whether we let them sit outside the cafeteria or they sit with us. These are the values which the children will pick up. In many cases, the maids are so good that the children regard them as foster parents. And these maids have very important responsibilities to the family, and I would urge the Singaporeans at large not to do anything that will diminish our standing in the international community. I congratulate the Minister, not because of any pressure from outside but because of our own conviction that what is being done is not correct, that the Government has decided to introduce this legislation. If nothing else, it will serve as a reminder, I repeat again, Sir, to those who are not going to conduct themselves properly that they are going to meet the might of the law. Sir, there is one area which I am a little concerned. Some of these maids have the habit I have one experience through my professional dealings of making allegations which are not accurate. There may be some truth in the allegation. I am glad that the Police were so thorough, that we must pay tribute to our Home Team, and that the officers concerned investigated the matter. This is very important because the Police have been very fair. When the law is being administered, we must see the genuine from the fake. There will be some cases, Sir. But this is an administrative area. I would urge the Minister not to tolerate such acts of these maids which are purely to punish the husband or wife of the household. We have an increasing demand for maids. Although it is not related, I would like to mention that we may have to live with this phenomenon for some time to come. But we should try to see that we are less dependent on maids. This is a social problem that we have to consider. But I am fully in support of this move. This legislation is necessary. I hope the Government, the NMPs and the Opposition in this House will vote and show our neighbours and maids that we are all in support. With this, I support the Bill.

Sir, this is an important issue. Singaporeans have been shocked by the cases spotlighted by the media and I believe no Singaporean condones the behaviour we have seen. Yet, there seems to be no sign of the problem abating. If we take the figures of complaints made to the Philippine Embassy alone, we can see that there has been little improvement from 1992 to 1996. The number of complaints of ill treatment had been held fairly constant. For cases of molest, it had been fluctuating from year to year, most notably, although with some fluctuation, complaints about assault had gone up sharply. The Minister's figures on the Police reports, which are different from the Embassy's complaints, show similar trends for assault. Briefly, Sir, in 1992, complaints received by the Philippine Embassy for assault were a mere 20; 1993, 70; 1994, 39; 1995, 79; 1996, 115. I do not have the 1997 figure, Sir. This kind of stark cruelty, Sir, flies in the face of our ambition of becoming a gracious society. For if we are to become truly a gracious society, then we must accord human dignity to all of us, all among us, regardless of race, religion, nationality, status or even economic standing. There are some basics, Sir, that must be respected. And if these basics are not observed, then there must be equal right to redress against the wrongdoer, no matter who he or she is. Domestic workers and foreign maids must have equal protection under our laws and equal access to justice and institutions of law. That is the true promise of a gracious society, an equal society; that is the promise of human dignity and human rights. It only takes a few severe cases to bring that promise into question. It only takes a few severe cases to strain our relationships with the society from which these foreign workers come from. I do not mean just government and government with our neighbouring countries. I mean between society and society, people to people. So I join the Government and the Minister in seeking ways of improving our behaviour and stopping this ill-treatment of domestic maids. But even so, in considering this particular Bill, we should have two concerns. The first is whether this amendment is fair and just. The second is whether this amendment is sufficient for the task. On the question of fairness and justice, some other MPs and NMPs have spoken on this, and indeed some may question whether these particular amendments are fair to Singaporean employers. This is because we are basically proposing a system of unequal laws. That is, as NMP Claire Chiang has pointed out, you have potentially a lesser penalty if you strike your wife or your child as opposed to your domestic maid. That is true too if you strike a foreign worker who is not a domestic maid or a part-time domestic maid; you also do not get the enhanced penalties. There are some employers and other people who would argue, no, this should not be done. In fact, there are cases in which maids themselves have been guilty of something illegal. I think these are real concerns. But I want to point out why, to my mind, these unequal laws are nevertheless justified. I wish to point out that there are other cases in which we do give special attention and special protection to classes of people. For example, we guard minors, the young in our society, our children, to a far greater degree than fellow adults. This is not merely because of their age or youth per se. Rather, it is a recognition of the particular vulnerability of this class. So to me, when we talk about this unequality of laws, the question must come: do domestic maids fit into this category of particular vulnerability? I believe they do. They are far from home in a strange land with laws, cultures and sometimes even a language which they do not fully understand or are conversant with. They live in the homes of their employers, subject to instructions 24 hours a day, sometimes, unreasonable; sometimes, reasonable. And if they face ill-treatment, some do not have friends to tell and often, do not feel comfortable enough about our police system to make a complaint. More to the point, many may be reluctant to complain, lest they may find themselves sacked, sent home straightaway for this will cause them great financial loss in addition to the physical and other abuses they have already suffered. And on this point, I am reminded that our Minister for Manpower has earlier pointed out our continuing policy to give foreign workers a two-week period, at the most, once their work permits are revoked. This is a threat, in a way, that hangs over the heads of maids who want to complain. So for these reasons, the foreign domestic maids are more vulnerable than the average person in our society. And for these reasons, I stand apart from those who would say we must raise the other penalties first. We should lead with this amendment and if these laws are unequal, I think this can be justified. Let me then turn to my second question: whether this amendment, on its own, is sufficient for the problem that it tries to solve. Sir, in making laws and public policy, there are clearly different ways and stages for preventing criminal or other unwanted behaviour. There are at least four we can think of: (1) Education and self-control or restraint; (2) Counselling, mediation, often by the community; (3) Preventive intervention by Police or other Government agencies; (4) Punishment by the courts. Of these four possibilities of stages and institutions, the Bill before this House clearly targets the fourth and last punishment by the courts. This is not a prescription for self-control or prevention. These laws, if passed, increase the maximum possible penalties. The harm in that case has already been done. The amendment does not help that particular employer or that particular maid. It does not prevent a particular instance of abuse. At most, we can say we are sending a signal to other employers that they should not cause harm to other maids. Is that signal enough? Often, crimes in a household are not rational and thought out in advance. They are often acted out on impulse, anger or a moment of weakness. In such cases, I think, frankly, this amendment will not help. Acting on impulse or anger, few are going to pause, as NMP Claire Chiang has imagined they might, to say, "Wait, I will get 1� times the penalty. Therefore, I will stop." Anger and impulse drive human nature much more strongly than this. For this reason, while I agree that the ill-treatment of domestic maids is an important problem, I believe this amendment alone is insufficient. I would like to ask the Government to consider other approaches to supplement the present amendment. We should recognise that irrationality is often the cause of these abuses and address the underlying household relationship between employer and domestic maid. And I hope this Government will take a multi-pronged approach to the problem. In this approach, penal sanctions, such as those today, will play a part. They can be a symbol that we take ill-treatment seriously. Other measures are important. So the symbol stands for something real and is not a mere symbol. The other measures I have in mind relate to the other stages I have mentioned for prevention, in terms of education, counselling and mediation. Sir, we have been learning to use these tools more in recent years. We have sought to apply them in matters concerning the family and concerning the community. Beyond family members and neighbours, let us also include another member of many Singaporean households, the domestic maid or helper. Government agencies cannot and should not do this alone. They should work with civil society groups. There are already a number of civil society groups and non-government organisations, such as the Family Life Society, to just mention one, which already offer some help and counselling to foreign maids. More can be done. For example, courses for employers and household members can be held. But these groups often find themselves short of staff and funds to cope with the needs. Government can and should assist and support their work by closer coordination with MCD and relevant agencies, and the provision of funding. Some useful work that could be done includes establishing a hotline, or helpline, especially for maids. For the employers, I urge information and education. The Ministry of Manpower has taken steps in this direction. More can be done. I would urge that on granting and renewing work permits, the Ministry of Manpower sends employers (a) information on agencies and NGOs to provide frontline counselling and mediation; (b) information about the enhanced penalties proposed by this Bill, assuming we pass it; and (c) a code of conduct on treatment of domestic maids, if not, a standard contract. Only some embassies and some employment agencies, as the Minister well knows, have adopted such a standard contract. The Government could help in this case to ensure that other agencies are encouraged to follow suit. The primary aim of what I propose the Ministry or the Government as a whole do would not be to scare employers because I think scare tactics would not help us when impulse and irrationality take over. Rather, it is to share with them the norms that this community and this Government expect of its citizens. Another point on which we could help domestic workers, the maids, is to reconsider our repatriation policy as regards those who make complaints. At this point, I need some clarification from the Minister or perhaps his colleague, the Minister for Manpower. My limited understanding of the issue is that the maids who make complaints are treated just as any other foreign worker who has his work permit terminated. In other words, when I complain, I lose my job, I go home. And as I have said earlier, in this short plea, that this in a way is a chilling factor. People will not complain because their economic concerns and their livelihood are tied up with this issue. They will stomach much too much. Such measures, Sir, can help prevent ill-treatment. Some employer-maid relationships can be kept cordial through counselling and mediation. In other cases, if a particular relationship is beyond repair, then counselling and this change of manpower policy can help both sides recognise that it is best for the maid to transfer to a new employer to seek other employment, rather than to continue in that household. Prevention is a better approach than punishment after the crime. These measures will also help Singaporeans to be more educated and move us towards a more gracious society, cognizant of the human dignity of all of us and all among us. Lastly, Sir, some comments about the drafting of the Bill. First, I think it must be clear to all of us that while the amendments enhance the maximum penalty, sentences will not necessarily be heavier. The courts retain discretion in individual cases to mete out punishment within the normal limits, rather than going to the enhanced levels. This Bill, in this sense, does not prescribe mandatory penalties. Many may question this. I think this is rightly so, that these cases involve household relationships, that there are many variables and, therefore, there may be many mitigating factors involved which should be left to the courts on individual cases. Second, the Bill singles out some crimes for enhanced penalties but not others, as the Minister has explained. But I find that this is so even if the other crimes are of a very similar nature. For example, wrongful confinement is enhanced under sections 343 and 344 of the Penal Code. However, wrongful confinement under section 342 is not. To me, the only difference between these crimes is the period of confinement. Section 343 is for three days or more. Section 344 is for 10 days or more. Section 342, presumably, is for periods less than three days. Sir, these are differences of quantity and not of quality. For consistency and to send the right signal, I would suggest to the Minister that all these penalties should be enhanced. It should then be left to the courts whether to enhance penalties in individual cases as befit the circumstances before them. The third point on drafting is how this Bill defines "domestic maids". A "domestic maid" is defined as "any female house servant employed in, . the domestic services of her employer's private dwelling-house and who resides in her employer's private dwelling-house;". The last part on residence concerns me. It occurs to me that there are circumstances in which the employer, the person holding the employment pass, may house the maid elsewhere with another person, such as the parent or relative. This, of course, is against the conditions of the work permit. However, though it is against the conditions of the work permit, it is not clear if the maid would still be protected by this Bill, since she does not live in the employer's house. This means that the employer is punished under the work permit laws, but not the new enhanced penalties under the Penal Code. For this reason, if there is ill treatment, it is not clear if the employer or relative would be subject to enhanced penalties under the Penal Code. If this is true, then people would benefit by doing one wrong, acting contrary to the work permit, and avoid punishment for another wrong, enhanced penalties under this Act. To clear these doubts and to give full effect to these amendments, I suggest the section should have a deeming provision. Such a provision would deem that the holder of an employment permit is, for the purposes of the Penal Code, an employer for the purposes of enhanced penalties, and the maid is deemed to live in the household, no matter what the situation in actual life is. This would then make two sets of people potentially liable, those who are in actual control of the maid and those who hold the work permit. Sir, I support this Bill, as I have said from the start, but I encourage that this be the first step. Let it be the first step and let other measures, by Government directly or Government enabling and civil society following, come after this Bill.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.00 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.34 pm until 3.00 pm Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, I shall keep my speech short and sharp in view of the fact that previous speakers have spoken quite eloquently on this. In my view, this is one Bill we should never have needed in the first place. But I rise to support this Bill, as I believe that we should take stern measures against employers who commit offences against such domestic maids. On the surface, the legislation appears discriminatory in that it treats offences against domestic maids, who are generally foreigners, more seriously than similar offences committed by Singaporeans against other Singaporeans. I have my reservations about such discriminatory legislation although, in this particular case, there is justification for doing so. I am assured that the Minister recognises the fear that this legislation can lead to abuses when maids may blackmail employers. There have been cases of maids making false allegations about their employers. Sir, we can all agree that recent cases of abuses of maids by a few employers have tarnished and damaged the reputation of Singapore, especially at a time when we want to attract foreign workers who work and live here. This Bill reflects our seriousness in ensuring that foreigners are not only welcomed to Singapore, their safety and security safeguarded, but that we will go to the extent of having such discriminatory legislation. In the long run, however, Singapore's reputation as a place and home for these foreigners rests not on such enforcement and deterrence, but on the goodwill, trust and respect that we earn of being responsible, caring and fair employers. Until such time when we can meet in this House again to remove such a provision on the ground that such legislation is no longer required, we would not have achieved this goal. I would also urge the Minister to consider other penalties, such as to prohibit employers and their immediate families from ever employing a domestic maid, either local or foreign, if they are found guilty of abusing their maids. In more serious cases of abuse, we should have no hesitation to shame and make public the names of such offenders. I believe that much of the problems we have seen in recent cases stems from the disrespect some Singaporeans have of maids, in particular, and those who work and serve them, in general. Perhaps it is timely that we considered a campaign to inform Singaporeans about the real need to treat foreigners well, whether professionals or casual labourers, and especially to inform them of the important contribution such foreigners make to Singapore's economy and society. On the whole, Sir, I wish to support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. In an earlier sitting of this House on 30th August 1993, the Minister for Labour, in answer to an Oral Question, assured the House that firm action would be taken against employers found abusing their maids. Not only are they subjected to the general criminal laws of the land, the employer and the spouse will also be barred from future employment of foreign maids. It now appears that these measures have been found to be insufficient in dealing with the problem. This is indeed a matter of grave concern and deep disappointment. In Singapore, we are attempting to create a gracious and civil society. At the same time, there are those who are obstructing this objective and who are intent on victimising those who work for them and their families. Now it is proposed in this Bill that the punishment be enhanced to 1.5 times that of the penalties in the Penal Code for the prescribed offences. While I agree that the penalties should be enhanced as proposed, I wonder whether that would be sufficient to deal with the mischief that the Bill seeks to address. For example, are there enough avenues for maids who allege abuse to go to report such abuses? Will such maids refrain from reporting if they think that to do so will result in them being unemployed or, worse, being asked to leave the country? Will abusive employers, who are cocooned by the realisation that the maids may be most reluctant to report them, be sufficiently discouraged by the increase in penalties? It may be necessary and desirable to provide a code of conduct, a series of obligations of good conduct, that the employer of every maid should be asked to comply with, failing which they should then be deprived of the services of the maid and also be asked to pay the cost of the termination of such services. For instance, they may be asked to pay the maid the remainder of the contract of services and other costs to allow such a maid to gain other employment or to return to her home country. I should emphasise that this is not a proposal to set up a Maids' Charter or Bill of Rights. Rather, there should be a code of decent behaviour that should serve as a guide to all those who employ maids. In this way, there may be less misunderstanding, fewer opportunities for abuse and more harmony between the employer, the family and the maid. Secondly, I think there should be some controls over maid agencies to ensure that the maids are properly briefed about taking up domestic duties in Singapore. One often hears of maids who do not understand the standards of hygiene, for example, in Singapore. Maid agencies should therefore give the maids orientation courses before they come to Singapore so that there will be less misunderstanding between the employer and the employee. And if there is less dissatisfaction with the maid, fewer opportunities for abuse will arise. Going back to the Bill, there should be additional means other than the enhanced punishments to control this problem. I refer to compensation for the victims of abuse. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any abused maid to go through the civil process, for example, to claim for loss of pay or other costs, such as medical costs. The courts also have the jurisdiction and powers under the Criminal Procedure Code to award to the victims compensation for the abuse. This would, I am sure, be a firm signal to the victim that we in Singapore would want not only to see that the abusive employers be punished, but also that the victims be compensated. Of course, if this type of compensation is allowed, the investigating authorities must be very sure of the circumstances of each case. But as there is already ex hypothesi a criminal investigation in progress, I am sure that the standard approved will be high in every case. Finally, I would like to draw on a remark made by the Minister just now when speaking on the Bill. He mentioned that the Bill would not cover part-time workers. On the question of whether a part-time worker should be regarded as somebody who does not deserve this enhanced protection, perhaps the Minister could explain to us why that is the case. But, in general, Sir, I support this Bill subject to the comments I have made.

Sir, I thank the Members for speaking in support of the Bill. I have heard all the comments that they have made and, in particular, I just want to address a few points raised by the Members who have spoken. Mr Chng Hee Kok and Mdm Claire Chiang asked whether we would enhance or look at the punishment for family violence. I think the issue of family violence was fully debated when we amended the Women's Charter about 1� years ago, and under those amendments we have provided a lot of access to women who are abused by their husbands and more or less given them an easier way of getting redress from the courts or the authorities when they are abused by their husbands. Of course, I believe my colleague in the Ministry of Community Development will continue to look at the trends in wife abuse and if the amendments do not deal with the problem, then in future we may have to relook at the punishments again. But, as of now, I do not think MCD is going to do anything about changing the Women's Charter, because I believe the amendments that it has made have adequately dealt with the problem. On the children who are vulnerable and, therefore, need particular protection, I believe we have also made revision to the Children and Young Persons Act not long ago to enhance the penalties for people who abuse children. I think we have to wait and see whether the amendments have the intended effect or not. If not, I believe my colleague will also do something about that. But, as of now, I think we should leave the situation as it is. The reason why we have brought up this subject of maids to this House and ask Parliament to enhance the punishment is that maids are very different from our relatives and other categories of workers. These maids come from far away countries. I would say most of them are illiterate and live in rural areas. Some have practically no idea what Singapore really is like until they step on to our shores and, therefore, adjustment can become quite difficult for them. More so, when they have to be separated from their families and work in a totally strange environment under very strange conditions. I think we have to pay some special attention to how they adjust and cope with the new environment. If in the process of working here, the employers were to take advantage of them or abuse them, then, in order to become a gracious and civil society, we have got to find ways of protecting them. Hence, this particular amendment to enhance the punishment for those who abuse their maids. I do not think we should also equate our wives with maids. We really do not think our wives are maids. I think all of us love our wives. There is no doubt about that. But for some who do not, there are other ways for the wives to seek redress from their relatives and from those around them and they, unlike maids who are confined to the home, will know how to find a place to go to if they are abused by their husbands. So we should not take this lightly and think that our wives are like maids and, therefore, we should enhance the punishment for those who abuse their wives. But, as I said, if in time, indeed the abuse of wives is a serious problem, then I have no doubt that the Government will pay particular attention to that and amend the law, if necessary. We are also in the process of reviewing the Penal Code for other offences and the review has been on-going for a while and I hope to be able to move the amendments in Parliament during this session. But until they are ready, I will not be able to tell you more about the sort of amendments that we are going to make and whether or not we are going to enhance the penalties for family violence. Mdm Claire Chiang and others have also suggested that we should have a standardised contract for maids and this subject has been raised many times, particularly with the Ministry of Manpower. My colleague, the Minister for Manpower, tells me that actually the contract between maid and employer is really between the two of them. Maids work under different circumstances for different reasons, for different employers and so on, and therefore it is quite difficult to have a standard contract specifying the exact terms for each of the maids and employers. But the Manpower Ministry encourages the employers to have a contract with their maids, so that they know what their obligations are, what their duties are, what the terms are, and so on. And I believe that most employers have contracts for their maids. Otherwise, they will not be able to settle disputes when these disputes arise. The Manpower Ministry does have a unit in the Ministry to help settle disputes for the maids who complain to them or even for the employers who complain about their maids to the Ministry. My colleague tells me that the Ministry has been quite successful in settling most of these disputes. Therefore, they do not see the need to impose a standard contract for hiring of maids. Some embassies, for example, do insist that maids have a standard contract. For example, the Philippine Embassy does insist that the maids have a standard contract; otherwise they will not be allowed to work in Singapore. Again, we leave it to the individual embassies to work out such arrangements. Mr Simon Tay suggested that there should be other approaches to help resolve problems between maids and their employers. As I said, the Manpower Ministry does have a unit to help to mediate in employer-employee disputes between the maids and employers. But there are other measures that the Manpower Ministry is also considering. For example, they are considering issuing an advisory to all foreign workers in Singapore. This advisory will give them information concerning the conditions of work permit laws and employment in Singapore, the telephone numbers of the helpline of the Ministry, the contact numbers of the relevant agencies such as embassies and the Police. As Mr Tay suggested, there could be other NGOs who could help in mediation and conciliation of problems between employers and employees. I am sure the Manpower Ministry will consider co-opting them if they can provide assistance to the Ministry. The Ministry is also considering doing an orientation video on the culture and norms in Singapore and what the foreign workers can expect here, and this will be produced and distributed free to all the employment agencies. The employment agencies are also encouraged to screen the video to foreign workers before they even start work. The advisory and the video will be available in a few months' time. But in the interim, the Manpower Ministry has provided the contact numbers of the Foreign Workers' Unit in the Ministry, through a letter issued to all the employers, to all the domestic foreign workers in Singapore. I believe those of us who are employers of foreign maids would have received such a notice some time ago. With effect from March last year, employers of foreign domestic maids are also required to take up a personal accident policy for their foreign workers as a condition for grant of a work permit, and the minimum sum to be assured is $10,000 and the compensation, should it be payable, will be given to the foreign domestic worker or her beneficiaries. So these are steps that the Ministry has taken to improve the working conditions and the terms of the foreign domestic workers. And I am sure the Manpower Ministry will consider other approaches and measures which they may think about from time to time which can help improve the lot of the domestic workers in Singapore. Mr Tay also asked whether his understanding was correct regarding the repatriation policy of foreign domestic workers, that is, if a worker were to complain, then the worker would lose the job and be repatriated by the Ministry or by the employer. Apparently, according to the Manpower Ministry, this is not true. If a complaint were to be lodged against an employer, the Manpower Ministry will not allow the employer to cancel the work permit just like that, because they want to investigate the complaint. And sometimes the domestic worker could have gone to the embassy and be housed in the embassy, and during that period the worker also cannot be repatriated. And eventually should the maid be found to be not at fault and the employer is at fault, and she has paid a lot of money or she really wants to work in Singapore, the Manpower Ministry will allow her to continue to work in Singapore under a work permit for a different employer. So the Ministry has been quite flexible, understanding and compassionate in considering the plight of those foreign domestic workers who have paid a lot of money to come here to work and who really genuinely want to work. As to the drafting suggestions made by Mr Tay, I have been guided by the Attorney-General that this is the way we should draft our laws. Whether or not we should deem a person who is the employer as a registered employer of the domestic worker, even though that worker may not be working in his household, and deem the person liable for the enhanced punishment, I think we take it one step at a time. If there is a trend to show that employers overcome the law by getting another person to employ that worker, and eventually allow the person to work in his home and abuse the maid, then we will amend the law to take care of the problem. So, don't worry employers, if you intend to do that, be sure the law will catch up with you in no time. Mr Baharudin suggested banning employers from hiring maids if they were found to have abused their maids. Yes, in fact, that is what the Manpower Ministry does. If a maid makes a complaint, and the complaint is substantiated, then the employer would be banned from hiring a domestic worker. Employers will be shamed indeed if their cases go to court and you will see that their names will be all over the newspapers. There is no doubt about that. Our newspapers will make sure of that too. As regards the code of conduct, as suggested by Prof. Chin Tet Yung, I understand from my colleague, the Manpower Minister, that this is indeed being considered. They have already considered putting up a guide for employers so that they know their obligations and how they should treat their workers. I believe I have dealt with most of the questions. If there is any other question which I have left out, please let me know.

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.

Phun): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the focus of the TAS Act, 1992, was on the separation of the regulatory function of TAS from the commercial and operational functions, and on the transfer of rights and liabilities of the reconstituted TAS to the privatised Singapore Telecom and Singapore Post. Since then, the telecommunication environment has greatly changed. From a single monopoly operator environment, we are now moving towards a multi-operator environment where there is aggressive competition between all players. Today, we already see competition in value-added network services, cellular mobile telephone services, radio paging services, and Internet-access services, to name a few. Come Year 2000, there will be competition in the biggest piece of the pie, which is the domestic and international basic telecommunication services. The whole process of liberalisation aims to sharpen our competitive edge as a global business centre and bring maximum benefits to the consumers. This can only be realised if there is in place a strong and clear regulatory framework which supports a level playing field and ensures fair, effective and sustainable competition among all operators. In addition, the convergence of telecommunications, computing and broadcasting technologies is a worldwide trend giving rise to a new info-communications industry. We will have to encourage the introduction of new and innovative technologies in Singapore to ensure our services and infrastructure meet the increasingly sophisticated needs of businesses and consumers. The regulatory framework that we develop must therefore be able to address these rapid changes in both the market environment and technology advancements. In order to address these varying issues, the current TAS Act that was passed in April 1992 needs to be amended to: (1) ensure that TAS has the necessary powers to carry out its functions and duties in a liberalised, multi-operator environment; (2) bring the TAS Act up-to-date given changes in technology and new types of offences; and (3) ensure that the penalties and enforcement measures specified in the TAS Act are adequate to regulate telecommunication and postal licensees. Sir, I now come to the key provisions of the Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for a new function and duty for TAS to create an economic framework for the operation and provision of telecommunication and postal systems and services. Such a framework would promote and safeguard competition and fair and efficient market conduct. This is necessary if TAS is to regulate any conduct which may restrict competition in telecommunication services or in the telecommunication market. As part of the regulatory framework that TAS will establish, TAS proposes to issue codes of practice, which would apply to its licensees. Clauses 4 and 7 of the Bill provide for additional conditions that TAS may impose on a telecommunication or a postal licensee. In particular, conditions requiring the licensee to enter into agreements or arrangements relating to interconnection, access and sharing of infrastructure, would be made express. The guiding principle is that where licensees are unable to agree on the terms and conditions for interconnection, access and sharing of infrastructure, these would be determined by TAS. These issues are critical issues in a multi-operator environment. Interconnection and equitable access between and among operators are essential for end-to-end connectivity and ensure transparency to end users in a multi-operator environment. While TAS has set broad guidelines for operators to co-operate in this area, TAS would need to be empowered to determine these terms and conditions where licensees are unable to agree. Clauses 4 and 7 of the Bill also require telecommunication and postal licensees to comply with TAS' codes of practice and standards of performance which TAS is empowered to issue under clause 27 of the Bill. TAS may also give directions with respect to standards of performance and procedures for compliance by licensees. Clauses 5 and 8 empower TAS to suspend specific services instead of the entire licence which may cover several services, depending on the circumstances. Clause 6 makes it a requirement for TAS' prior approval to be sought for connection of equipment to a telecommunication system or equipment of any licensee, and not just a public telecommunication licensee. This is to protect the integrity of our networks. Clause 15 of the Bill provides for further measures against telecommunication fraud. Two new offences in connection with dishonestly obtaining a telecommunication service are introduced. With changes in technology, there has been a shift in offences from the traditional telephony environment to mobile communications. Under the first offence, a person is guilty if he has in his custody or control, anything which he intends to use to obtain a service dishonestly or which he intends dishonestly, to allow others to use to obtain a service. Under the second offence, a person is guilty if he supplies or offers to supply anything, which is intended to be used to obtain a service dishonestly. These provisions would address those who possess cloned telecommunication equipment and use them to dishonestly obtain or use a telecommunication service. It is important to control the incidence of fraud, not just to safeguard the industry but also to ensure that the higher costs of operations do not ultimately translate to higher prices to legitimate end-users. Sir, in light of the various cable cut incidents last year and early this year, we have put in place further measures to ensure that parties take due care against such incidents. Clause 18 increases the fine that may be imposed for an offence of damaging a cable of a telecommunication system to $1 million. Clause 19 introduces a new section which imposes a duty for persons who excavate any land to first ascertain the location of any main, cable, pipe, conduit, circuit or wire belonging to or under the control of a telecommunication system licensee. Another significant new provision is introduced in clause 23 of the Bill. TAS is empowered to determine the space and access requirements by the developer or owner of the building who requires a telecommunication service to be provided in a building. This is important in a multi-operator environment. TAS, the regulator, is in the best position to ensure the optimally-efficient space requirements of all operators in a multi-operator environment. By doing so, TAS would ensure that consumers are not deprived of the choice of more than one service provider, for the provision of a telecommunication service. Clause 24 expands section 103 to allow all telecommunication licensees, and not just a public telecommunication licensee, to enter any building for the purpose of eliminating interruptions or interference to a radio-communication system or service. This is necessary to maintain the quality of service to its customers. Clause 25 introduces two new sections, sections 103A and 103B. Section 103A empowers TAS to give directions to a telecommunication licensee, and to a developer or an owner of a building, on the provision of access for the installation of facilities, necessary for the provision or enhancement of quality of a telecommunication service. Section 103B empowers TAS to direct a licensee to co-ordinate and cooperate with any other person in the use or sharing of any telecommunication installation, plant or system to minimise duplication or wastage of resources. The remaining provisions of the Bill are housekeeping matters, such as the deletion of obsolete provisions, the enhancement of penalties under the existing Act as well as some minor amendments, such as removing the restriction on the number of Board members of TAS. This is to allow TAS to tap the expertise of members from various industries. Sir, this Bill provides a framework which would equip TAS with the necessary powers and safeguards for a dynamic, multi-operator, telecommunications environment. The implementation of the proposed amendments to the Act would serve to better regulate the industry and protect the interest of the public as well as improve the standards of performance of the operators. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in support of the TAS (Amendment) Bill. The amendments, as introduced by the Minister of State for Communications, are quite wide ranging, and these amendments make up to date the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore Act, in a field which is characterised by rapid change and rapidly changing technologies which have very definitive impact on competition, markets and market powers of the players. The TAS has a role to create the framework for a competitive telecommunication service system in a market that has the scale and scope of a natural monopoly. Further, telecommunication services have also the features of call and network externalities which are, in general, spillover gains to others arising from the consumption of that service by an individual. These features of natural monopoly and externalities in the telecommunication services industry make the fair and efficient regulation of that market environment so difficult. By the character of a natural monopoly in scale and scope, it is entirely possible for a monopoly to supply the whole of the market demand cheaper than multiple firms. Yet, regulatory controls must be introduced for a rule-based competition, as competition is good for the consumer and raises the standard of services of the providers. Someone asked me, a few months ago, why the Government should regulate and control our single licence holder, SingTel, to give fair competition to all these new entrants, many of them from overseas, when our own operator may not be so fairly treated overseas in other markets. I do not know whether this is a valid complaint. It is good for the consumers here that some regulation for universal service and interconnection access and the sharing of infrastructure are provided for in these amendments. This is done in a general environment for encouraging deregulation and allowing access for the new prospective entrants to the industry. Consumers in Singapore have gained from the limited competition we have recently seen in the mobile phone and paging markets. Prices have fallen substantially and service quality has generally risen. This augurs well for further areas of telecommunication services which may be deregulated. The regulation for competition also gives our own major service operator the opportunity to get ship-shape and tip-top for its competition overseas in this very intense and technologically fast driven market. The most fundamental tenet in this deregulatory exercise must be to enable the industry and the players in it to be abreast of the latest technological developments and the facility they afford to discriminating consumers. Such technological developments have always expanded the scope for competition and the boundary limits of the market. It seems paradoxical that a deregulatory environment with new entrants is also bringing with it new regulations. These regulatory controls which TAS will have to administer are more complex and will have to be more alive to the inter-relationships and the efficient networking of infrastructure with interconnection access. It is an everlasting play for profit, technologies and efficiency for the players, the TAS and the consumers. I hope the Minister will also assure the House that consumers' interest will be safeguarded. In particular, clause 26 of the Bill amends two subsections of section 114 dealing with the errors and omissions for information transmitted through telecommunication. Under this, public telecommunication licensee's exclusion of liability is enabled provided these injuries or losses are beyond the public telecommunication licensee's control. The safeguarding of electronic snooping or security control are important features for public telecommunication licensees. In the US, people have sued common carriers for losses due to fraudulent messages or other economic losses due to delays or distortions in telecommunication messages. One particular concern is that service provider employees should not be allowed to read the contents of other people's messages without authorisation. Perhaps, we have not built up enough case experience in this field to pinpoint, as of now, how the lines of responsibility should be identified or drawn within the various ambits of responsibilities. Nonetheless, it is important to know that the Bill does not exclude entirely the public licensee's responsibility.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the GPC Chairman for his support of the Bill. He touched on the safeguarding of the interest of consumers. Indeed, safeguarding the interest of consumers is one of the key objectives of TAS' function as a regulator. In order to ensure that consumers are able to realise the benefits of effective and sustainable competition in a multi-operator environment, a framework for fair competition has been established. TAS is mindful that there must be a level playing field for all operators. This would be done by establishing the relevant codes of practice and standards of performance for the operators to comply under the proposed revisions to the TAS Act. As mentioned by Mr Chay, consumers have been the main beneficiaries since competition was introduced in the telecommunication industry last April. With further liberalisation of the telecommunication industry, they can look forward to enjoying the wider range of new and innovative products and services offered at competitive prices and a high quality of service standards. Mr Chay also commented on clause 26 which seeks to amend section 114. He has rightly pointed out that we have to look at the implication of this clause and I would like to assure the Member that where there is loss from error or omission in information transmitted through telecommunication, the public telecommunication licensee is not liable where it is due to the fault of another person or causes beyond the control of the public telecommunication licensee. We do this because, in order for e-commerce, for instance, to thrive, we need to have this protection so that the telecommunciation licensee will be able to provide good quality of service standards for transmission of electronic data, and so on. As for loss due to the fault of the telecommunication licensee, it is a commercial matter between the provider of the service and the consumer. Sir, Mr Chay also raised a concern about giving new entrants the opportunity to compete with SingTel when SingTel itself is not given the same treatment overseas. I would like to say that Singapore's competitive edge hinges on our ability to continually respond to technological changes and provide an efficient and innovative info-communication services. Liberalisation of the telecommunication industry will help us maintain our competitive edge and entrench Singapore as a global business centre, besides encouraging SingTel to get ship-shape for its competition both here and overseas, as pointed out by Mr Chay. This is also in accordance with our commitment to WTO group of basic telecommunications to help achieve a liberalised global telecommunication market.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Dr John Chen Seow Phun]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2

Sir, there is a typographical error in line 7 of this clause. "section 115" should read "section 115A".

The typographical error will be corrected. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7

Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 18, to leave out "telecommunication" and insert "postal". This is because clause 7 proposes to amend section 42(2) to impose additional conditions on a postal licensee, and not a telecommunication licensee. Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 8 to 34 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.47 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to repeal the Princess Elizabeth Fund Act. The Act was originally passed in 1949 to erect workmen's dwellings with monies left over from the Princess Elizabeth Wedding Central Celebrations Fund. The Act was enacted to empower the HDB to let out and manage the Princess Elizabeth Estate comprising 252 residential units and 18 commercial units. The situation has changed completely since 1949. By the early 1980s, close to 75% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats. About two-thirds of them are staying in home ownership flats. The units at Princess Elizabeth Estate were outdated and no longer popular as rental units. In 1986, approval was given to HDB to include this estate in HDB's decanting and redevelopment plan. The estate has since been cleared and the vacant land returned to the State on 20th July 1995. With the demolition of the buildings and the land returned to the State, the Act is now obsolete. The Attorney-General has confirmed that it would be in order to repeal the Act. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr Lim Hng Kiang]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes to Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.

asked the Minister for Law what steps will be taken to address the issues contained in the report from the Office of the US Trade Representative on the growing rates of piracy of intellectual property in Singapore.

The Report to which the Member refers (the U.S. 1998 National Trade Estimate Report on Singapore issued by the USTR on 31st March 1998) claimed that there has been a recent upsurge in pirated software, video and music CDs and CD-ROMs into Singapore and that Singapore enforcement measures are inadequate to deal with them.

The fact is that Singapore has the best IPR protection regime in Asia according to an independent survey by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy or Perc last year. For three consecutive years, the International Institute of Management Development or IMD has ranked Singapore as the top Asian nation in the protection of IPR. In the same survey, Singapore was even ranked ahead of developed countries such as Australia, Japan, France and the U.K.

Government nevertheless recognises that changing circumstances and improving technologies pose new and different challenges in IPR protection and enforcement and we are committed to meeting these challenges by a combination of strict laws and enforcement.

Legislation

The Copyright (Amendment) Act 1998, which was passed on 19th February 1998 was brought into force last week (on 16th April 1998). It puts into effect Singapore's obligations under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights or TRIPS Agreement. The Act also enables us to accede to the 1971 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, a fact noted in the USTR Report.

Government has also a few days ago announced that manufacturers of optical discs will be licensed under the Control of Manufacture Act. A condition of the licence requires the manufacturer not to infringe intellectual property rights in its operations covered by the licence. In addition, under new regulations of the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act, only these licensed manufacturers will be permitted to import replicating and mastering equipment for optical discs. These controls will discourage the illegal replication of copyright materials.

The optical disc manufacturing industry has also come forward to support Government's efforts. Last Friday, optical disc manufacturers signed a Code of Conduct which puts in place operational procedures in their business to enhance protection against the piracy of intellectual property rights.

Enforcement

As far as enforcement is concerned, the USTR Report is not correct to say that we have a self-policing system where enforcement is left largely to the copyright owners. Our experience has however shown that effective enforcement requires more than just action by the Government. It is best carried out with the cooperation of the industry and the public and by a combination of their resources as well as those of our enforcement agencies. This is borne out by the experiences of other countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the U.K. and the United States. Far from Government agencies being inactive, the Police have initiated 20 raids in the first 3 months of this year in Sim Lim Square and Bugis Village targetted specifically at retail pirates. These have resulted in the arrest of 21 people and the seizure of over 7,000 pirated articles. A further 49 police raids were conducted on the initiative of IPR owners and a further 47 persons were arrested. In the same period, the IPR Warrant Unit of the CID has seized infringing articles with an estimated retail value of over $880,000. Separate raids have also been conducted by the Board of Film Censors and the Hawkers' Department.

Let me conclude by reiterating what I said during the Second Reading of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, ie that Singapore is fully committed to the protection of intellectual property rights. It is clearly in our interests to do so because our maturing economy will increasingly rely on attracting knowledge-intensive industries to invest here and on encouraging the development of such industries locally. We will monitor the situation, continue with our current efforts and introduce new measures if necessary.

asked the Minister for Health whether doctors in the public sector are restricted from giving any hospitalisation leave or medical leave to patients following the delivery of a third child.

All doctors including public sector doctors are not restricted from giving any hospitalisation or medical leave to a married woman following the delivery of a third child. The doctor will give the medical leave to the woman if her medical condition following the delivery of a third child warrants the sick leave.

However, under the Employment Act, a female employee is not entitled to paid medical leave during the confinement period if she has 2 or more children. She may use her annual leave if she is certified unfit to work or may be given no pay leave if she does not have any vacation leave left.

asked the Minister for Manpower whether medical leave, given for medical conditions or complications arising from or even directly related to the delivery of a third child, is recognised and if it is not, the rationale and justification for this.

Medical leave granted by doctors is recognised for the purpose of enabling an employee to justify his absence from work and to be paid for the period of absence. It is not meant to grant additional payment to an employee if he is already on paid leave such as paid annual leave or any public holiday. It is also not intended to enable an employee to claim for salary on the day or days when he or she is on no pay leave or on a rest day. Hence, a female employee who is granted medical leave while on no-pay maternity leave will not be entitled to paid leave during the period of medical leave. This is clearly spelled out in section 44(4A) of the Employment Act.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether there were increases in domestic consumption of electricity and water in February and March 1998 and whether he is aware of complaints of sudden increases in water and electricity bills for those two months.

The average daily domestic consumption of water and electricity has increased by 2.2% and 20.5% respectively during the 2-month period of January and February 1998 over the corresponding period in 1997. The consumption figures for March 1998 are not yet available. The increases in water and electricity consumption are mainly due to a 3.7% increase in the number of accounts compared to February 1997 and the hotter weather.

My Ministry and the PUB have not received any complaints of sudden increases in water and electricity consumption for February and March 1998. If the member is aware of any specific complaints, he may wish to bring them to the attention of the PUB.

asked the Minister for Communications whether his Ministry will request PSA Corporation Ltd to reduce its warehousing and port tariffs to help Singapore retain its competitiveness in the face of the regional currency crisis.

PSA was corporatised in October 1997. Under the Port of Singapore Authority (Dissolution) Act 1997, the port charges for domestic cargo handled by PSA Corporation are regulated by the Maritime and Port Authority (MPA). PSA has to justify any increase in its domestic tariffs to MPA before implementing any tariff hikes. To date, PSA Corporation has not sought to increase its domestic cargo tariffs. In fact, local stevedore rates, which is the major component in domestic cargo tariffs, have decreased by 25% over the last 20 years.

To keep port costs down, MPA reduced port dues for container ships by 20% since May 1996. PSA and MPA also recently announced the waiver of overside bunker wharfage charges which will result in a cost saving of $17 million a year for port users. In the area of warehousing, PSA Corporation is one of many warehouse lessors in Singapore and port users have a large pool of warehouse operators to choose from. PSA has also been responsive to prevailing market conditions. From March 1998, PSA has lowered rents at Keppel Distripark by 10%. It has also been granting its tenants further rebates on their leases.

In the transhipment business, PSA Corporation faces keen competition from other ports in the region and will need to offer good value-for-money and quality services at attractive rates in order to stay competitive.

I would like to assure the Member that the MPA and PSA Corporation are both keenly aware of the need to keep its port tariffs competitive in order to help Singapore remain a good place to do business.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the measures taken by his Ministry to ensure that our beaches are safe for swimming, sailcraft and powered boat activities; (b) whether the beaches are demarcated for such activities by signages or markers; and (c) what are the programmes initiated to increase the awareness of the public concerning the danger spots along our beaches.

Many agencies are involved in the management of Singapore's beaches, coastlines and related sea sports. For example, PWD is responsible for breakwaters and seawalls, NParks is responsible for the management of parks adjacent to beaches, while Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) regulates the use of sail crafts and powered boat activities in water adjacent to beaches. To ensure the safety of swimmers from watercrafts, MPA has regulations to restrict watercrafts from encroaching into areas designated for swimming. For beaches close to parks, NParks also does not allow powered water-sports boats like jet skis from being launched from parks. Warning signs have also been put up along potentially dangerous areas along the beach to warn the public. In addition, the Singapore Life-Saving Society provides a rescue service at East Coast Park and Changi Beach Park.

NParks has, through the media, encouraged the public to observe warning signs erected. The Singapore Life-Saving Society has also used the media as a means to educate the public on the need to exercise care and to take the necessary precautions to ensure their safety.

Although the various agencies have taken steps to make the beaches and shorelines as safe as possible, users of beaches should exercise due care when visiting the beaches.

asked the Minister for Health whether his Ministry is aware that some specialist doctors have agreed to give specific profit guarantees to a listed company that is proposing to purchase their specialist clinic practices, and what will be the adverse impact such an arrangement will have on the standard of medical practice.

My Ministry is aware that four specialist doctors have given specific profit guarantees to a listed company that purchased their medical practices. The profit guarantee does not contravene any existing legislation covering healthcare establishments or practices, and the parties do not require the approval of my Ministry for the transaction. However, my Ministry is very concerned with any commercial transaction or arrangement which can lead to a lowering of our high professional and ethical standards of medical practice.

The media reported last week that the council of the Singapore Medical Association (SMA) has circulated a resolution on the issue of profit guarantees to its members. The resolution states that:

`Medical practitioners who are involved directly or indirectly in the provision of medical services associated with profit guarantees, whether imposed upon or voluntarily undertaken by them, are putting themselves at increased risk of unethical behaviour arising from patients' interests no longer always being their first consideration.'

SMA's position is that the financial imperative imposed by profit guarantees is incompatible with the Singapore Medical Council's Physician's Pledge and the ethical principles subscribed to by the doctors. The SMA President said that the association is concerned that such commercial arrangements will compromise the doctor-patient relationship which puts the patient's interest first. The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) is in full agreement with SMA's resolution.

My Ministry supports the strong stand taken by the SMA and SMC. A high standard of ethical behaviour by the medical profession is at the heart of good medical care. In the provision of medical care, the patient's interest must always come first.

We must remember that the doctor-patient relationship is different from other consumer-provider transactions, where the consumer has sufficient knowledge of the service or product to make an informed choice. It is therefore vital in a doctor-patient relationship that the doctor remains professionally independent to do what he believes is best for the patient, free from the influence of any non-professional consideration that may potentially be in conflict with the patients' best interests. Doctors who enter into business arrangements must be circumspect and avoid any situation or arrangement which would potentially compromise their professional independence and their patients' interests. To ensure that high professional and ethical standards of medical practice are maintained in Singapore, my Ministry will scrutinise more closely and conduct more intensive medical audits on those medical establishments which are at greater risk of compromise of professional or ethical standards. This will help ensure that high professional and ethical standards of medical practice are maintained in Singapore. Let me assure the House that MOH will not hesitate to act decisively to uphold high professional and ethical standards of medical practice, by bringing errant doctors to SMC for investigation and disciplinary action whenever such action is warranted.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Public Utilities Board will use Chinese as a medium to conduct competency tests for the issuance of trade licences such as the electrical workers licence to enable those who studied the electrical installation and servicing course in Chinese and who had obtained the National Technical Certificate-2 or National Technical Certificate-3 from the Institute of Technical Education to have the opportunity to obtain the relevant trade licences.

Only electrical workers licensed by the Public Utilities Board are allowed to carry out electrical work independently. Holders of National Technical Certificates who are unsuccessful in their applications for an electrician licence are able to practise if they work under the supervision of licensed electrical workers.

Electrical workers are required to comply with the national wiring Code of Practice and gazetted regulations, which are in English. Furthermore, the instruction manuals of electrical fittings are normally in English. Therefore, licensed electrical workers need to have adequate knowledge of English to understand the technical and procedural requirements in the Code of Practice, gazetted regulations and instruction manuals to ensure that safety is not compromised. The PUB therefore has to use English when it assesses the competency of applicants for issue of licences for electrical workers.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Monetary Authority of Singapore will review the current policy of restricting Singapore-based companies to borrow only in foreign currency to finance their overseas business expansion via shareholder loans and whether the policy can be relaxed to allow Singapore companies to do so in Singapore dollars instead.

MAS' restriction on Singapore Dollar credit facilities for use outside Singapore applies only to non-residents. Singa poreans, and companies that are majority-owned by Singaporeans, are free to borrow in Singapore Dollars to finance their overseas operations. Banks are not required to consult MAS on such loans, regardless of amount. MAS explained this policy publicly in a letter to the Straits Times in May 1993, after Singapore embarked on the regionalisation drive. It has also informed the banks. But the existing MAS notice to banks, Regulation 621, was issued earlier, in 1992. As it stands, Regulation 621 still states that banks should consult MAS on Singapore Dollar lending to Singa poreans, for use outside Singapore. Banks still feel constrained by what is stated in MAS Regulation 621. MAS will revise the Regulation. MAS is currently reviewing its policy on the internationalisation of the Singapore Dollar. The aim is to make the policy intention clearer and more explicit, and minimise the need for banks to consult MAS before making Singapore Dollar loans to non-residents. The basic policy of not encouraging internationalisation remains unchanged. MAS is working out guidelines to allow subsidiaries of Singaporean companies, and joint ventures between Singaporean and foreign companies, to borrow in Singapore Dollars for purposes of regionalisation projects. We are also examining whether to ease some of the specific restrictions on the use of Singapore Dollars, especially for activities related to the capital markets. MAS will issue a revised Regulation to banks once this review is complete.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister (a) what is the status of the Real Time Gross Settlement System at the Monetary Authority of Singapore; (b) what caused the delay in its implementation; and (c) whether its implementation will make the Singapore dollar less vulnerable to speculative attacks by hedge funds.

MAS is in the final stages of testing the Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) System. We are currently conducting an Integrated Test of the System involving all participating banks. MAS together with the banks will review the results of the Integrated Test before deciding on the implementation date, which will likely be in June 1998. The RTGS system was originally scheduled for implementation at the end of 1997. This target date was set early in the project. During the course of the project, however, a number of operational and technical issues had to be resolved. Following a review of the project schedule, MAS decided that the middle of this year was a more realistic target date for implementation. The RTGS system is merely a real-time payment system to settle inter-bank payments on a gross basis, ie, transaction by transaction, instead of accumulating all the transactions during the day to be settled on a net basis at the close of the day's business. RTGS systems are being implemented in many countries to reduce settlement risks. They do not reduce nor facilitate speculative attacks on a country's currency. How vulnerable the Singapore Dollar is to a speculative attack depends mainly on Singapore's economic fundamentals.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has responded to the allegations in the US State Department Singapore Country Report on Human Rights Practices 1997, including the allegation that the Government had used the judicial system for political purposes, and, if not, whether the Government intends to respond.

The Government has given a detailed response to the 1997 US State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices through an Aide Memoire, which was conveyed to the Embassy of the United States of America on 30th March 1998. The Aide Memoire drew the attention of the Embassy to the errors of fact and misleading allegations contained in the Report. It emphasised that the Singapore Government does not condone human rights abuse and takes a serious view of any allegation of human rights abuse in Singapore. The Aide Memoire expressed the Government's surprise and regret that the 1997 Report has repeated old allegations that the Government has used libel suits to intimidate the opposition and questioned the independence of the judiciary in Singapore. The Government rejected these unfounded allegations. It has consistently pointed out that libel and defamation are taken very seriously in Singapore. If the integrity of its political leaders or key institutions is questioned, Singapore leaders will not hesitate to clear their names and protect these institutions through due process of law. Legal action against libel and defamation is an established part of Singapore's political culture that seeks to maintain a high standard of truth and honesty in politics. It is absurd to claim that the opposition in Singapore has not been able to challenge the dominance of the PAP because it has been intimidated by the threat of libel suits. Opposition leaders have themselves never hesitated to sue in the courts to clear their names when they believed they were defamed. In some cases, they have succeeded. The allegations against the Singapore Judiciary are also completely unfounded. The Singapore Judiciary and judicial system have consistently received high ratings in eminent international surveys which affirm the independence of the judiciary. The Government has stated that it is regrettable that the US State Department Report on Human Rights Practices persisted in making unsubstantiated and unwarranted allegations despite the facts being repeatedly drawn to its attention. It has requested the errors of fact and wrongful allegations be brought to the attention of the authors of the Report.

asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide the details on how the figure of $8.2 billion in total revenue loss to the Government on introducing GST for the period FY94-FY97 is arrived at.

When GST was introduced in April 1994, it was accompanied by a comprehensive package of tax cuts and rebates to offset the impact of GST. The package comprises corporate tax reduction, individual income tax offsets, property tax rebates, reduction/suspension of various indirect taxes and other additional rebates and offsets to assist the low income groups. The revenue loss figure is computed from the taxes forgone arising from the tax cuts and rebates, and also additional expenditure incurred by the Government to implement the other offset measures. The figure of $8.2 billion for the revenue loss and GST collection of $6.7 billion for the period FY94-FY97 were estimated from figures available as at early February 1998. Based on the latest available figures, the revised estimates of the revenue loss and GST collection for the period FY94-FY97 should be $7.9 billion and $6.8 billion respectively. The breakdown of the revenue loss figure is as follows : a)the top personal income tax rate was reduced from 33% to 30%, with corresponding reductions in other tax brackets. Personal relief was also increased from $2,000 to $3,000. In addition, an annual rebate on individual income tax of $700 in YA 1994, declining by $50 per year until YA 1998, was also granted. The revenue loss from these changes amounted to $3.91 billion; b) the reduction in corporate tax by 3% resulted in revenue loss of $2.55 billion; c)property tax rebates were granted on a sliding scale for owner-occupied residential properties with annual values less than $10,000. The property tax rebates totalled $310 million; d)duties on motor vehicles and petroleum products, PUB tax and CESS were all reduced, along with the suspension of entertainment duty, film hire duty and Telecom tax. All these changes resulted in revenue loss of $838 million; and e)other offsets comprise increases in the Public Assistance granted to single-person or single-parent households and in the Singapore Allowance granted to pensioners; additional subsidies for health and education; rebates on Service and Conservancy charges for Singapore citizens staying in 1-, 2- and 3-room HDB flats; rental rebates for Singapore citizens staying in 1- and 2-room rental HDB flats; and grants to the Citizens' Consultative Committees. These additional offsets targeted at the lower income groups amounted to $306 million.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the age of the Housing and Development Board flats when they are selected for either the Interim Upgrading Programme or the Main Upgrading Programme since the inception of the steady phase of the upgrading programme till the first quarter of 1998, by each precinct, number of blocks and units in the precinct, location of the precinct and type of upgrading; (b) whether upgrading works have been completed in these precincts and, if so, what were the dates of commencement and completion of these works, or what is the expected date of commencement and completion.

Generally, flats selected for the Interim Upgrading Programme and Main Upgrading Programme were between 10 and 17 years of age and above 17 years of age respectively. However, age is not the only criterion in the selection of flats for the Upgrading Programmes. Other factors such as geographical spread, cleanliness and people factor are considered as well. All things being equal, priority would be given according to the degree of support in the constituency for the Upgrading Programme. A total of 5 batches have been announced under the Interim Upgrading Programme. Batch 5 was just announced on 8th April 1998. All the precincts in Batch 1 and 20 precincts in Batch 2 have completed the upgrading works. Works in the remaining precincts in Batch 2 and 26 precincts in Batch 3 (2 precincts are starting work on 15th April 1998) are in progress whereas works have not started for precincts in Batch 4. As for the Main Upgrading Programme, 13 batches were announced under the Steady State Phase. All the upgrading works in the precincts in Batches 1 and 2, and one precinct in Batch 3 have been completed. Works are in progress for the other precincts for Batches 3 to 7. Works in the precincts in Batches 8 and 9 will commence soon, whilst for Batches 10 and 11, polling has either just been completed or is in progress. The details requested are attached at Appendices A (Cols. 1979-2000) and B. INTERIM UPGRADING PROGRAMME APPENDIX A Precinct Blk Nos No. No. Contract Start Completion Date Completi of of (@ - estimated) (@ - estimated) Blks Units Batch 1 166 21,771 1 Bedok Town 606-610 5 593 18-Dec-95 Jul-97 2 Bedok Town 619-624 6 709 18-Dec-95 Jul-97 3 Ang Mo Kio Town 209-214 6 936 31-Mar-95 Sep-96 4 Teck Whye Estate 8-14, 25-26 9 1,138 01-Aug-95 Oct-96 5 Bukit Batok Town 206-208 3 355 23-Jun-95 May-96 6 Jurong East Town 108-116 9 986 01-Jul-95 Nov-96 7 Jurong East Town 241-245 5 686 19-Jul-95 Dec-96 8 Jurong East Town 256-264 9 940 19-Jul-95 Dec-96 9 Ang Mo Kio Town 422-425 4 629 26-Jul-95 Sep-96 10 Ang Mo Kio Town 570-578 9 1,304 26-Jul-95 Sep-96 11 Kampong Java Estate 51-54 4 359 01-Mar-95 Jun-96 12 Crawford Centre 10, 461-468, 10 1,056 16-Jul-95 Dec-96 462A 13 Rochor Centre 1-4 4 572 15-Jun-95 Feb-97 14 Chai Chee Estate 50-54 5 857 01-Jun-95 Aug-96 15 Bedok Town 1-4, 19-21 7 1,120 05-May-95 Nov-96 16 Bedok Town 5-8 4 416 05-May-95 Dec-96 17 Jurong West Town 521-527 7 765 16-Feb-96 Aug-97 18 Jurong West Town 528-536 9 1,158 16-Feb-96 Aug-97 Precinct Blk Nos No. No. Contract Start Completion Date of of (@ - estimated) (@ - estimated) Blks Units 19 Haig Road Estate 1-12 12 1,432 28-Aug-95 Jul-97 20 Marine Parade Estate 72-76 5 504 28-Aug-95 Jul-97 21 Yishun Town 107-111(a) 5 923 20-Sep-95 Jan-97 22 Woodlands Town 201-206 6 1,018 28-Aug-95 Oct-96 23 Clementi Town 601-603, 5 727 15-Jul-95 Aug-96 608-609 24 Clementi Town 723-724, 6 846 24-Jul-95 Dec-96 728-731 25 Tanjong Pagar Plaza 1-8 8 1,115 01-May-95 Jun-96 26 Telok Blangah Estate 58-61 4 627 15-May-95 Jun-96 Batch 2 153 21,392 1 Ang Mo Kio Ave 3 201-204 4 535 15-Aug-96 Oct-97 2 Ang Mo Kio Ave 1 217-220 4 740 01-Sep-96 May-98 @ 3 Ang Mo Kio Ave 3 229-235 7 907 01-Oct-96 Nov-97 4 Ang Mo Kio Ave 10 471-476 6 1,036 10-Jun-96 Dec-97 5 Teck Whye Ave 1-4 4 518 02-Jan-96 Oct-97 6 Bukit Batok Central 228-230 3 518 02-Jan-96 Jan-97 /East Ave 3 7 Pandan Gardens 409-414 6 817 05-Aug-96 Oct-97 8 Jurong East St 21 201-208 8 716 02-May-96 Dec-97 9 Ang Mo Kio Ave 10 431-441 11 1,297 10-Jun-96 Jan-98 10 Gloucester 9, 10, 49, 50 4 682 18-Oct-96 Mar-98 Rd/Dorset Rd 11 Bedok North St 3 540-547 8 1,520 18-Jun-96 Jan-98 Precinct Blk Nos No. No. Contract Start Completion Date of of (@ - estimated) (@ - estimated) Blks Units 12 Bedok North St 3 501-508 8 1,437 01-Nov-96 Jan-98 /Bedok North Ave 3 13 Bedok North Ave 4 98-103, 106 7 1,043 01-Aug-96 Nov-97 14 Bedok North Ave 4 104, 105, 6 926 01-Aug-96 Nov-97 /Bedok North Rd 107-110 15 Jurong East St 32 301-306 6 986 27-May-96 Jul-97 16 Jurong East St 32 307-310 4 528 27-May-96 Jul-97 17 Jurong West St 42 401-408 8 729 10-Jan-97 May-98 @ 18 Jurong West St 52 510-514 4 664 28-Dec-96 May-98 @ 19 Geylang Bahru 72, 73, 93-97(b) 7 1,098 01-Dec-96 Jul-98 @ 20 Serangoon North 101-108 8 833 15-Apr-96 Sep-97 Ave 1 21 Marine Drive 77-79 3 288 22-Apr-96 Jul-97 22 Marsiling Drive 22-27 6 934 05-Dec-96 Jan-98 23 Clementi Ave 2 & 5 326-331 6 908 12-Nov-96 Jan-98 24 Clementi Ave 3 426-429 4 614 12-Nov-96 Jan-98 25 Jalan Bukit Merah 140-142 3 456 01-May-97 Apr-98 @ 26 Jalan Bukit Merah 143-150 8 730 01-May-97 Apr-98 @ /Silat Ave Batch 3 200 25,557 1 Hougang Ave 3 247-254 8 849 01-Feb-98 Nov-98 @ 2 Bedok Reservoir Rd 701-708 8 1,050 01-Apr-98 Mar-99 @ /Bedok N Rd 3 Ang Mo Kio Ave 6 633-640 8 1,138 15-Apr-98 Jun-99 @ Precinct Blk Nos No. No. Contract Start Completion Date of of (@ - estimated) (@ - estimated) Blks Units 4 Ang Mo Kio Ave 5 601-606 6 866 15-Apr-98 Apr-99 @ 5 Teck Whye Ave 5-7 3 348 15-Jul-97 May-98 @ 6 Jurong East St 31 317-321, 324, 8 715 May 98 @ Apr-99 @ 326, 328 7 Bukit Batok St 11 160-164(c) 5 638 01-Nov-97 May-98 @ 8 Ang Mo Kio Ave 5/10 533-539 7 1,097 02-Feb-98 Jun-99 @ 9 Ang Mo Kio Ave 10 540-544, 545- 10 1,302 02-Feb-98 Jun-99 @ 547, 550, 551 10 Bedok N Ave 3 130-139 10 1,371 01-Nov-97 Dec-98 @ /Bedok N St 11 Bedok N Rd/ 119-129 11 1,600 01-Nov-97 Dec-98 @` Bedok N St 2 12 Bedok S Rd 36-44 9 1,411 01-Oct-97 Oct-98 @ 13 Bedok South Rd/ 66-73 8 763 01-Nov-97 Oct-98 @ Bedok South Ave 3 14 Bedok N Ave 4 90-93, 95-97 7 790 16-Feb-98 Feb-99 @ /Bedok N St 4 15 Bukit Batok St 32 310-317 8 616 01-Jul-97 Jun-98 @ 16 Bukit Batok St 32/33 318-323 6 641 01-Jul-97 Jun-98 @ 17 Serangoon Ave 4 223-230 8 1,087 25-Jan-98 Jan-99 @ 18 Tampines St 41 408-417 10 965 01-Nov-97 Oct-98 @ 19 Yishun Ave 5 701-706 6 763 01-Oct-97 Dec-98 @ 20 Yishun Ave 5 707-712 6 678 01-Oct-97 Dec-98 @ 21 Tampines St 21 202-209 8 804 01-Nov-97 Oct-98 @ 22 Telok Blangah 72-77 6 804 15-Oct-97 Oct-98 @ Hts / Drive Precinct Blk Nos No. No. Contract Start Completion Date of of (@ - estimated) (@ - estimated) Blks Units 23 Bukit Purmei Rd 101-109 9 1,289 01-Oct-97 Dec-98 @ 24 Bukit Purmei Rd 110-115 6 1,025 01-Oct-97 Dec-98 @ 25 Clementi Ave 4/5 375-380 6 648 01-Dec-97 Nov-98 @ 26 West Coast Rd 701-704, 706- 7 1,384 01-Dec-97 Nov-98 @ /Clementi W St 2 707, 710 27 Clementi Ave 5 339-342, 344- 6 915 01-Dec-97 Nov-98 @ 345 Batch 4 182 21,743 1 Bedok Reservoir Rd 611-618 8 955 Oct-98 @ Oct-99 @ 2 Hougang Ave 1 101-104, 106, 7 408 Jul-98 @ Oct-99 @ 108 3 Ang Mo Kio Ave 1 330-333 4 744 Aug-98 @ Apr-99 @ 4 Ang Mo Kio Ave 4 170-176 7 1,022 Oct-98 @ Sep-99 @ 5 Ang Mo Kio Ave 4/5 150-156 7 959 Aug-98 @ Apr-99 @ 6 Bukit Batok West 133-139 7 579 Oct-98 @ Oct-99 @ Ave 6 7 Ang Mo Kio Ave 5/8 501-507 7 1,071 Aug-98 @ Dec-99 @ 8 Ang Mo Kio Ave 8 508-513 6 895 Aug-98 @ Dec-99 @ 9 Upper Cross Street 531-533, 535- 6 624 Jul-98 @ Jul-99 @ 536, 538 10 Veerasamy Rd 632-642 11 1,036 Jul-98 @ Jul-99 @ /Rowell Rd 11 Bedok North Rd 74-82 9 1,479 Sep-98 @ Nov-99 @ 12 Bedok North St 3 529-532 4 815 Sep-98 @ Nov-99 @ 13 Bedok North St 3 533-536 4 976 Sep-98 @ Sep-99 @ 14 New Upper Changi Rd 51-57, 57A, 13 1,402 Sep-98 @ Nov-99 @ 59, 62-65 Precinct Blk Nos No. No. Contract Start Completion Date of of (@ - estimated) (@ - estimated) Blks Units 15 Bukit Batok 231-241 11 1,373 Sep-98 @ Feb-2000 @ East Ave 5 16 Jurong West St 41 462-467 6 657 Aug-98 @ Apr-99 @ 17 St George's Road 9-23 15 1,094 Nov-98 @ Oct-99 @ 18 Serangoon Ave 2 301-307, 318, 9 900 Aug-98 @ Feb-2000 @ 319 19 Tampines St 41 418-424 7 771 Oct-98 @ Oct-99 @ 20 Yishun St 21 201, 202, 207- 8 770 Sep-98 @ Sep-99 @ 212 21 Yishun St 72/Ave 5 731-736 6 601 Jul-98 @ Apr-99 @ 22 Tampines St 11 101-104, 111- 8 977 Jun-98 @ May-99 @ 114 23 Clementi Ave 4/5 371-374, 381 5 677 Oct-98 @ Oct-99 @ 24 Clementi West St 2 705, 708, 709, 7 958 Oct-98 @ Oct-99 @ 711-714 Batch 5 111 13,156 1 Hougang Ave 1 109-120 12 1199 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ 2 Hougang Ave 1 121-127 7 645 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ 3 Ang Mo Kio Ave 4 108-111 4 519 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ 4 West Coast Road 513-520 6 997 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ 5 Jurong East 101-107 7 807 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ Street 13 6 Ang Mo Kio Ave 10 548, 549, 552- 10 1099 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ 557, 559, 561 7 Ang Mo Kio Ave 3 426-430 5 602 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ 8 Bedok North Ave 2 414-418 5 606 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ 9 Bedok North 419-422 4 883 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ Street 2/Road Precinct Blk Nos No. No. Contract Start Completion Date of of (@ - estimated) (@ - estimated) Blks Units 10 Bedok North 423-428 6 919 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ Road/Ave 1 11 Jurong East Ave 1 329, 330, 339, 4 479 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ 341 12 King George's Ave 801-804, 806, 6 458 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ 807 13 Tampines Street 41 401-407 7 717 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ 14 Marsiling 212-218 7 787 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ Crescent/Lane 15 Yishun Street 72 747-752 6 567 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ 16 Tampines Street 11 105-110 6 732 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ 17 Clementi Ave 2 349-354 5 570 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ 18 Clementi Ave 5 343, 346-348 4 570 Aug-99 @ Oct-2000 @ MAIN UPGRADING PROGRAMME Appendix B Batch Precinct/ Address No. of No. of Construction Completion No. Estate Blks DUs Start Date** 1 1 Boon Lay 167-172 Boon Lay 6 660 5 Oct 94 31 Dec 96 Drive 2 Bt Ho Swee 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 9 764 11 Aug 94 13 Apr 97 12, 14, 16 & 18 Jln Bt Ho Swee/Taman Ho Swee 3 Kallang 93, 95, 97 & 99 4 438 29 Aug 94 27 Nov 96 Airport Jln Dua/Old Airport Road 4 Bt Merah 1-3 & 5-22 Redhill 21 875 3 Jan 95 6 Feb 98 Close 5 Queenstown 24-32 Tanglin Halt 9 1,002 28 Oct 94 10 May 97 Road 6 St Michael 27, 28 & 32-35 Jln 6 720 26 Sep 94 7 Dec 96 Bahagia Total 55 4,459 2 1 Kallang 63-65 Kallang 3 854 5 Apr 95 22 Feb 98 Basin Bahru 2 Macpherson 43-52, 57-60 & 69 15 1,779 5 Jun 95 28 Nov 97 Circuit Road 3 Toa Payoh, 116-120 Toa Payoh 5 811 27 Mar 95 6 Sep 97 Kuo Chuan Lor 1/2 4 Queenstown, 96-102 7 640 20 May 95 29 Nov 97 C'wealth Commonwealth Cresc Crescent 5 Queenstown, 165-171 (including 8 1,256 22 Jun 95 13 Dec 97 Stirling 168A) Stirling Road Road 6 Taman 111-114 Ho Ching 4 498 1 Mar 95 11 Oct 97 Jurong Road/Tao Ching Road Total 42 5,838 3 1 Henderson 101-106 Henderson 6 878 3 Oct 95 Apr 98 (Est) Crescent 2 Buona Vista 10-13 Holland 4 1,215 20 Oct 95 May 98 (Est) Ave/Drive 3 Chai Chee 32-37 & 40 Chai 7 978 5 Aug 95 22 Mar 98 Chee Ave 4 Macpherson, 19-24, 30-32, 34- 14 1,536 30 Sep 95 Jun 98 (Est) Balam Road 36, 77 & 78 Balam Road/Circuit Road 5 Toa Payoh 53-59 & 61 Toa 8 1,218 22 Nov 95 25 Apr 98 Lor 4/5 Payoh Lor 4/5 Total 39 5,825 ** Completion Ceremony Dates Batch Precinct/Es Address No. of No. of Construction Completion No. tate Blks DUs Start Date 4 1 Bt Ho Swee 20, 22, 24, 26, 7 1,078 4 Mar 96 28, 30, 32 Jln Klinik/Havelock Rd/Beo Crescent/Jln Bt Ho Swee 2 Farrer Road 1-6 & 8 Queen's 7 848 26 Apr 96 Estimated: Road/Farrer Road/Empress Road 3 Macpherson 38-40 & 61-67 10 1,176 29 May 96 Sep 98 - Circuit Road 4 Paya Lebar 15-23 Hougang Ave 9 1,246 10 May 96 Apr 99 3 5 Toa Payoh 107-115 & 205-209 14 1,820 18 Jun 96 Lor 1 Toa Payoh North/Lorong 1 Total 47 6,168 5 1 Beach Road 1-6 Beach Road 6 1,295 26 Nov 96 Estimated: 2 Toa Payoh 158-161, 163, 168, 9 1,385 4 Sept 96 Apr - Lor 1 169, 173 & 174 Toa Oct 99 Payoh Lorong 1 3 Toa Payoh 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13 7 1,311 18 Nov 96 Lor 7 & 15 Toa Payoh Lorong 7 4 Chin Swee 8-10 & 34 Jln 4 667 2 Jan 97 Rd/Upper Kukoh/Upper Cross Cross St Street 5 Moulmein Road 69, 83-85 & 93-101 13 1,556 9 Nov 96 /Balestier Moulmein Road/Whampoa Drive Total 39 6,214 6 1 Kim Tian 128-131 Kim Tian 4 490 6 May 97 Road 2 Geylang 95-98 Aljunied 4 647 17 April 97 Estimated: East Crescent 3 Upper 2-5 Upper Aljunied 4 377 24 Feb 97 Jul 99 - Aljunied Lane 4 Ang Mo Kio 301, 302, 322-329 11 1,600 1 Sep 97 Jan 2000 Ave 3/6 & 348 Ang Mo Kio Ave 3/6 5 Commonwealth 81-88 Commonwealth 8 1,246 7 Jun 97 Close Close Batch Precinct Address No. of No. of Construction Completion No. /Estate Blks DUs Start Date 6 Sin Ming 22-25 Sin Ming 4 779 12 Jun 97 Estimated: A, B & C Road 7 Toa Payoh 91, 92, 94-96, 98 7 871 29 Mar 97 Jul 99 - Lor 3/4 & 100 Toa Payoh Jan 2000 Lorong _ Total 42 6,010 7 1 Everton 1-7 Everton Park 7 688 27 Feb 98 Park 2 Marsiling 1-5 Marsiling 5 1,359 5 Feb 98 Estimated: Drive Dec 99 - 3 Upper Boon 11, 12, 15, 16 & 5 906 8 Nov 97 Aug 2000 Keng 18 Upper Boon Keng Road 4 Tanglin 33-45 Tanglin Halt 13 1,423 21 Nov 97 Halt Road 5 Toa Payoh 34, 38, 47, 51, 52 6 1,404 17 Oct 97 Lor 1, Lor & 157 Toa Payoh 5/6 A&B Lorong 1/5/6 Total 36 5,780 8 1 Woodlands 6-13 & 15-17 11 1,681 - Marsiling Marsiling Drive/Lane Drive 2 Henderson 119, 120 & 128-130 5 1,321 Estimated: Estimated: Hill Bukit Merah View 3 Ang Mo Kio 254-258 Ang Mo Kio 5 706 Jun - Dec 2000 Ave 4 Ave 4 Sep 98 - 4 Kallang 43-45, 47 & 49 5 837 Feb 2001 Basin Bendemeer Road/Whampoa South 5 Toa Payoh 25-27 Toa Payoh 3 594 East East Total 29 5,139 9 1 Bedok 22-30 New Upper 9 1,402 Changi Road/Bedok South Ave 1 2 Bukit Ho 34,36,38,40,42,44, 9 1,228 Estimated: Estimated: Swee 46,48 & 50 Jln Bt Ho Swee/Lower Oct - Dec 2000 Delta/Havelock Dec 98 - Rd/Beo Crescent Feb 2001 3 Jalan 19-23 Eunos 5 639 Eunos Crescent Batch Precinct Address No. of No. of Construction Completion No. /Estate Blks DUs Start Date 4 Tanjong 1-12 & 14 Kg Kayu 13 1,527 Estimated: Estimated: Rhu/Mountb Road/Jln Batu/Kg atten Arang Road Oct - Dec 2000 Dec 98 - 5 Queenstown 152-154, 157 & 158 5 542 Feb 2001 - Mei Ling Mei Ling Street Street Total 41 5,338 10 1 Ghim Moh 1-6 Ghim Moh Road 6 1,324 Precinct 1 2 Boon Lay 207-215 Boon Lay 9 2,276 Estimated: Estimated; Place Place 3 Ang Mo Kio 129-134 Ang Mo Kio 6 850 Apr - Oct 2001 Ave 3 Ave 3 Jul 99 - 4 Marine 27-35 Marine 9 1,347 Jan 2002 Crescent Crescent 5 C'wealth 23A, 23B, 55, 56, 12 1,407 Dr/Queen's 58-60, 62-66 Close Commonwealth Drive Total 42 7,204 11 1 Dover 20-23, 26 & 27 6 697 Crescent A Dover Crescent & B 2 Telok 13, 15, 16, 18-21, 9 1,673 Estimated: Estimated: Blangah 23 & 24 Telok Crescent Blangah Crescent Jul - Jan - Oct 99 Apr 2002 3 Selegie 8-10 Selegie Road 3 463 House 4 Ping-An 19-24 Chai Chee 6 1,260 Gardens Road 5 Toa Payoh 66, 69-73, 83, 85, 11 999 Lor 4 A&B 85A, 85B, 85C Toa Payoh Lor 4 Total 35 5,092 12 1 Kelantan 25-30 Jalan 6 839 Centre Besar/Kelantan Road 2 Commonwealth 103, 104, 106-113 10 863 Estimated: Estimated: Crescent Commonwealth Crescent Sep - Dec 2001 Dec. 99 - Jun 2002 3 MacPherson 81-83 MacPherson 3 318 Lane Lane 4 Toa Payoh 123-126, 128 Toa 5 823 Lor 1 Payoh Lorong 1 5 Marsiling 28-37 Marsiling 10 1,168 Drive Drive Total 34 4,011