Hansard, 1998-07-31

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) Dr Toh See Kiat5 Jul9 Jul Mr Wong Kan Seng 7 Jul7 Jul Mr Ong Kian Min7 Jul10 Jul 27 Jul29 Jul Mr Inderjit Singh9 Jul11 Jul Mr Leong Horn Kee10 Jul14 Jul BG George Yong-Boon Yeo12 Jul16 Jul 1 Aug1 Aug Mr Harun A Ghani14 Jul16 Jul Prof S Jayakumar14 Jul16 Jul 23 Jul29 Jul Mr Cyrille Tan15 Jul19 Jul 31 Jul2 Aug Mr Peh Chin Hua15 Jul25 Jul NameFromTo (1998)(1998) Mr Tan Soo Khoon16 Jul18 Jul 29 Jul30 Jul Mr Davinder Singh19 Jul24 Jul 31 Jul31 Jul 3 Aug7 Aug Mr Peter Chen20 Jul26 Jul Dr Wang Kai Yuen21 Jul31 Jul 16 Aug23 Aug Mr Choo Wee Khiang22 Jul24 Jul Mr Lew Syn Pau23 Jul26 Jul Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed23 Jul29 Jul Mr Lim Hng Kiang25 Jul26 Jul Mr Hawazi Daipi26 Jul2 Aug Mr S Iswaran27 Jul30 Jul Mr Yeo Cheow Tong29 Jul31 Jul Mr Yeo Guat Kwang31 Jul1 Aug Mr Tang Guan Seng31 Jul3 Aug Mr Ong Ah Heng31 Jul3 Aug Mr R Sinnakaruppan4 Aug6 Aug RAdm Teo Chee Hean5 Aug7 Aug Mr Ahmad Md Magad28 Aug31 Aug 4 Sep12 Sep 16 Oct21 Oct Encik Sidek bin Saniff1 Sep21 Sep Mr Seng Han Thong19 Sep25 Sep TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 3rd July 1998 (1) Interpretation (Amendment) Bill 1998; (2) Control of Vectors and Pesticides Bill 1998; (3) Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill 1998; (4) Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill 1998; (5) Electronic Transaction Bill 1998; (6) National Computer Board (Amendment) Bill 1998; (7) Customs (Amendment) Bill 1998; (8) Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) (Amendment) Bill 1998; (9) Banking (Amendment) Bill 1998; (10) Monetary Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill 1998; (11) Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill 1998. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Ong Kian Min - 1. To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether local businesses are facing financial difficulties as a result of banks and other financial institutions tightening credit and cutting back on credit facilities; (b) how much has been disbursed so far out of the $2 billion loan line set aside for the Local Enterprise Finance Scheme; (c) whether this amount is sufficient to meet the needs of businesses; and (d) what additional steps are being or can be taken to prevent the situation from deteriorating.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether his Ministry will (i) provide statistics on the number of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which have applied for the Local Enterprise Finance Scheme as well as the number of SMEs which have been granted approvals for the Scheme for 1997 and January to June 1998; (ii) consider relaxing the qualification criteria for the Scheme so that it can be more accessible to local SMEs; and (iii) be implementing other initiatives in the near future to ensure the SMEs' immediate survival and continued growth.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether there has been an increase in the amount disbursed under the Local Enterprise Finance Scheme and, if so, what is (i) the number of companies and the amount disbursed; and (ii) the percentage of successful applicants, on a quarterly basis from the first quarter of 1996 to the second quarter of 1998.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, in view of the economic crisis faced by many of the Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, whether he will consider allowing those who have taken out loans under the Local Enterprise Finance Scheme to restructure their repayments to ease their cashflow.

Question No. 1, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos. 1 to 4 together as they are related?

Yes.

In March 1998, the Government enhanced the Local Enterprise Finance Scheme (LEFS) for a period of two years with a top-up of $360 million to the LEFS loan line making it a total of $1.1 billion. This is to help ease the credit squeeze on our SMEs. The LEFS enhancements have benefited our local companies. In the second quarter of this year, the amount of loan committed increased by 28% to $157 million compared to the second quarter last year. Members may wish to refer to Tables (Cols. 739-742) 1 and 2 which have already been distributed. The enhancements made to short-term loans, through an increase in risk sharing and loan quantum, were well received, especially for factoring loans. For April to June 1998, factoring loans approved increased from $6 million to $41 million, an increase of 650% (See Table 1), compared to the corresponding period last year. However, there was a drop in machinery loans as manufacturing companies are cautious about expanding in the current slowdown. Tables - SUMMARY OF YEAR-ON-YEAR COMPARISON: APR-JUN 97 AND 98 FOR NUMBER LEFS LOAN APPROVALS AND LOAN AMOUNT and LEFS APPLICATIONS APPROVED AND AMOUNT DISBURSED (JAN 96 - JUN 98) (Cols. 739-742) In June 1998, as part of the off-Budget package, the Government has further increased the LEFS loan line to $2 billion. As at June 1998, total loan commitments stood at $1.49 billion, of which $630 million have been disbursed. Table 2 shows the number of loan applications approved by the Productivity and Standards Board. The number has increased from 1,698 in 1996 to 1,981 in 1997. It was 889 in the first half of this year. I do not have data on the approval rate by participating banks. In response to industry feedback, my Ministry is currently studying further enhancements to the LEFS. Dr Wang Kai Yuen asked if restructuring of loan repayments is allowed under LEFS. Such a practice is already in place. PSB and EDB do allow companies with healthy order books to restructure their loans based, in the first instance, on the participating banks' assessment of the credit worthiness of the company.

Could the Minister kindly give the corresponding figures for the total number of those who applied for the loans?

Sir, the figures given in Table 2 refer to loan applications approved by PSB. PSB receives the applications after they have been processed by the banks. The data that we have at present pertain only to those collected by PSB, ie, when the loan applications have been processed by the banks for their credit-worthiness they are then submitted to PSB for final approval. The figures for applications received and approved by PSB are almost identical because almost every loan application that finally comes to PSB is approved. But what we are interested in is the approval rate by the banks and for that we have to collect the data. I do not have the data at present.

I notice from the figures in Table 1 that there was actually a drop in the number of approvals even though there was an increase in terms of the dollar amount of loans approved. It seems to me a bit odd that there was actually a drop in the number of approvals because the LEFS scheme is meant to help the SMEs and one would expect that there would be an increase in the number of approvals unless of course there was a drop in the number of applicants. Could the Minister kindly explain the drop in the number of approvals?

If Members will refer to Table 1, it is true that the total number of loan applicants approved has dropped from 455 for the second quarter of last year to 423 for the second quarter of this year. Although the number of approvals has decreased the total quantum has increased by 28%, as I mentioned just now, from $123 million to $157 million. If Members were to look at the details, the increases are mainly in the short-term loans. For example, factoring loans, the number of applications approved has gone up from 10 to 59 and the quantum has gone up from $5.5 million to $41.3 million. Similarly, for working capital loans, the number of applications approved has gone up from 2 to 11 and the quantum has also increased. On the other hand, the loan applications approved for factory loans have gone down because there were fewer applications. As I explained in my answer, companies are now cautious about expanding. Despite the more generous terms we are giving now, such as larger quantums of loans and larger fixed assets qualifications for applying under the scheme, the actual approval rate has gone down for factory loans. In other words, for machinery loans, it has actually gone down for that quarter. People are still finding out about the scheme and we have to publicise it further. We are hoping that eventually there will be some adjustments. But in the short-term area, I think we have made some significant improvements.

I do not know whether this question should be asked of the Minister for Trade and Industry because it concerns the banks' tightening of credit. Has the Government any plans to help the first time home buyers who now find that they are in grave danger of losing their homes?

Mr Jeyaretnam, the question is out of order. It is not relevant to the Question that has been asked.

That is what I said, Sir. Is there any other Minister who can answer that because we are talking about banking, financing and credit squeeze?

Your question is not related to the topic under discussion.

All right.

Have the Ministry and PSB received any complaints about difficulties in terms of filling in the application form for loans?

Not that I am aware of, Sir. But if there are problems, we can always help them.

The following Question stood in the name of Dr Wang Kai Yuen - 5. To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry, to explore additional non-traditional export markets for local Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs), whether the Trade Development Board will consider organising more trade missions and providing more generous support to encourage these SMEs to participate in these trade missions.

Question No. 5, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Trade Development Board (TDB) has promoted trade with non-traditional markets since the 1980s. The Board has accelerated its efforts this year. For FY98, TDB plans to mount 22 trade missions to non-traditional markets. Some of the missions already undertaken this year were to Mexico, Finland, the Baltics, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and East Africa. To date, 45 companies have participated in these missions. In the coming months, TDB plans to organise missions to Eastern European, African and Latin American countries. Some 120 to 150 companies are expected to be involved. In addition, the Productivity and Standards Board (PSB) has programmes to help SMEs seek out business opportunities and establish strategic partnerships with companies in non-traditional markets. Under its Business Connect Programme, PSB has facilitated business matching between our local SMEs and companies in Chile and Australia, for example. Currently, 2600 companies have registered under the programme. 650 companies have benefited from such business matching activities. There are plans to work with TDB to organise business matching missions to newer markets in Latin America and South Africa. TDB has allocated additional funds to support companies in their promotional activities this year. It is estimated that an additional $10 million will go towards assisting and supporting companies in their overseas market and business development activities. Activities that are eligible for support include participation in missions and fairs, brand development, establishment of overseas marketing offices, overseas franchise development and direct marketing.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether there will be any significant impact on Singapore's economy when the Malaysian government block Malaysian businesses from using Singapore's ports; and (b) whether such protectionist measures which the Malaysian government is planning breach any of the World Trade Organisation agreements.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from The media reports, it is unclear has reported intentions by some quarters in what measures (if any) Malaysia will take to pass legislation to curb Malaysian businesses from using Singapore ports. The details of the proposed legislation are not available. If the measures which run counter to international rules and agreements, are imposed, Singapore will not hesitate to bring up the matter with the relevant Malaysian authorities and with international bodies such as the World Trade Organisation. This is in line with the free trading philosophy we subscribe to. Any measure taken will impact both Malaysia and Singapore. Businesses operate most efficiently in an open and fair market place where they are free to make procurement decisions based on the competitiveness of services and supplies. Businesses should be free to decide which port to use on the basis of their commercial needs and considerations. . Singapore and Malaysia's economies are closely linked and complementary in many ways. Malaysia has traditionally been amongst Singapore's largest trading partners and top investment destination. Together, Singapore and Malaysia provide a platform for a number of MNCs to undertake distributed manufacturing to capitalise on the different comparative advantages of our two countries. Any move to discourage Malaysian businesses from using Singapore ports will hinder bilateral trade and investment. Manufacturers who have invested in Malaysia and MNCs who undertake distributed manufacturing in both countries will face higher operating costs and constraints on their operations. This must affect the flow of new investments. 5. Our ports serve s diversified markets extending to as far as countries like India and Australia. Customers use our ports because it they provide good value for money.

Sir, a Malaysian Minister has been quoted as saying that we stole the business of their port. Is there any rational basis for such a statement?

The statement is completely baseless. The companies and shipping firms use our ports because of the large number of shipping lines that call here, the efficiency and the competitive rates. So it is a free choice and there is no question of our stealing business from them.

Is the Minister satisfied that, in the event that Malaysia should go ahead and legislate requiring their exporters to use their own port instead of Singapore ports, we will not be adversely affected?

If Malaysia does so, there will surely be some impact on Singapore.

What is the impact?

The impact will also be on Malaysia, because they will find it is more difficult to export their goods and services and there could be delays, higher costs, and so on. Our port will be able to meet up to new challenges that come its way. As I explained in my answer, this will affect the operations, both in Malaysia and Singapore, because there are companies, especially MNCs, which have factories in, for example, Johor, Penang and elsewhere which are linked to Singapore companies. They are supplying parts and components to Singapore companies and vice-versa. Similarly, they need to ship goods to the international markets. So if they do that, it is going to hurt them as well as us.

Could the Minister elaborate what recourse is available to Singapore should the Malaysian government's action come about and it is found to contravene international trading agreements? And also have we undertaken such recourse in the past vis-a-vis Malaysia?

Sir, as I have explained in my answer, we have to wait and see what measures, if any, are taken. And if they contravene the international agreements like those under the WTO, then we will have to take up the problem with the Malaysian authorities as well as with WTO. Offhand, I cannot recall any past instance, but I am sure we have taken action if there were cases.

Sir, I am sure if the blocking of the usage of ports in Singapore goes ahead, Singapore businessmen who are doing business in Malaysia will find it very uncompetitive to remain in Malaysia. If that is the case, can I ask the Minister if he is prepared to assist these businessmen relocate out of Malaysia into other more suitable areas?

Sir, that is a definite possibility. Besides locating in Johor, they could locate, for example, in Batam, Bintan or maybe even Thailand. So I am sure the businessmen, both the locals in Singapore as well as multi-nationals, are observing the situation and if things get too difficult to operate, they have to make the adjustments.

I would like to ask the Minister how can the Government and people of Singapore repudiate the untruth brandished callously by Malaysian political and government leaders about what we are doing in Singapore, about our port and that we are stealing business from them. How can we remonstrate with our neighbours that such preposterous accusation, untruth, foolishness will further delay the restoration of international confidence in the regional economies and hurt our regional economic recovery? The world has eyes and ears and the world can think.

Sir, an obvious channel is through the mass media. I think Members may be aware, for example, that yesterday there was an article in Business Times by some shipping association pointing out the errors and fallacies of the Malaysian approach. We want to take a very rational approach to the whole issue. We are good neighbours with them. We want to cooperate with them. But they must know that whatever action is taken will hurt both parties. So I hope Members, if they have opportunities, will also air their views and this could be carried in the mass media, not only by the local press but internationally.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government will consider the appointment of a Banking Ombudsman to make banks more accountable to their customers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no need to appoint a Banking Ombudsman. Banking is a competitive industry in Singapore. 153 banks operate here. Of these, 34 are full licensed banks, including 22 foreign-owned banks. They provide a full range of banking services for domestic consumers. Another 13 restricted banks focus on wholesale banking services for corporate customers. Customers are free to use any bank. If they are dissatisfied with the services of one, they can take their business to another bank. There are enough banks to choose from. It is therefore in the interest of banks to service their customers well. The MAS requires all banks to uphold high standards of professional conduct, so as to preserve the integrity of the financial system as a whole. The Association of Banks has also issued a Code of Conduct for banks. This Code sets out standards of good banking practice and aims to maintain a fair relationship between banks and their customers and confidence in the professionalism of banks. Consumers who feel that they have been improperly treated by a bank can bring their complaints to the ABS. The ABS helps consumers resolve their grievances with banks. The system has worked well. Besides the ABS, consumers can also take their complaints to the Consumers' Association of Singapore.

Sir, I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether it is true, as mentioned in recent press reports, that the banks have been deliberately curtailing their loans unduly to customers or unfairly forcing them to top-up on the value of their collaterals pledged.

Mr Speaker, Sir, banking is a business, not a social service. Banks have to act on sound commercial considerations. They cannot afford to extend loans which are imprudent, or fail to recover loans which are not performing. Otherwise they will undermine their own viability, lose money and run into serious trouble, as recent events in several Asian countries have vividly shown. The Government and MAS cannot persuade banks to extend loans which in the banks' judgement are not viable. If Government were to intervene, it would be obliged to compensate the banks should the loans eventually prove irrecoverable. Then we would be no different from any of the other countries, whose governments have sought to influence lending decisions of banks, and brought their banking systems to the brink of collapse, with banks carrying a very high burden of non-performing loans, and requiring government resources, in other words, taxpayers' money, to bail them out. On the other hand, neither has the MAS required banks to curtail lending or call on their customers to top-up on the value of collateral pledged on their loans. These are matters for the banks to decide on, based on the merits of each loan and good banking practice. However, banks should take a long view of their customers' prospects and needs, rather than over-reacting to the immediate mood of the economy. A bank that expands loans recklessly in good times and contracts credit unthinkingly in bad will soon acquire a bad reputation. The Association of Banks has recently advised its members not to take a short-term view of the viability of their customers' businesses, or to pull back loans that are being regularly serviced. Banks can be expected to be cautious in the current slowdown in the Singapore economy. But if all banks were to pull back loans precipitately, even to good borrowers, the quality of their loans as a whole will suffer. It is not in their interest to see this happen. The evidence to date does not show that the banks are contracting credit excessively. The total volume of loans outstanding has shrunk slightly since the start of the year, but this is mostly because the demand for new loans by companies and individuals has fallen. Loans outstanding in June 1998 were 2% below the level in December 1997, although they were 5% higher than the level a year ago, in June 1997. Banks have continued to accept new loans. Among the major banks, both foreign and local, the value of new loans accepted as a percentage of loan applications was about 87% over the last three months. In June 1998 it was actually 105% but that is a statistical anomaly because of the lag between applications and acceptances, and 87% is higher than the level of 1997 when only 60% of new loans were being accepted, or in the middle of last year when 64% were being accepted before the economic slowdown. The overall volume of bank loans also remains high. The ratio of loans to deposits in the banking system averaged 108% over the last three months. In June 1998, it was 107%. This is below the peak which was 115% at the end of last year, but it remains above the levels seen at any time in the last 10 years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister, when he says customers can complain to the ABS, is he saying that the ABS has the power to adjudicate on the complaint between the bank and the customer, and the bank has to abide by whatever decision the ABS makes?

The ABS may not have legal powers but it has considerable persuasive powers.

Is the Minister aware that the Committee appointed to inquire into banking practices has complained about the relatively low ranking of Singapore banks in regard to openness and competitiveness as compared with foreign banks? And is the Minister aware that in many of these other countries, there is a banking ombudsman who has power to adjudicate on complaints which the bank has to accept whenever he makes a decision against the bank?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not sure of the relevance of the first half of the Member's statement to the second half. Some countries have banking ombudsmen. There is one in the United Kingdom. There is one in Australia which is similar. There is one in Canada which is different. The British one has powers to award compensation of up to œ100,000. The Australian one has powers to award compensation of up to $150,000 but it is binding on the bank only when the applicant accepts the decision of the ombudsman. In Canada, neither the customers nor the banks are bound by the ombudsman's recommendations. So there are various arrangements in different countries and we have to find a form which suits Singapore. We have not found an inadequacy of persuasive powers a problem.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the DPM has mentioned that the ABS has a Code of Conduct. To my knowledge, this is not a public document. The ABS has never released it, and this makes it difficult for the boundaries to be known to consumers. Would the DPM say that the ABS would release this Code of Conduct for transparency purposes?

The ABS is not a Government organisation, but we will certainly put this proposal to them to consider.

Does the Minister appreciate that the customers vis-a-vis the banks are in very, very unequal positions? The bank is a mighty institution and the customer may be a small account holder. What is the great objection to appointing an ombudsman who would look into the needs of the small account holder if he has a complaint? Does he realise that in England, these services are provided free to account holders?

Mr Speaker, Sir, an ombudsman is not a solution to every problem, and England is not the model for every aspect of Singapore's society. We are ourselves, we have to find mechanisms which work and not encumber ourselves with formulas which look good on paper but may or may not work in practice. Even in England, the ombudsman does not have full powers on all matters. For example, he cannot deal with the issues which have to do with the bank's commercial judgement, whether or not to provide a loan, unless there has been maladministration or unfair treatment. I have not heard complaints that banks have treated customers unfairly in Singapore on a very large scale. If the Member is aware of such cases, perhaps he can bring it up to our attention and we will certainly look into the matter.

Sir, in good times the banks are flushed with money and they encourage their customers to borrow. In Singapore's case, they do borrow to buy real estate property. It was reported in yesterday's papers that in 1985

Mr Chiam, can you ask your question?

Yes, I am coming to it. The loans made by banks to property purchasers were about $10 billion and this amount has in fact grown to about $64 billion. With the downturn of the economy, it would look like many of these property purchasers would have to either top-up or, if they are unable to top-up, pay higher monthly interest. They will have to fork out ---

Mr Chiam, are you making a speech? Can you get to the point? If you are not asking a question, I will ask you to resume your seat.

All right. It would appear that many of these property purchasers would have to sell their properties under forced sale. Is the Government, in the absence of an ombudsman, just going to stand by and see this happen?

Mr Speaker, Sir, whether a person takes a loan or does not take a loan is a personal decision. If he had gone to the bank to take a loan, that means he did not buy an HDB flat. He had bought a private property, and I presume that he had made his own calculations, and he has to look after himself. I would not be surprised if the volume of housing loans has increased dramatically since 1985. The number of private properties has gone up, the value of private properties has gone up even now compared to 1985, and if bank loans had not increased, I think our system would have been malfunctioning. So these matters are private decisions between the banks and the borrowers. As I explained, even in countries where you have an ombudsman, lending decisions are really the bank's prerogative, not the ombudsman's prerogative. If the ombudsman has to decide that you may call back this loan or you may not call back that loan, and the ombudsman says that you cannot call back the loan and the loan turns sour, who pays? The bank or the ombudsman? Is the ombudsman a rich man or does he have the government standing behind him? So it is not such a simple matter. The lesson I draw from the data which Mr Chiam cited is that we have to be very careful not to over expand credit during times when the property market is hot and there is a certain euphoria and heady whiff in the air, and everybody feels this is the chance, the bankers feel these are safe loans, the borrowers feel this is a sure chance to make money, let's go. This is why, in 1996, we set a limit of 80% of the value of a property on mortgage loans, and which is why even now, despite many very strong appeals to the contrary, we have not lifted this requirement, and I hope Mr Chiam will support us in that resolution.

Sir, my issue is that this is the real situation. It has already happened and a big amount of loan has been given out by the banks and, also, very likely many of these loans would be recalled because there are house purchasers who are unable to pay. So my question is: is the Government just standing by and watching these many poor purchasers having to go bankrupt? As it is already, 1,000 of them have gone bankrupt.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just explained that the Association of Banks has advised its members not to take a short term view of the viability of their customers' businesses or to pull back loans that are being regularly serviced. I am sure the Association would not mind me telling the Member that, in terms of housing loans, what they have suggested to the banks is to consider not requiring top ups where the term loan repayments are current, and to look at it case by case and support customers who have viable businesses, and help them to weather the current difficult environment. I think these are for banks to decide. If the bank wants to pull back a loan because the customer is not servicing, and we tell the bank, "No", do you take on the responsibility? I am not prepared to take on the responsibility because I would have to come here and ask Members to vote money which may be in the billions of dollars, in the case of Japan, US$600 billion. We should go to the banks not to rescue a bank, but to make sure the whole banking system does not collapse, and the whole economy does not collapse. I would rather not have to make such a request of Mr Chiam.

The Minister, if I heard him correctly, says that, even in England, it does not work in practice to the full satisfaction of the customers or something to that effect. Has he made a study of how it works in practice in England?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member misheard me. I never said it did not work in practice in England. I have no idea whether the customers are fully satisfied or not. I imagine that there will always be some customers who are not fully satisfied. What I did say is that, in England, there are certain things which the ombudsman's office cannot deal with, and one of them is complaints about the bank's commercial judgement whether or not to provide a loan.

asked the Minister for Finance if he will consider suspending the collection of Goods and Services Tax in view of the worsening economic situation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the current economic situation is due primarily to a fall in external demand as domestic demand accounts for less than 30% of total demand. As our GST rate at 3% is already very low, suspending GST is unlikely to affect domestic demand significantly. Suspending GST would also result in a revenue loss of about $2 billion a year. Even if we need to stimulate the economy by $2 billion a year, the money would be better spent in helping specific groups and areas rather than by lifting the GST across-the-board.

asked the Minister for Finance whether (i) the property tax rebate for commercial and industrial properties announced as part of the off-Budget measures can be extended to residential properties since the property tax of 12% applies to all properties with the exception of owner-occupied property; and (ii) the Government will consider expediting its re-assessment of annual values of property in order to reflect significantly lower market prices.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the property tax rebate is intended to ease the cost of doing businesses in Singapore. It is therefore granted only to commercial and industrial properties, and not to residential properties. On the question of re-assessment of annual values, IRAS has in fact already expedited the review of private properties. Since January 1998, about 47% of the private properties have already been reviewed. The balance of private properties will be reviewed before the end of this year. In the meantime, property owners can also inform IRAS if their new rents have fallen below the annual values of their properties, so that a review of these properties can be done earlier.

Is the Minister aware that if perhaps the Government, at this present juncture, grants a rebate to private property owners also, that might help them in their difficulties with the banks which are asking them to top up the loans because of the high mortgage rates?

Of course, any rebate given in whatever form would help individuals. But I have said earlier that our objective, at this stage, is to help businesses reduce operating costs so that they can remain in business and provide jobs. This is our focus.

Am I to understand that the Government does not propose to do anything to help these home buyers?

I have not said that we do not intend to do anything, but we have to select the time and opportunity.

When?

We will see.

asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government will (i) provide specific details on the current and planned infrastructural projects to be accelerated to increase public spending; and (ii) consider relaxing certain registration requirements stipulated by the Construction Industry Development Board or downsizing large-scale projects, thereby widening the opportunities for more local contractors to tender for these projects.

This question is in two parts. I will address the first part. In my Ministerial Statement on off-Budget measures, I have given some details of the key sectors and specific development projects for which the Government will release an additional $670 million in FY98. This sum comprises $460 million to speed up existing development projects or to start new ones, $125 million for assistance schemes for companies, and $83 million to increase civil service recruitment. I will now highlight the main projects which will receive substantial disbursement of funds under the off-Budget package. Additional spending on education accounts for the largest share of $282 million, or about 42% of total disbursement. This includes, in the area of IT development, $22 million for enhancing CAD-CAM facilities in the polytechnics, $22 million for upgrading computer facilities in NTU, and $30 million to incorporate IT in primary and secondary schools under construction. Another $38 million goes to accelerating on-going campus development at NUS and NTU, while $28 million goes to speeding up the acquisition of equipment for NUS. The recruitment of more teachers will cost $70 million. Additional spending on economic infrastructure this year includes $50 million to assist the commercial rollout of Singapore One, $22 million to put in basic infrastructure for industrial land sales, $15 million to develop Chinatown as the first Thematic Zone under the Tourism 21 Plan, and $13 million to further speed up the Jurong Island reclamation. A sum of $31 million is set aside to put in place the necessary basic infrastructure in HDB new towns such as roads and drains. Some $36 million will be spent to speed up public sector computerisation efforts to upgrade the operational capabilities of our uniformed services in the Ministry of Home Affairs. In addition, another $13 million is allocated to recruit more officers for our civil defence force, police, prisons and immigration departments. Additional funds have also been allocated to help our workers and companies tide over this difficult period. This includes an additional $80 million for the Economic Development Assistance Scheme, $20 million in interest subsidy for the enhanced Local Enterprise Financing Scheme, or LEFS, $20 million for the Skills Redevelopment Programme, and $5 million for TDB trade promotion and facilitation programmes to help our retailers and companies with overseas marketing efforts. In the second part of the question, the request is for information on the CIDB's programmes. The registration of contractors by the Construction Industry Development Board is an integral part of the Government's tendering process to objectively evaluate a contractor's capability and capacity to take on projects. In the past three years, local construction firms performed quite well clinching about 63% of total public sector construction contracts in value terms, or 94% in terms of number of projects. There are more than twice the number of local contractors compared to foreign contractors in the $50 million and above registration category of G8. In the last year alone, the number of local construction firms registered with CIDB had risen by 9%, from 1,361 to 1,485, with the number in the G8 class increasing from 61 to 65. Generally, foreign contractors' competitive edge in large projects stems not from just doing the construction work, but by being able to provide a total solution or package, which includes integrating both design and technological know-how. They offer alternatives and win clients over with superior solutions, which save time and costs. Relaxing the registration criteria is not the solution to the current problem. It will not shift the competitive edge of foreign contractors over our local contractors in tendering for high value projects above $100 million where the local share of contracts awarded is significantly lower. Instead, it will lead to keener competition and cause more construction firms to get into difficulties, which is not beneficial to the construction industry at this time. Besides this, relaxing the registration requirement could compromise the objective of ensuring that firms tendering for jobs of different sizes have the capacity and capability to execute them satisfactorily. The reputation and credibility of the registration system as a guide to the firms' capacity and capability has been painstakingly built up over the years, and we should not change the criteria just to try and suit economic circumstances. With regard to the Member's suggestion to downsize large-scale projects as an alternative way to widen the opportunities for more local contractors to tender for the projects, CIDB's record shows that most of the above $100 million projects won by foreign contractors were private sector projects. The public sector projects won by foreign contractors were mainly those where the capabilities lie with the foreign contractors, such as for the MRT line projects. Downsizing projects would generally require large contracts to be broken down into smaller parcels. Apart from losing the economy of scale and lower prices achieved in large contracts, the public sector agencies would also incur higher overheads to manage a larger number of smaller projects. Nonetheless, my Ministry will encourage public sector agencies to study and consider such project downsizing where feasible and where there is likely to be minimal impact on procurement cost and administrative overheads.

asked the Minister for Manpower if he will give assurance that there will be no reduction in Central Provident Fund contribution during this financial year ending 31st March 1999.

asked the Minister for Manpower whether he will elaborate on the measures that the Government will take to ease the financial burden of the workers when the employer's CPF contribution rate is cut.

asked the Minister for Manpower how many Central Provident Fund Board members are currently withdrawing funds to service monthly housing loan instalments and of these, how many are currently withdrawing funds up to the maximum allowable.

asked the Minister for Manpower how many Central Provident Fund (CPF) account holders will need to seek other sources of funds to service their home mortgage loans when there is a 5% or 10% reduction in the employer's contribution to CPF.

Sir, Question Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 are on the same subject. May I have your permission to take them together?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as at the end of May 1998, 524,006 active CPF members are withdrawing CPF savings to service monthly housing loan instalments. Of these, 101,914 CPF members (or 19.4%) are withdrawing the full amount of their monthly contributions to service mortgage repayments. I have previously stated that the Government has no intention to cut the employer's share of CPF contributions this year. I would like to reassure hon. Members that this is still the position. However, if the situation continues to worsen next year, we may have to consider a reduction in the employer's CPF contribution rate. The number of people who have to seek alternative source of funds to service their mortgage loans is not just dependent on the size of the CPF reduction. It is also related to the amount of savings that the CPF member already has in his or her ordinary account. Some of these savings can be used to supplement the monthly contributions to meet the mortgage repayment. Furthermore, the distribution of a CPF cut amongst the Ordinary, Special and Medisave Accounts will also have an impact on mortgage servicing by CPF members. These are issues which will be carefully studied when it is necessary to make a CPF cut. When CPF contributions were cut in 1986, several assistance schemes were made available by the Government, in particular, to help home-owners with their mortgage repayments. For those with HDB housing loans, HDB extended the loan repayment period and allowed conversion of the loans to easy-payment schemes such as the ballooning scheme. Those with no income or had used up their CPF balances could also apply to defer payments for up to a year. The Government also offered bridging loans to those with private housing loans to service. These were given at a special rate of 0.1% above the CPF interest rate. Home-owners who took bridging loans could repay either in cash or through their future CPF contributions over 10 years. Similar assistance will be considered if we need to make a CPF cut.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Minister tell the House how many CPF members have sufficient funds to service their mortgage repayments if there is a CPF cut in the near future?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I explained in my answer, that would depend on how much we have to cut. It will also depend on how much savings the individual CPF member has in his Ordinary Account, and it also depends on how we spread the cut on the different accounts. CPF members would, of course, know that whatever savings they have in their Special Account could not be used for any other purpose. If, in fact, it is a crisis situation and we have to make a change, we could even consider allowing some of them to use part of their Special Account savings. These are all questions that have got to be carefully considered when we come to the point of considering such a move. I think it is premature at this stage for me to give Members figures of how many people will be affected because there are so many imponderables here.

I am obliged to the Minister, Sir.

Notwithstanding what the Minister said in his last statement, could he give us the figures for those who have withdrawn up to 90% and 95% of the full amount respectively, so that we can get an idea that if, let us say, the CPF is cut by 5% or 10%, how many will be affected? Because the Minister did say that 19.4% are withdrawing up to the full amount.

Sir, as I stated in my answer, 101,914 CPF members are withdrawing the full amount. I do not have the figures of people who are withdrawing 95% or 90%. And as I said, even if we have the figures, it would still not reflect the actual scale of difficulties faced by CPF members because the cut can be spread in a number of ways, depending on the actual circumstances. And how they will be affected is also linked, as I said earlier on, to how much existing savings they have in their Ordinary Accounts.

asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Government will consider (i) setting up a Central Retrenchment Benefits Fund in which individual companies are required to maintain an account with the Fund; and (ii) requiring companies to contribute a certain amount to the Fund yearly from their profits for the purpose of ensuring that workers who are retrenched and are eligible for retrenchment benefits will get the payment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the setting up of a Central Retrenchment Benefits Fund is not a sound proposition. By requiring companies to set aside part of their profits every year, we will be tying up their financial resources. This requirement will also affect the cash flow of companies and weaken their ability to seize new business opportunities. To establish such a Fund now when the economy is slowing down, and may even go into recession, could hasten the demise of more companies. So instead of doing good, it may end up causing more workers to lose their jobs. I am therefore not in favour of the proposal to set up a Central Retrenchment Benefits Fund. This, however, does not mean that workers are not paid retrenchment benefit when they are laid off. In fact, retrenched workers with a minimum of three years' service are eligible for a retrenchment benefit although the quantum of payment varies from company to company and depends on the financial position of each company. For workers with less than three years' service, it is also not uncommon for their employers to grant them an ex-gratia payment to help them tide over their immediate difficulties before they secure an alternative job. Sir, in view of the current economic difficulties, I urge all companies with excess manpower to consider retrenchment as a last resort. They should seriously explore alternatives to retrenchment, including sending their employees for training and skills upgrading with Government's financial support.

Sir, nowhere in the Question did I suggest that a Fund should be set up now. Does the Minister agree that workers will get very little or no retrenchment benefit if a company goes under and the proceeds from the sale of the assets are insufficient to meet the claims of its secured creditors? In that case, the workers will get nothing. My second supplementary question: does the Minister agree that the situation of retrenched workers under the circumstances getting very little or no retrenchment benefit is the result of the Government failing to establish a mechanism to secure such payments in advance, whether by benefit or whatsoever, when times are good? And when times are bad and if a company goes under, the retrenchment benefit goes down the drain as well.

Sir, I thought the Member asked whether the Government will consider setting up a Central Retrenchment Benefits Fund. So I presume that he is asking whether the Government would consider setting up such a Fund now, is it not? If he raises a Question at this point in time, that means he is asking whether the Government would do so. To come to his supplementary question, what happens if a company is in liquidation and has no substantial assets to pay retrenchment benefit? Even if we have a law to provide for retrenchment benefit to be paid or the quantum is stated in the law, if a company has no assets, then there is nothing that can be done. The company is bankrupt. It has no assets. So there is no way that we can force the company to cough up retrenchment benefit for workers that are now out of job. The Member also said that the situation of some workers who are retrenched with little or no retrenchment benefit is the result of the Government not doing anything to protect their interest in advance. I think that is quite wrong, Mr Speaker, Sir. The law has provided for the employees with more than three years' service to be eligible for retrenchment benefit and the trade unions have certainly acted on this provision because they have ensured that in their collective agreements, retrenchment benefit is clearly spelt out and the practice today in the unionised sector is for retrenchment benefit to be calculated anywhere from two weeks to a month for each year of service. Companies that are retrenching workers and are still in a sound financial situation very often comply with the provision for retrenchment benefit within their collective agreements. So it is incorrect to say that the Government has not looked after the needs of workers with regard to retrenchment benefit.

Sir, whilst I appreciate the Minister's answer that it may be wrong to burden companies with more payments at this particular time, has the Ministry considered setting up a retrenchment fund and transferring some of the huge amount of monies that the Government has collected by way of foreign worker levies, and the Ministers also giving up a part of their salaries to put into this retrenchment fund?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the foreign worker levy is collected for a totally different purpose. It is a means of moderating the demand for foreign workers, in particular, the lower skilled foreign workers. As to Government setting up such a retrenchment fund, whether it is from fees and levies that Government has collected from elsewhere or even from cuts in Ministers' salaries, I think it is appropriate for me to point out to the Member that such retrenchment funds set up elsewhere have very often not delivered the results that they have been set up for. Let me read to Members the assessment which was made by the Japan Institute of Labour. This was carried by the Japan Labour Bulletin which was published in March this year. This is on their assessment of the national unemployment benefits. In Japan, since the early 80s, they have established an employment insurance scheme with the help of the government. I quote: `However, since 1994, the scheme has been in the red due to the worsening employment situation in Japan. Given this situation, the Central Employment Security Council has been studying ways to reduce the national treasury's contribution and to revise the employment insurance scheme in order to keep up with changes in the industrial structure and the ageing of the population.' So, what it says here is that a country, with Japan's economic resources and trillions of dollars of reserves, is unable to sustain a national employment insurance scheme in order to pay unemployment benefits to out-of-job workers. Do you think that a country like Singapore, with the limited resources that we have, would be in a position to do better? The real solution is to ensure that we continue to achieve steady economic growth and that new jobs will be created so that retrenched workers have the opportunity to take on these new jobs. And where the retrenched workers are unable to fulfil the skill requirements of the new employers, then the Government will come in to provide the necessary support, including funding, so that these workers' skills can be upgraded or they can be retrained to take on these new jobs. That is the only permanent and real solution to the problem of unemployment and retrenchment.

asked the Minister for Manpower, in view of the current worsening economic situation, whether he foresees the possibility of prolonged unemployment of up to a year or more for older and unskilled workers.

asked the Minister for Manpower whether Singapore will face structural unemployment in the next two to three years and, if so, whether the current policy on training of workers is sufficient to cope with the situation.

Sir, Question Nos. 16 and 17 are also connected. May I have your permission to take them together?

I am afraid there is not much time.

Sir, older and unskilled workers are the most vulnerable group in an economic slowdown. Whether they will face prolonged unemployment for up to a year or more depends on several factors. Firstly, are there still jobs for these workers? The answer is yes, there are still many jobs, especially in the services sector, which can be done by older and unskilled workers. 1.30 pm

Order. End of Question time. [Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Written answers (Cols. 717-722) to Question Nos. 16, 17, 22, 33, 35, 37, 40 and 41 on the Order Paper are reproduced in Appendix 1. Question Nos. 18-21, 23-32, 34, 36, 38-39 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 3rd August 1998.]

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members are aware that the Malaysian Government has announced that their Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) facilities will remain at the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, even though Singapore had told them on many occasions that they could not remain there after Singapore relocates its CIQ to the Woodlands Train Checkpoint (WTCP) tomorrow. Members would have also read the press statement issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs yesterday evening, and reported in today's newspapers. Sir, at our last meeting on 29th June this year, I informed this House that Singapore's CIQ at Tanjong Pagar will be relocated to the new facilities at WTCP on 1st August 1998. I said that we had first informed Malaysia of our intention to move to Woodlands in 1989 and had repeated this on many subsequent occasions. We told them that once Singapore's CIQ moved to Woodlands, the administrative arrangements for them to exercise CIQ functions at Tanjong Pagar would cease. At that sitting on 29th June, I had also stressed that the relocation of Singapore's CIQ to Woodlands and the cessation of Malaysia's CIQ at Tanjong Pagar did not affect the status of Malayan Railway Land, which is subject to the Points of Agreement (POA). Indeed, this issue of relocation of our CIQ is completely different and separate from the POA and the status of the Malayan Railway Land or the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station. The Ministry of Law's press statement of 8th July 1998 repeated this position. The Malaysian Government's insistence to continue conducting immigration clearance at Tanjong Pagar has serious consequences. They will be doing so without legal authority. If they endorse passports of rail passengers travelling from Singapore to Malaysia, it would be unauthorised and contrary to the proper sequence of immigration clearance. Under Singapore law, this would create irregularities in the passport. I will therefore explain the full background of the CIQ issue, so that Members will know that the Singapore Government has expended considerable effort and has made many proposals to Malaysia to resolve this issue, in a way which would not disrupt the smooth operation of train services from 1st August 1998. Unfortunately, Sir, these efforts have not been successful. Our decision to relocate Singapore's CIQ to the Woodlands Checkpoint was not a sudden or surprise move. It goes all the way back to 1989, when we decided on our move of CIQ to Woodlands in order to check the smuggling of drugs, to prevent entry of illegal immigrants as well as to deploy our own manpower more efficiently. In November 1989, as I was then Minister for Home Affairs, I briefed the Malaysian Deputy Minister for Home Affairs, Dato Megat Junid, of our plan to move our CIQ and the rationale for our decision. Slightly more than two years later, I wrote to him again on 1st February 1992 to inform him that, "The Development masterplan for the new Woodlands Checkpoint, which includes clearance facilities for train passengers and cargoes, is now ready." He replied on 3rd March 1992, and said: "I have passed the information to the Hon. Prime Minister who is also the Minister for Home Affairs Malaysia." Later, our two Prime Ministers touched on this matter in their correspondence. In a letter of 4th April 1992, Prime Minister Mahathir wrote to PM Goh, and I quote: "We understand why you would want to have Customs and Immigration checks at Woodlands. In fact, we feel that it would be more convenient for both countries to have the same checkpoint in Woodlands." On 9th April 1992, Prime Minister Goh replied to Prime Minister Mahathir, and I quote: "This can be done. I have asked Jayakumar to include facilities for Malaysia's customs and immigration at Woodlands." Following this agreement between the two Prime Ministers, the Ministry of Home Affairs briefed Malaysian officials in June 1992 on the details of Singapore's plan to relocate its CIQ to the Woodlands Checkpoint. We informed them what facilities could be made available to them if they wished to co-locate their CIQ at Woodlands. Then on 20th September 1993, the Malaysian Government officially informed Singapore that they had decided to co-locate their CIQ with Singapore's at Woodlands Train Checkpoint. Dato' Halim Ali, then Deputy Secretary-General 1 of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, wrote to the Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs, and he said: "I wish to inform you that the Malaysian Government has decided to locate the operation of the Malaysian Immigration and Customs at Woodlands Checkpoint together with Singapore's to facilitate immigration and customs clearance of passengers and goods entering and leaving Malaysia by rail through Woodlands, Singapore." Sir, Singapore therefore proceeded to plan the construction of the Woodlands Train Checkpoint on the basis that Malaysia's CIQ would co-locate with Singapore's CIQ at Woodlands Train Checkpoint. Almost four years later, on 11th June 1997, the Malaysian Government wrote to the Ministry of Home Affairs stating that it had changed its mind and had decided to retain its CIQ at Tanjong Pagar. The letter was signed by Dato Ghazzali Sheikh, Deputy Secretary-General 1, of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It gave no reasons, although considerable work had been done by Singapore in planning and construction of the Woodlands Train Checkpoint on the basis of co-location. After Malaysia had rejected co-location, Singapore then reconfigured the Woodlands Train Checkpoint building to serve only Singapore's needs. On 2nd July 1997, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore, replied to the Malaysian Government that since Malaysia had rejected Singapore's offer to co-locate its CIQ at Woodlands, once Singapore's CIQ moved to Woodlands their CIQ could not remain at Tanjong Pagar because of two reasons. Firstly, it will create serious operational problems for both countries. Secondly, Malaysian officials would be operating without the presence of Singapore officials to lend their authority and powers. Members will note from what I have said that Malaysia had been given notice more than a year ago that once we moved our CIQ, their CIQ could not stay in Tanjong Pagar. Since Malaysia had rejected Woodlands and we had told them that they could not stay in Tanjong Pagar, this meant they had to relocate their CIQ to their own territory. On 23rd February 1998, Singapore officials informed Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB) at a meeting that Singapore agencies would operate at Woodlands Train Checkpoint from 1st August 1998. KTMB was also requested to be ready to operate from there on 1st August 1998. On 25th March 1998, KTMB confirmed, and I quote, "as far as KTMB was concerned, it was working towards 1st August 1998 to be operationally ready." On 24th April 1998, Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore, officially wrote to Dato Ghazzali Sheikh of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to inform the Malaysian Government that Singapore would commence its CIQ operations in Woodlands from 1st August 1998. In its letter, MHA stated, "In accordance with the letter of 2nd July 1997, (previous year's letter) Malaysia is requested to cease its Immigration and Customs clearance of rail passengers and rail cargo at the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station by 1st August 1998. Malaysia should relocate its rail CIQ operations within its own territory." On 14th May 1998, Malaysian officials met with their Singapore counterparts to discuss the matter. At this meeting, Dato Ghazzali Sheikh asked Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Mr Tan Boon Huat, whether the option of co-location at Woodlands Train Checkpoint was still open. Mr Tan reiterated that since Malaysia had rejected co-location in their letter of 2nd July 1997, the offer had lapsed. Furthermore, the Woodlands Checkpoint had since been built without provision for Malaysian CIQ facilities. Mr Tan also explained that Malaysia would have to move its CIQ facilities out of Tanjong Pagar Railway Station by 1st August 1998. On 10th July 1998, at Malaysia's request, officials from both sides met in Singapore. At this meeting, the Malaysians claimed for the first time that Malaysia had a legal right to retain their customs at Tanjong Pagar. Singapore's representative from the Attorney-General's Chambers disagreed with this legal claim. For Malaysian Immigration, the Malaysians conceded that there was no enabling legislation to allow them to operate in Singapore. Singapore officials stressed that Malaysia's CIQ could not remain at Tanjong Pagar because there was no legal basis for it to do so. Moreover, this would pose operational difficulties and result in an illogical sequence of passenger clearance, which is not in accordance with international practice. This improper sequence of clearance would cause problems in crime investigation and prosecution and also raise difficult legal issues of proof. Singapore informed the Malaysians that they had to move their CIQ to Johor Baru. The Malaysian officials did not dispute that the sequence of immigration clearance would be illogical if its immigration operations remained at Tanjong Pagar when Singapore moved to Woodlands. However, they proposed that Malaysia grant conditional immigration clearance in advance at Tanjong Pagar which would not be valid until followed up by a final clearance by Singapore Immigration at Woodlands. Singapore informed them that this suggestion for advance clearance was not practical, as it would not resolve and address the basic issues. Both sides met again on 17th July 1998. Since Malaysia claimed a legal right for their Customs to remain at Tanjong Pagar, but Singapore did not agree with their claim, we requested Malaysia to forward detailed written legal arguments within three months for further study by the Singapore's Attorney-General. Officials from the two Attorney-Generals' Chambers would then meet to clarify the legal position on the basis of which Malaysia claimed that it has a legal right for its Customs to continue operating in Singapore. As an interim arrangement, Singapore would allow Malaysian customs officers to operate at Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, and we would station Singapore officials at Tanjong Pagar Railway Station to lend their authority to Malaysian customs officers. As regards immigration, Malaysia now also argued that despite the absence of any specific legislation, Malaysian Immigration had a legal basis to operate at Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, on the basis of acquiescence and state practice, which was backed by international law. Singapore disagreed. For Malaysia to locate its immigration control post in Singapore is actually not in compliance with Malaysia's own law. Under Malaysian law, Johor Bahru railway station is gazetted as the immigration control post for persons travelling from Singapore to Malaysia by train, and not Tanjong Pagar Railway Station. Indeed, they could not gazette Tanjong Pagar Railway Station as it is in Singapore territory. In fact, this is confirmed by the endorsement or chop on passports of passengers boarding the train at Tanjong Pagar, which clearly states that the Malaysian Immigration Control Point is in Johor Bahru. Nevertheless, Singapore agreed that Malaysia could make its case on immigration arrangements in the written arguments that it had agreed to present within three months. Sir, after claiming the right under law to have their CIQ remain in Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, Malaysia said at the 10th and 17th July 1998 meetings that they would now like to co-locate with Singapore at the Woodlands Checkpoint. Singapore did not agree. We explained that when Malaysia rejected co-location last year on 11th June 1997, Singapore had decided on physical arrangements that made no provision for Malaysia's CIQ. Furthermore, we decided that it was best that the respective CIQ arrangements be regularised in accordance with international practice by each country having its own CIQ in its own territory as is the case for road, air and sea transport and travel between Singapore and Malaysia. We informed Malaysia at the meeting of 17th July 1998 that if it needed more time to relocate its immigration operations to Johor Bahru, Singapore would, as an interim arrangement, allow Malaysian Immigration to board outgoing trains at Woodlands Checkpoint and clear passengers onboard the train after they had been cleared for exit from Singapore. Our officials also handed over an Aide Memoire explaining this to the Malaysian delegation at the meeting. The Malaysians rejected the option of clearance on the train. However, Datuk Abdul Kadir Mohamad, Secretary-General of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, requested for some desks on the Woodlands Checkpoint platform for Malaysian immigration clearance. Our officials did not accede to his request. Immediately after that meeting on 17th July 1998, Datuk Kadir told my Permanent Secretary BG Tan Chin Tiong in a telephone conversation that it was not practical for Malaysian Immigration officials to conduct checks onboard the trains, as it would mean reducing KTMB's current train schedules by half. Based on our own calculations and experience, this was not true. However, I wanted to resolve this issue. Therefore, I authorised my Permanent Secretary to tell Datuk Kadir that Singapore had agreed to his request for desks at the Woodlands Checkpoint passenger platform for Malaysian Immigration clearance, as an interim arrangement. BG Tan Chin Tiong conveyed this by telephone to Datuk Kadir on 19th July 1998. Datuk Kadir replied that it was good that Singapore had offered to allow Malaysia a few desks for its immigration clearance at Woodlands as this would make Malaysian Immigration more orderly. Sir, it was clear that we had settled on interim arrangements for both customs and immigration. Singapore had gone to considerable lengths to do so. On 24th July 1998, Singapore's Acting High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur handed over an Aide Memoire and press statement to the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, placing on record these interim arrangements which had been discussed and settled. On the same day, the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a press statement, claiming factual inaccuracies in the MHA press statement, and denying that Malaysia had agreed on the interim arrangements described by Singapore. It denied asking for desks on the Woodlands Checkpoint passenger platform for Malaysian Immigration. It claimed that Malaysia had requested for space inside the Woodlands Checkpoint building. Moreover, the Undersecretary (Southeast Asia and South Pacific) at the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr Arshad Hussain, was quoted in Bernama as saying: "All we are asking for is co-location inside the Woodlands Train checkpoint as [in] the original plan." On 25th July 1998, MHA issued a press statement expressing puzzlement and surprise that Malaysia had disputed the MHA press statement of 24th July 1998. In the statement, MHA said that Singapore had worked on the basis that both Malaysia and Singapore wanted smooth train operations when Singapore moves its CIQ to Woodlands Checkpoint on 1st August 1998. That was why Singapore had responded positively to Datuk Kadir's request for a few desks on the passenger platform at Woodlands Checkpoint for Malaysian immigration clearance. Singapore therefore did not understand why Malaysia now claimed that there was no agreement on interim arrangements for Malaysia's CIQ in Singapore. Sir, I subsequently met Malaysian Foreign Minister Abdullah Badawi during the 31st ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Manila on 25th July 1998. Minister Badawi and I had worked closely before whenever we had bilateral problems. He requested a meeting to see if we could resolve the impasse. Minister Abdullah Badawi's main concern was that the interim arrangements offered to Malaysian Immigration should be "functional and presentable". He agreed with me that Malaysian Immigration could not remain at Tanjong Pagar after 31st July 1998, because the sequence of immigration clearance would be illogical and contrary to international practice. He also agreed that there would be no co-location of Malaysian Immigration with Singapore Immigration inside the building at Woodlands Checkpoint. On this basis, we agreed to instruct our immigration officials to meet again as soon as possible to work out interim arrangements for Malaysian Immigration at Woodlands Checkpoint which would be functional and presentable. Following my meeting with Minister Badawi, I issued a short press statement summarising these agreed points. Singapore immediately followed up by inviting Malaysian Immigration officials to a meeting in Singapore on 28th July 1998. The Malaysian officials agreed to come down for this meeting. However, the evening before the scheduled meeting, Prime Minister Mahathir who was then in Namibia, was quoted in Bernama, saying that Malaysia would not shift its CIQ facilities in Singapore from Tanjong Pagar to Woodlands. He was reported to have said to accompanying Malaysian journalists, and I quote: "That's our stand and we will stick to it." Sir, the Malaysian delegation which attended the meeting on 28th July 1998 did not do so with an open mind to resolve this issue conclusively. The talks broke down because the Malaysian officials insisted that Malaysian Immigration should be located within our Woodlands Checkpoint building, notwithstanding the understanding between Minister Abdullah Badawi and myself in Manila. The officials said that otherwise, Malaysian Immigration would remain at Tanjong Pagar. Singapore officials repeatedly assured them that functional and very presentable interim arrangements would be set up for Malaysian Immigration at the Woodlands Checkpoint. But the Malaysian delegation refused to consider them. In fact, Sir, Singapore even proposed that the immigration booths on the platform could be air-conditioned to make them more comfortable. The facilities would be even more presentable and functional than those at the Tanjong Pagar platform. The Woodlands Checkpoint platform is 10 metres wide, wider than Tanjong Pagar which is only 8 metres, but which currently accommodates both Malaysian and Singapore Immigration clearance facilities without difficulty at Tanjong Pagar. The Malaysian delegation, however, insisted that this was unsatisfactory, but gave no reasons for this even though they are already operating on the platform at Tanjong Pagar. The Singapore delegation reminded the Malaysians that if the Malaysian Immigration remained at Tanjong Pagar after Singapore Immigration moves to the Woodlands Checkpoint on 1st August 1998, the sequence of immigration clearance for rail passengers departing Singapore would be illogical and contrary to international practice. Malaysian Immigration would cease to have any authority to clear immigration at Tanjong Pagar once Singapore Immigration is no longer at Tanjong Pagar to lend them their authority. The Malaysian delegation, however, refused to consider our position. Instead they abruptly ended the meeting and left. To conclude, Sir, let me sum up by expressing my regret that the extended discussions with Malaysia to work out interim arrangements for the Malaysian CIQ have broken down. As Members can see, Singapore had gone to considerable lengths and made a series of proposals and compromises to resolve the issue. However, Malaysia has changed its position again and again. First, in1993 they said they wanted to co-locate with us in Woodlands. Then in 1997 they abruptly changed their mind, rejected co-location and said they would stay in Tanjong Pagar. Then in talks between officials this year, they claimed they had a legal right for their CIQ to stay in Tanjong Pagar. Then after claiming this legal right to be at Tanjong Pagar, they said that they wanted to go back to the "original plan" to co-locate at Woodlands. Then finally, Prime Minister Mahathir said they would stay in Tanjong Pagar. Members will note that we have been consistent and tried to be reasonable and helpful at every stage of our dealings with the Malaysians on this issue and we have made the following concessions: First, after they rejected co-location, our position was that their CIQ should be located in Malaysian territory. They then claimed legal rights to stay at Tanjong Pagar. We were prepared to hear their legal arguments, and pending resolution of the legal issue we agreed as an interim arrangement to let their Customs operate temporarily at Tanjong Pagar and we would post our officers there to lend them legal authority As regards clearance by their Immigration, when they refused to relocate to Johor Bahru and claimed a legal right to operate in Singapore, we offered to allow their Immigration officers to board trains at Woodlands Checkpoint and clear passengers on the trains en route to Johor Bahru, as an interim measure. When Malaysia argued that this did not give Malaysian Immigration enough time to clear all passengers, we offered Malaysian Immigration the option of clearing passengers on board stationary trains at Woodlands Checkpoint but after Singapore had cleared passengers for exit. Malaysia said this was unorderly, might upset train schedules, and asked for desks on the Woodlands Checkpoint platform. We agreed. They then expressed the concern that the desks were not presentable. So we offered to assist Malaysian Immigration by setting up airconditioned booths at the Woodlands Checkpoint. But at the final meeting on 28th July, they insisted on location inside the main building, otherwise they would remain at Tanjong Pagar. Yesterday, Sir, our High Commissioner in Malaysia presented an Aide Memoire to the Malaysian Foreign Ministry in Kuala Lumpur stated, inter alia, the following, and I quote: "Rail passengers will face following difficulties if Malaysian Immigration insists on executing their duties at Tanjong Pagar Railway Station after 31st July 1998 without any legal authority: (a) Malaysian Immigration officers performing immigration functions at Tanjong Pagar will be acting without any legal authority. All endorsements made by them on Singapore passports will be unauthorised and improper. The sequence of immigration clearance will also be contrary to international practice. Accordingly, questions of serious irregularity in the passport will arise under Singapore law. (b) As the sequence of immigration clearance is illogical and contrary to international practice, foreign national passengers exiting from Singapore with such unauthorised and improper endorsements on their passports may face difficulties at Singapore Immigration checkpoints. Travellers who enter Singapore by rail from Johor Bahru will not be affected as they are following the correct order of immigration clearance, exit granted by Malaysian Immigration in Johor and entry granted by Singapore Immigration in Woodlands." Malaysian Immigration's insistence to clear entry into Malaysia at Tanjong Pagar railway station after 31st July before Singapore has cleared them for exit from Singapore will cause inconvenience to rail passengers. The interim arrangements that Singapore had offered for Malaysian Immigration in Singapore's Aide Memoire of 24th July 1998 after discussions with both Foreign Ministers in Manila would have avoided this. Unfortunately, Malaysian officials have rejected these interim arrangements and abruptly ended the 28th July 1998 meeting. Sir, Malaysia has not informed Singapore exactly how it intends to proceed after 31st July 1998, after rejecting Singapore's proposal of airconditioned counters on the Woodlands Train Checkpoint and insisting that their Immigration will conduct clearance at Tanjong Pagar. Singapore regrets that it has to issue a travel advisory to inform rail passengers of the inconvenience and difficulties that they will face if Immigration officials persist in granting passengers entry into Malaysia at Tanjong Pagar before Singapore clears them for exit at Woodlands.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems that the continued positioning of Malaysian Immigration officials at Tanjong Pagar is going to be a legal and sovereign issue. Is there any plan for Singapore to stop them from operating at Tanjong Pagar as from tomorrow, Sir? The second question is, going by press reports of the last few days, Malaysian politicians have been saying that this is an excuse to force Malaysia out of Tanjong Pagar and that Singapore will take over ownership of the land at Tanjong Pagar. In other words, if the Malaysians should vacate Tanjong Pagar, Singapore will use that as an excuse to take over the land at Tanjong Pagar. The last question is, operationally, as from tomorrow, when passengers board at Tanjong Pagar and reach our Woodlands Checkpoint, what action would the Minister take in view of the fact that their passports would now not be regularised?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether the far-fetched Malaysian legal position and claims would in fact mean that it is undermining our own sovereignty as a country and that the Malaysians are taking for granted our goodwill and patience on this matter. I also want to ask the Minister what would be the Government's position if a question is asked whether the Woodlands Checkpoint building is spacious and large enough and whether some space could still be found for Malaysian Immigration officers inside the building.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister two questions. First, I would like to know what are the difficulties that the Malaysians are facing with regard to locating their CIQ within their own territory. While these talks are going on and they realise that the talks may break down, have they made any preparation on their CIQ arrangements or use their own platform within their own territory so that they can cater for an alternative in case co-location in Singapore cannot be agreed upon? The second question, Sir, is whether there has been any request from the Malaysians, since the talks have been reaching a difficult stage, asking for deferment on our part on the implementation of the movement of CIQ from tomorrow. And if Singapore were to be given this request, will it be possible for us to accommodate, given that we already have plans to move our own CIQ to Woodlands?

Sir, in today's Straits Times, it is reported that, "Singapore should not decide unilaterally on the relocation of CIQ facilities from Tanjong Pagar to Woodlands." It was mentioned by UMNO Vice-President, Dato Sri Najib Tun Razak. I take it that Dato Sri Najib had said that we should not move to Woodlands. In other words, he is actually questioning why we should move to Woodlands from Tanjong Pagar, thereby creating all these troubles and issues. May I have the Minister's comments, please?

Sir, just now the Minister mentioned that the legal right that Malaysia has towards the Tanjong Pagar land is accepted. If that is the case, there may be a view taken as to why, if Malaysia has a legal right over the Tanjong Pagar land, it cannot operate its CIQ there, as it is supposed to have the right to do so. Can the Minister explain why therefore Singapore authority is needed in that particular situation?

Two clarifications, Sir. First, why was the Malaysian rail CIQ allowed to operate at Tanjong Pagar station in the first place, since we are an independent nation? Secondly, as an independent nation, why should we allow another country's CIQ, that is, Malaysia, to locate at Woodlands, which is our land and the Government has agreed earlier on? Why do we not ask the Malaysians to locate their CIQ at Johor Bahru train station? They have a train station there.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the suggestion by Mr Low. My question to the Minister is this. Why did we first of all agree to allow their CIQ in Woodlands when there was an agreement to move in fact in September 1993? Then there was a change of heart. What the Malaysian PM is asserting is tantamount to extra-territorial rights. Singapore is a sovereign nation and we cannot allow that. I would like to have this clarification. I would like the Singapore Government to convey to the Malaysian government that they cannot have any extra-territorial rights in our country.

May I ask the Minister what is the title that the KTM has to the land in Tanjong Pagar?

Two questions, Sir. The first is: what is the difference between operating on the platform of Woodlands and operating within the Woodlands Checkpoint? And the second point is, he mentioned about a travel advisory. What exactly would that mean for those holding Singapore passports and Malaysian passports, respectively?

Mr Speaker, Sir, PM Mahathir is reported to have said that for agreements between Malaysia and Singapore to be binding, they have to be ratified by his Cabinet and Parliament. This cannot be right because if Ministers and senior civil servants cannot bind their own country to agreements signed by them, the question is how, in international law, should binding agreements be signed. The second question is, Sir, Malaysia is reported to have argued that there is an agreement to allow them to have CIQ at Tanjong Pagar and that this document has not been terminated. Is this correct, Sir?

Sir, I do not understand why Malaysia claims that they have a right to stay in Tanjong Pagar as the piece of land belongs to them. If their argument is correct, it means that if Singapore Government owns a piece of land in Johor Bahru, we can move our CIQ to Johor Bahru too.

I would like to ask the Minister whether it is necessary for the Government to gazette the Woodlands Train Checkpoint as mandatory for all train passengers to clear their immigration at that point.

Sir, two issues. One is regarding non-Malaysians entering Singapore by train. Basically, what it means is that they will be entering Singapore illegally since they have not left Malaysia. So the travel advisory is for Singapore citizens. How do we advise foreigners who are entering Singapore illegally? The second issue is that he mentioned that the CIQ facilities in Tanjong Pagar would be illegal from tomorrow. So will we have any enforcement action to stop them from performing their duties? Are we going to arrest them for doing their duties illegally in Singapore?

Sir, several questions were asked. Let me answer them, perhaps not in the order that was asked. I think Prof. Chin Tet Yung and one other MP asked about the status of the land, whether it is their land and what rights ensue from it. And I believe Mr Jeyaretnam also asked about the title. I am advised by the Attorney-General that Malaysia has the legal title to the railway land. It operates a railway service on the land through KTM. Under the terms of the leases, the railway land is not intended to be used as a CIQ station. Malaysia in fact does not claim and has no sovereignty over the railway land. It has legal title to the land in the same way as an individual has title to a land. However, customs, immigration and quarantine functions are State functions which, under international practice, have to be carried out only by a State in the territory where it has sovereignty. One State may not carry out such functions in the territory of another State without the consent of the latter as it infringes the sovereign rights of the State, and I believe, two Members, Mr Rai and Low Thia Khiang, alluded to that. The distinction between railway operations on the one hand and CIQ functions is that the railway function is not an essential or inherent State function. It is a facilitative service. It is not an intrusive function. CIQ functions are by their very nature State functions which can only be carried out in the territory in which the State has sovereign rights or in the territory of another State if it is done by the consent of the latter. To argue that Malaysia may perform CIQ functions at Tanjong Pagar railway station because it provides a railway service is actually like arguing that any international airline is entitled to perform CIQ operations at any international airport other than its own home port, because it provides an airline service. Obviously, this cannot be so. Mr Leong Horn Kee and Mr Chng Hee Kok asked whether this is an attempt on Singapore's part to force them to move out of their Tanjong Pagar station and for the Singapore Government to take back the land. My answer to that is that it is completely incorrect. This is because, as I have said in Parliament on several occasions, last year as well as again this year on 29th June, the CIQ issue does not in any way affect the status of the Malayan Railway land or the status of their railway station. These matters are subject to the Points of Agreement (POA). This was also reiterated in the Ministry of Law's statement of 8th July when the Ministry of Law stressed that the relocation of Malaysian CIQ operations from Tanjong Pagar is a completely different and separate issue from the POA, and separate from the status of the Malayan Railway land in Singapore or the railway station in Tanjong Pagar. What happens to the railway land at Tanjong Pagar is set out in the POA which I went into detail last year in this House. The POA sets out the agreement for the redevelopment of Tanjong Pagar land on a 60:40 basis, 60% to the Malaysian government. The terms of the POA bind Singapore because it is a binding agreement. On the 17th July meeting between the officials, in fact, the Malaysian officials told Singapore that they understood clearly that the CIQ and the POA are different issues. Therefore, because the CIQ issue is a very different matter, there is no question of Singapore taking Tanjong Pagar land back as that matter is covered by the POA. Some Members have asked: why do we not take action to prevent the Malaysian immigration from being physically present at Tanjong Pagar? I think Members will note that we have taken a reasonable and consistent approach to this matter. They have claimed a legal right for both customs and immigration. On immigration, there is no specific enabling legislation. They claim that they have a right based on acquiescence backed by international law. We have said that we will give them three months to present their legal arguments, and we have no objection to them being physically present at Tanjong Pagar, but the important point is this. Even if they can establish such a legal right which we dispute, it does not follow that they have a right to clear people for entry into Malaysia at Tanjong Pagar before such people have been properly cleared by Singapore Immigration for exit from Singapore. Several Members have asked about the question of locating outside the platform, inside the building, and so on. Let me answer by saying, first, that they had rejected co-location in 1997. After they rejected co-location in 1997, MHA reconfigured it for Singapore's own use. But while we sort out their legal claim, what we really want to put in place are interim or temporary facilities to ensure smooth functioning on 1st August. In fact, as I said, the facilities we are prepared to cater on the platform will be far more presentable and functional than what they have at Tanjong Pagar station. In fact, we even suggested to them that there could be air-conditioned booths on the platform. But why not inside our building? Apart from it being configured for our own use only, the fact is that they have changed their minds so often on the CIQ issue, how can we be sure that once they are inside, they would not claim that we have agreed to co-location and claim the right to stay permanently. We, therefore, think that it is best that Malaysian immigration be at the platform at Woodlands Checkpoint so that there can be no doubt that these are interim arrangements for three months during which they must show that they have a legal right to be at Tanjong Pagar. Therefore, it is best for both sides to avoid such misunderstanding and any future new problems by their moving inside Woodlands Checkpoint and not moving out later, claiming that this has become a legal right, as they claim that they have a legal right to Tanjong Pagar. Questions were asked: why can they not shift to Johor Bahru? What are the insurmountable obstacles? I think this question should actually be asked of the Malaysians. We have asked the Malaysians. We have not got any answer because the station is there. They are using the station for checking of incoming passengers. Yesterday's press statement and as I have said today, in fact, Johor Bahru railway station is gazetted under their law as the control post for immigration for passengers going to Johor Bahru. It is under their law. So I am afraid I am unable to give an answer to that. Has there been any request to defer the implementation from 1st August? There has not been such a request. But how will it be possible for us to consider such a deferment when we have given them such ample notice? Mr Low Thia Khiang has hit the nail on the head when he asked that as a sovereign nation, why can they not operate in Johor Bahru. Somebody else asked whether is it not a violation of sovereignty to insist to operate in Singapore. I have answered the question when I spoke about the nature of the land. The basic principle is: these are State functions which, if you insist on exercising in the territory of another country, it must be on the basis of consent. That is the cardinal principle in international practice and in international law. Dr Toh See Kiat asked about agreements being ratified and so on. I think he is referring to the Points of Agreement, whether the statement that agreements are not agreements until and unless they have been ratified by Cabinet and Parliament. Or did I misunderstand him?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Malaysians refer both to the Points of Agreement and the exchange of letters between the Secretary-General and the Permanent Secretary that they do not count.

It is not altogether clear to us when the statement was made that agreements and documents signed, other than by Heads of States, are not binding, it is not clear that reference is to agreements other than the POA. But whatever the case may be, these are questions of law and there is a proper way to resolve these issues. As Members know, despite our initial position that they must move, when they claim a legal right, we said, "All right, let us sit down, exchange the legal arguments, sort out between the two Attorneys-General". On the POA, I have already said in Parliament on a previous occasion that there is a divergence of legal views on this. The Malaysians have taken the view that the POA is operative when they decide that they wish to vacate Tanjong Pagar. We have taken the view, and we think we are right in law, that the POA became operational on the day it was signed by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew on behalf of the Singapore Government and Finance Minister, Mr Daim Zainudin, signing clearly on behalf of the Government of Malaysia. But since there is this divergence of view, we have proposed that this legal dispute be referred to arbitration or the International Court of Justice, and Members would have read that the come back to that is that there is no need to go to the International Court of Justice.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not answered my question on how the Malaysians were allowed to operate at Tanjong Pagar in the first place.

The short answer to that is that this goes back to some years back. We allowed them to operate when they made a request, but there is one very significant point which all of us must know, that when we allowed them to operate, our authorities were present at Tanjong Pagar. In other words, we lent them legal authority. We allowed them to be there so long as we were co-located with them. And because we were co-located with them, our Customs officers and our Immigration officers were there to lend them legal authority. Because they have no legal authority to exercise functions of arrest and so on in Singapore. Number two. The logical sequence was not a problem. Passengers who were to board a train had to clear Singapore Immigration first and then clear Malaysian Immigration. So those are the two main reasons why we have permitted and allowed the state of affairs. But once we move to Woodlands, (a) they do not have the legal authority, and (b) the logical sequence will be totally contrary to international practice.

Sir, the Minister has not answered my question. Let me rephrase the question. As from tomorrow, will Singaporeans boarding at Tanjong Pagar infringe any Singapore law?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the precise answer to the question cannot be given today because we do not know what exactly the Malaysian immigration are going to do at Tanjong Pagar. They have not told us how they intend to do or whatever they are going to do at Tanjong Pagar. And until we know that, we are unable to determine what exactly is going to happen to the passengers or to the passports of the passengers. That is why we have said yesterday that obviously because the logical sequence is completely askew, passengers may face difficulties. What exactly are these difficulties they will have to be determined only after tomorrow.

Sir, the Minister has answered my question. But I am just wondering and this is a very practical question. On 1st August, a train leaves Johor Bahru and it comes all the way to Tanjong Pagar. The passengers must seek clearance from the Malaysian authorities. They cannot leave Tanjong Pagar. So they have got to take the train back to Woodlands, get clearance from the Singapore Immigration and then they can leave. That is what I understand, or do they have to stop at Woodlands?

I have already said that for passengers coming in from Malaysia and Johor Bahru into Singapore, we do not envisage any problems because the logical sequence would be complied with, namely, clearance for exit in Malaysia, Johor Baru, and clearance for entry at Woodlands in Singapore.

That means they must stop at Woodlands when they come in.

Of course, yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we relocate the CIQ to Woodlands tomorrow, does it mean that we are withdrawing the recognition of extra-territorial rights on the part of the Malaysian Government to operate their CIQ facilities in Singapore? If we do withdraw the recognition of these rights, does it therefore mean that they are operating illegally in Singapore? And if they are operating illegally in Singapore, what action will the Government be taking in respect of the illegal operations?

I thought I have answered that question. In my speech, I have already said that if they were to do certain things, it would not be authorised and would be improper. But in answer to one other question, I said that because we have agreed to consider the legal arguments, and given the period of three months, it is not a question of taking action against their presence in Tanjong Pagar but, more importantly, a question as to what exactly they are going to do. Will it result in an insistence on clearing passengers at Woodlands for entry into Malaysia when they have not got out of Singapore? In other words, the passengers are still in Singapore when they are said to have entered Malaysia.

Sir, I do not understand. The question was, if they decide to do that, which is not legal, are we going to stop them? Are we going to arrest them for doing so?

Sir, the question of gazetting is to insist that train passengers must stop at Woodlands Checkpoint for immigration clearance, and if they do not, they would therefore be violating our law.

That gazette notification has already been made. On Mr Inderjit Singh's question, I think we should not jump the gun, pre-judge and pre-determine exactly all the series of measures. Let us take things one step at a time, which is exactly what we have been doing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask, by way of clarification, because it is still not clear to me from the Minister's answer to my question. He says the Attorney-General says KTM has a legal title. What is the title? Is it freehold or leasehold? May we know what the title is?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have all the details here. There are several leases, and it is quite a complicated issue. If Mr Jeyaretnam is interested, I could give a more detailed answer subsequently on the exact network of various leases concerning different parts of the land. There are many different leases concerning different parts.

Sir, in view of the uncertainty and confusion over this matter, and the risk that Singaporeans may be caught violating Singapore laws or Malaysian laws, could we advise Singaporeans to avoid taking KTM?

An important point that I have made today is that we would not know what is happening tomorrow. And because we do not know what is happening tomorrow, we cannot say with certainty under what kind of circumstances would any Singaporean be violating the law tomorrow. So I think we will have to wait and see.

Sir, further to Mr Jeyaretnam's question, would the Minister confirm that the title is a leasehold title and not a freehold title of the various lands that the KTM holds in Singapore?

I would give the details at a subsequent sitting if one of the Members were to file a Question. Rather than giving an off-the-cuff answer, I will give a considered answer which gives all the information concerning the different parcels of land.

Sir, I wish to follow up on Dr Tan's practical question about trains stopping at Woodlands. Supposing tomorrow the train at Woodlands comes through and refuses to stop or refuses to let people off, would there be a danger of an international incident?

As a Foreign Minister, I do not "suppose" too many things publicly.

"to provide for the demarcation of land, the establishment and maintenance of boundary marks and the publication of certain survey maps, and to repeal the Boundaries and Survey Maps Act (Chapter 25 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and the Landmarks Act (Chapter 159 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Land Surveyors Act (Chapter 156 of the 1992 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1992 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Post Office Savings Bank of Singapore Act (Chapter 327 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to provide for the transfer of the respective undertakings and employees of Post Office Savings Bank of Singapore and Credit POSB Pte Ltd to The Development Bank of Singapore Ltd, the dissolution of Post Office Savings Bank of Singapore and for all matters connected therewith, to repeal the Post Office Savings Bank of Singapore Act (Chapter 237 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to other written laws", recommendation of President signified; presented by Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Immigration Act (Chapter 133 of the 1997 Revised Edition)", 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.

2.40 pm Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I had informed this House on 19th November last year that Government would be amending the law to make it easier for en-bloc sales to take place. The current position is that a single owner, for whatever reason, can oppose and thwart the sale. Government has received many appeals and feedback from frustrated owners whose desires to sell their flats or condominiums en-bloc have been so thwarted. As a result, these buildings cannot take advantage of enhanced plot ratios to realise their full development potential, which would have created many more housing units in prime 999-year leasehold or freehold areas for Singaporeans. A secondary benefit is that these developments, especially the older ones, could have been rejuvenated through the en-bloc process. I said that the law would be amended to remove the need for unanimous consent. I highlighted the fact that such a practice would not be peculiar to Singapore, as it already exists in some American and Canadian states. I emphasised that in land-scarce Singapore, such an approach was even more imperative as it would make available more prime land for higher-intensity development to build more quality housing in Singapore. In fact, since then, Hong Kong has also passed legislation along the same lines. In February this year, also in this House, I outlined the main features of the new scheme. In particular, I highlighted the fact that safeguards would be put in place to protect the interests of the minority owners. Let me now highlight the key features of the proposed new scheme. Firstly, Government will not decide which developments are ready or ripe for en-bloc redevelopment. The owners will decide that for themselves. There are too many factors at play, such as the age and state of repairs of the development, market conditions, sentiments of the owners and the relationship amongst them. As announced previously, what the Bill will do is peg the required majority consent to the development's age - the majority owners must account for at least 90% of the share values for developments less than 10 years old, and 80% for developments 10 years or more. This approach will facilitate the redevelopment of older buildings. It is also in line with the approach in other countries - Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario in Canada (80%); British Columbia, Canada (75%); Hawaii (80%) and Hong Kong (90%, but where the law also provides that the Chief Executive in Council may specify a lower percentage not less than 80% in certain circumstances). A higher percentage is not practical, a lower percentage not appropriate given the importance of the matter. The current requirement of unanimous consent is untenable. The case of Kim Lin Mansions which was recently highlighted in the press brings this out clearly. Community living, which is the heart of living in a condominium, all but disappears when owners have to drag out their disagreement in court, incurring huge financial outlays in the process. There is uncertainty; there is delay; there is acrimony. Also, as more developments age and incur large upgrading and repair bills, opting for en-bloc sale will increasingly become a viable option. But the existing law which requires unanimous consent makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to realise en-bloc sales. Sir, the principle of majority rule is evident in other areas of shared social and corporate life. Examples abound. They include decisions relating to managing and maintaining common areas in condominiums under the Land Titles Act; privatisation of HUDC flats; upgrading works under the HDB Upgrading Programme; voluntary liquidation of a company or dissolution of a society. Developments with 10 or fewer units will still require unanimous consent. With the small numbers, it is not possible to designate a clear 80% or 90% majority. Even if we base it on an approximation, it would not be meaningful, as one owner's disagreement in such small units may constitute a large percentage. For such small developments, the owners should be able to negotiate and agree amongst themselves. Secondly, there will be adequate safeguards to protect the interests of minority owners. These safeguards are found in the procedures as well as in the substantive powers of the Strata Titles Board. Let me first touch on the procedures. The majority owners will first enter into a conditional sale and purchase agreement to sell to a purchaser, subject to their obtaining an order from the Strata Titles Board. Thereafter, they must give notice of the proposed en-bloc sale in the newspapers. They must also separately serve notice of the proposed en-bloc sale on all interested parties, including the owners, mortgagees and chargees of the minority owners as well as on the management corporation. This notice must be accompanied by a copy of the advertisement published in the newspapers, the conditional sale and purchase agreement, the valuation report and the buyer's statutory declaration stating his relationship, if any, to the owners. The conditional sale and purchase agreement must state the price and method of distributing the sale proceeds. The majority owners must then apply to the Strata Titles Board for an order of sale, enclosing the documents mentioned earlier. The minority owners and their mortgagees or chargee would then have 21 days to file their objections, if any, with the Board. These procedures will ensure that all relevant parties will have adequate notice of the sale and its terms, in order to decide whether or not to lodge objections with the Strata Titles Board. I should add that no application needs to be made to the Strata Titles Board if all the owners agree to the sale. In other words, application to the Board is not a pre-requisite to all en-bloc sales but only when there is no unanimous consent. Let me now elaborate on the role of the Board, in particular, how it acts as a safeguard. The Board will first satisfy itself that the required consent has been obtained and that prescribed procedures have been complied with. It will not review or intervene to determine the terms of sale. Essentially, its role is to determine that the proposed sale is bona fide and an arm's length transaction so that the proposed sale can proceed. It will do this by considering the minority's objections, the interests of all the owners, all the circumstances of the case and the scheme and intent of the en-bloc provisions in the Bill. The Board will look at the sale price, method of distributing the sale proceeds to ensure that the minority owners are treated no less favourably than the majority, and the relationship of the purchaser to the owners, to ensure that there is no collusion. If the Board decides that the transaction is bona fide and an arm's length transaction, the sale will proceed. Otherwise, the sale cannot proceed and the majority owners would have to rework their proposal if they still wish to sell en-bloc. The Board will not rewrite the agreement for the parties. The Board will consider, as I have said, all the objections filed by the minority owners, their mortgagees and chargees. Some minority owners may raise objections which are personal in nature or peculiar to their own circumstances, eg, he has bought his unit recently at a much higher price than that paid for by the other owners, or he has spent a large amount on renovations. Others may raise objections based on sentimental reasons, eg, he has lived in the development for a long time and does not wish to move out. The Board will mediate in these situations. It is expected that skilful mediation will overcome many of these objections. If mediation fails, the sale will nevertheless proceed as long as the transaction is bona fide and at arm's length, unless there are exceptional circumstances to warrant the Board assuming a more pro-active role; for example, the sale proceeds are lower than the purchase price he had paid for the unit or are insufficient to redeem the outstanding mortgage or charge on the unit. This is based on the underlying assumption that none of the owners in an en-bloc sale should lose out financially. Sir, the Board's decision will be final. An appeal can be made to the High Court only on a point of law, or where there is alleged irregularity in the process. Owners will be precluded from applying to the court under section 78 of the Act to terminate a strata development if they are not granted an order from the Board for an en-bloc sale or are unable to secure the required majority consent, unless there are exceptional extenuating circumstances such as the majority owners refusing to pay for repairs to prevent a building from being unsafe. In other words, section 78 will remain in the Act but is used for very specific circumstances. There will therefore be finality. Sir, the new scheme will apply to three types of strata developments: those registered under the Land Titles (Strata) Amendment Act where the owners own their units and share in the common property, which is the vast majority; those not registered under the Land Titles (Strata) Act where the owners own their units and a share in the land but do not have a management corporation framework under the Act; and those not registered under the Land Titles (Strata) Act where the developer still owns the land. Sir, let me now deal quickly with a few other ancillary matters. The first is strengthening of the Strata Titles Board. The Bill provides for a number of changes to facilitate the expeditious hearing of applications. These include increasing the number of panel members from 20 to 24; appointing two Deputy Presidents instead of one; empowering the Secretary of the Board, to be called the Registrar, to deal with interlocutory applications and empowering the Board to allow any person to represent an applicant before the Board. One other noteworthy amendment, which is not related to en-bloc sales, is that the Board's jurisdiction will be expanded to enable it to have wider powers relating to the exercise or failure to exercise a power, authority, duty or function imposed by the Act or by the by-laws. For example, it will be empowered to hear and settle disputes arising from a breach or failure to perform any statutory duty or by-laws relating to a strata development. Currently, a subsidiary proprietor or Management Corporation must apply to court to enforce the performance or restrain the breach. On the other hand, the Board will no longer hear cases on the liability of a developer. Proceedings against a developer for defects are based on contract, which is a matter for the courts. Lastly, Sir, I should add that the new scheme will only apply to strata developments. It will not apply to landed developments. Strata developments, unlike landed developments, are founded on the concept of community living, shared ownership of common property in designated values, and individual ownership of strata title which is essentially air space. All these distinguishing features of strata developments support the new approach based on majority consent for en-bloc sales. Sir, as the Bill has attracted considerable public interest, Government has decided, as suggested by several MPs, both in and outside the House, including the Chairman of the GPC for Law and Home Affairs, to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. This will also enable interested members of the public to share their views on the provisions of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. At the peak of the property boom, this Bill or its underlying principles would have been welcomed by most. Minority subsidiary proprietors who choose not to sell their property in en-bloc sales would have been dismayed. This Bill is controversial. Some say that it is to aid majority subsidiary proprietors who stand to make substantial gains when their apartments are sold en-bloc than they would otherwise not have. It can also be said to oppress the minority who refuses to sell for whatever reasons, whether it is to demand exorbitant prices for their property or for sentimental reasons. Sir, doing nothing will not be the responsible approach in land scarce Singapore. Whether it is the tyranny of the minority or the oppression of the minority is a secondary concern. The most crucial consideration is in achieving a balance between the two conflicting needs and that there are statutory instruments in place to ensure that ultimately a proposal for redevelopment fits into and blends well with the long term development plans of Singapore. Without legislation, the redevelopment of old and inefficient land use developments is a costly process. There is presently a case in our courts, and the Minister of State has mentioned the Kim Lin Mansions case, on this very issue and the legal wrangling is causing owners on both sides of the divide a great deal of money. This is not taking into account the human costs of uneasy neighbourhoods and of course sleepless nights for some of the owners. This Bill when passed will go a long way to address this issue. For whatever reason one wants to remain in a home, there is a need to ensure that the overriding interests of society at large must be met. There must be a mechanism in place to ensure that our city-state does not contain pockets of slums and that sufficiently old buildings are safe and well maintained. Having said that, however, I am of the view that a 10-year old building is still a new building and using 10 years as a yardstick may be too short a benchmark. The stringent requirements of the Building Control Department have resulted in much money being invested to ensure that our buildings will withstand the test of time and more. It will indeed be a waste of money and resources if a building that is less than 10 years old be allowed to be torn down and redeveloped. It may also create uneasiness amongst potential buyers who cannot be sure if an intended purchase will be the target of an en-bloc sale. Sir, therefore, I urge the Government to reconsider a change in some of the details in the Bill. Hence, as this Bill when passed will have a substantial impact on a majority of private property owners, I welcome the Government's move to commit this Bill to a Select Committee. En-bloc sale and redevelopment is an excellent way to rejuvenate some old estates which are devoid or lacking in amenities and facilities. This complements what is being done in the public sector. With the Government spending billions of dollars in main and interim upgrading programmes in public housing estates, private housing estates, especially the older ones, should be encouraged to do likewise through en-bloc sales.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill in principle, and appreciate the opportunity to express a number of concerns that I have regarding its provisions for en-bloc sales, that is, the new sections 84A to F. Sir, property rights in law are traditionally distinguished from other legal rights because they are of such importance and value to those who hold them. The right to enjoy one's property and to choose a time to dispose of it is regarded very much as a basic right of ownership. People pay higher premiums to acquire interests in land that allow them to enjoy such rights and eventually to pass them down to their successors in title in perpetuity. These rights should be overridden only in the most compelling circumstances, where the public interest requires it, and must be seen to be manifestly beneficial to the public in general, for example, building infrastructural facilities such as roads, MRT lines, stations and airports. In Hong Kong, where they have a similar law - the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance No. 30 of 1998 - the objective was to redevelop many of the old estates in Hong Kong through private means. In Singapore, the need to do so may not be so obvious, as many estates are fairly new and, in any case, are well maintained, as regulated by law. The public interest in the proposed law therefore is not so evident. It is altogether different when what is at stake is a purely economic or pecuniary decision. That is, when the decision to take away the right of ownership, albeit with compensation, on pure economic grounds alone - such as the redevelopment of an estate that may just be 10 years old - to make way for a more lucrative development. It is essentially a private deal, between majority owners and developers. In such an instance, there is a need to ensure that all minority owners' interests are well protected. People acquire property for different reasons - I am not concerned for those who are acquiring property as an investment, since that essentially is a matter of economic compensation, which fits well with the idea of en-bloc sales. For someone else - let us say a retiree - who purchases a property to stay in, and who chooses a particular flat in a particular location to be, for example, near her children or a medical facility, the idea of compensation in pure monetary terms may be a poor substitute. The costs of relocation, the giving up of a home that one has spent many happy years - these are neither easy to quantify nor easily compensated in monetary terms. The cynical among us may say that there is a price for everything - and so there may be, but in reality, I do not know how these issues are likely to be dealt with in the Act, despite the Minister of State's assurance. Or whether such issues can be dealt with satisfactorily, no matter what the Act says. As it stands, the Act gives no guidance on how such non-material considerations are to be taken into account, if at all. It is interesting to note in this context that the Hong Kong legislation referred to earlier mentions, for example, the age or state of repair of the existing development. The Hong Kong Ordinance also requires subsidiary legislation specifying the grounds on which an order for sale may be made. In my view, it is necessary to enact similar regulations, especially if the decision is left to the Strata Titles Board. This is the next issue to which I shall now turn. It is stated that these matters may be brought before the Strata Titles Board, and that the Board will have powers to mediate, to call for valuation reports and finally, to make orders. Such orders are binding on minority owners who object to the sale. These are orders that significantly affect property rights. I wonder whether it is not altogether appropriate to have an application made to the High Court instead of the Tribunal. Sir, the Land Titles Act, sections 77 and 78, actually provides for application to the court in relation to a variation of strata subdivision scheme consequent upon damage to or destruction of a subdivided building, and to termination of a strata subdivision scheme. Surely, the powers of the court can be extended to cover the matter of en-bloc sales. This may at least provide some comfort to minority owners who may be dispossessed by such an order. The judiciary is used to matters involving private parties; the judges are used to quantification of damages, including large amounts of damages. They are used to taking into account non-economic considerations, such as pain and suffering. The Strata Titles Board, talented though it may be in property matters, is not used to this type of work. In any event, it is in my view imperative that if such a Board were to decide on this matter, Parliament should ensure that there be specified grounds on which an order of sale can be made, similar to that provided in the Hong Kong legislation. There are two other matters that I should like to draw attention to. The first, as has been mentioned by the GPC Chairman, relates to the 10-year rule. That is to say, if a development is more than 10 years old, only 80% of the subsidiary proprietors need to agree (or if it is less than 10 years, 90%). Sir, in the context of estate development in Singapore, where estates are generally well maintained, this seems too early a period to speak of en-bloc sales. Would it not be a waste of economic resources to tear down a development that is only 10 years old or less? Especially, if some subsidiary owners would like to continue to live in it. Would this sort of rule adversely affect the maintenance level of estates? Is there a commitment, for example, to upgrade the lifts if it were known that a developer has been eyeing the estate with a view to redevelopment? Again, it would seem that more specific regulations are needed to control such a situation and a review of the 10-year rule should take place. Finally, I refer to a technical problem, the issue of notice and objections. This relates to the safeguards that the Minister of State has just mentioned. Under the proposed section 84A(1), majority subsidiary proprietors who have secured a conditional agreement of sale may apply to the Board for an order of sale to be made out. Under section 84A(4), a subsidiary proprietor who does not agree to the sale has to file an objection within 21 days of the date of notice served in the normal case. The failure to file an objection has serious consequences under subsection (6) - the Board is under a duty if it does not receive any objection to order a sale! Nowhere in the section is it provided as to who is to inform those subsidiary proprietors who have not entered into agreements of sale about the application to the Board. Subsection (10) provides for notice by registered post but does not make clear who has the obligation to inform the minority. Would it be the Board or the applicants for the order of sale? Such matters have yet to be clarified in the legislation. Sir, I am aware that in land scarce Singapore, optimal land use is always a priority. Yet, for the same reason, property interests are so much more important to those who have purchased them, especially on the open market. There is a need therefore for the Minister to reassure this House, and indeed, the people, that encroachment into the proprietary interests of minority owners should be allowed only in the most convincing of circumstances. Sir, I give my qualified support to this Bill and hope that these issues would be taken up in the Select Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill was introduced to facilitate the en-bloc sales of certain property. I support the underlying principle of the Bill because I believe that en-bloc sales, if made easier, would prevent old properties from degenerating into slums. In the last few years when property prices were higher and plot ratios in certain areas were increased, we saw many condominiums and apartment owners attempting to sell their properties en-bloc. Some succeeded while others failed. Those that failed owed it to the few owners who held out for various reasons. Some have noble, sentimental reasons, while others just wanted more money than their neighbours. Those that failed to sell en-bloc have missed the boat for the time being and are in danger of degenerating into slums during the trough of the economic cycle as many of these properties are fairly old. In a case like this, one could say that we had a tyranny of the small minority over the majority. I sympathise with the majority of the owners involved. In debating this Bill, one cannot do so without going into the issue of individual rights over that of society. Although one of our core values is society above self, in this context, we must look at what this larger society is, that self must sacrifice too. In the case of private land acquisition for public roads, highways, drainage or MRT lines, one can understand the need for this as the larger society that benefits would be people one can count in the realm of thousands, if not tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, who use the public facilities. In the case of en-bloc sales, the larger society that benefits is one's neighbours, maybe 10, maybe 100, who just want more money for their units if sold en-bloc than if sold individually. The question therefore is: should the individual be made to subsume his interest to that of the society so that the latter can make more money? One could argue that money is not the only issue and that the main reason is really to prevent the condominiums or apartment blocks from degenerating into slums. If that was true, then one could argue that en-bloc sale is not the only way to prevent this from happening. One could go for upgrading programmes and refurbishment as in the HDB major upgrading programmes. In this case, under the current law, only 75% of share values in the estate need to approve for such upgrading to proceed. Since the larger society that benefits from self-sacrifice is not as noble in the case of en-bloc sales of private properties for redevelopment as in the case of acquisition for public projects, I contend that we should maintain a balance of individual rights over that of the other neighbours. The question then is: what is that correct balance? I suggest we should then go back to the fundamental reason for which this Bill was meant to achieve and, that is, to prevent the degeneration of old private properties into slums. This Bill proposes that, in the case of properties less than 10 years old, 90% of the share values would suffice for an application to be made to the Board for an order for sale of all the lots in common property to proceed. In the case of properties above 10 years old, 80% of the share values agreeing would suffice. My question is: are properties less than 10 years old in danger of degenerating into slums? To me, the answer is obviously no. In my view, the age of properties should be the key deciding factor here which determines whether the individual's right to hold out should be ridden roughshod over. For older properties, the danger of degeneration into slums becomes more real. In this case, we should give greater weightage to the needs of the majority of the other owners. I agree that some judgement and subjectivity is involved. However, in my own view and judgement, I propose that for properties less than 10 years old, 100% of share values should still be maintained for en-bloc sales to proceed. For properties between 10 and 20 years old, 90% of share values could suffice, and for properties above 20 years old, then 80% of share values could suffice. In addition, tearing down of fairly new buildings is a waste of national resources and should not be encouraged. I believe my suggestion is more equitable and maintains a better balance between individual rights and the good of the larger society. And with this, at least the individual has the peace of mind that in the first 10 years of the life of his new property, he would not wake up one morning to be rudely told that he has to move out, because his neighbours have decided to cash out in an en-bloc sale.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as everybody is aware, the emergence of en-bloc sales in Singapore is mainly due to the present Development Guide Plan (GDP), where the usage of land is capable of being intensified from that which is currently being used. This Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill is meant to facilitate the redevelopment of land for more intensified use, and I think it covers most of the possible situations. However, in my opinion, there are two situations which have been missed out and should be considered. Situation 1. The Bill deals with a case where the subsidiary proprietors of the lots holding not less than 80% or 90% of the share values wish to sell to the purchaser. But it does not, however, appear to deal with a situation where one subsidiary proprietor of the lots already owns 80% or 90% of the share values and wishes to purchase the remaining 10% or 20%. If the said subsidiary proprietor wishes to sell to the purchaser, it would be possible under the Bill to apply to the Board for an order. There is, however, no provision to allow this subsidiary proprietor to apply to the Board for an order to purchase the remaining 10% or 20%. I feel that the Board, in the spirit of the Bill, should assist such a subsidiary proprietor. Of course, some safeguards must be built in for such a situation, for example, the appointment of two independent valuers or the said subsidiary proprietor must acquire the remaining 10% or 20% only for the purpose of redevelopment. If this situation was not covered, the said subsidiary proprietor who meets with objection from the remaining subsidiary proprietors of the building would then not be able to redevelop the land to its fullest potential. This situation is similar to an en-bloc sale which has resulted in this Amendment Bill in the first place. The only recourse for such a subsidiary proprietor would be to sell to a purchaser. Of course, one can argue that he can always set up a company to be the purchaser, but the procedure would attract more stamp duties, more legal cost, etc. And I feel that the spirit of this Bill should be to facilitate the en-bloc sale and not to collect more revenue for the Government if the situation does not require it. Situation 2, and this is a more complicated one. Currently, there are some land developments on sizable plots of land in Singapore where the DGP allows for more intensified use than its current use. But the intensification is not to the extent that it warrants the demolition of the existing buildings on the land, particularly if they are still quite new. And in some cases, due to the layout of the existing development, there is no need to demolish any building and an additional building can actually be erected on the site. But it means that the consent of 100% of the subsidiary proprietors of the lots in the development have to be obtained, and some objections would definitely be raised. I would like to ask the Minister whether in such a situation the same approach as taken by the Bill for en-bloc sale can be adopted, ie, if the subsidiary proprietors of the lots in the development holding not less than 80% of the share value consent to such a proposal, an application can be made to the Board for an order to allow the proposal. Mr Speaker, Sir, so far I have spoken about the benefit of the majority of the subsidiary proprietors of the lots. The interests of the minority, of course, cannot be ignored. I came to understand that some subsidiary proprietors object to en-bloc sale because of their desire to send their children to a school within 1-2 km or their need to look after their elderly or sick parents nearby or they have just recently completed extensive renovations to their premises. I see a need for the Board, as defined in the Bill, to be empowered to consider these intangible factors in their mediation or arbitration between the disputing parties and possibly make adjustment to the share values to achieve an equitable distribution of the values. It will not be wise to pass this Bill to facilitate the development of land and ignore its possible detrimental effects on the other ongoing good policies which are meant to encourage stronger family ties and equitable treatment of our people. As pointed out by Prof. Chin, the Bill is not clear on this. I would call for more details on these issues to be addressed in the Select Committee. Sir, in principle, I support the Bill.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.45 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.18 pm until 3.45 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.45 pm

Resolved, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion and the remaining items on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 after the conclusion of item No. 6. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. Singapore has successfully managed to remain a vibrant and efficient city-state because of our ability to rejuvenate and redevelop our infrastructure. In this regard, the primary aim of this Bill, to allow changes in its Development Guide Plans to be translated into better utilisation of scarce land resources and infrastructure can be supported. We have the Land Acquisition Act that would allow the Government to acquire land and properties if it is in the public interest to do so. Therefore, if it is in the public good to acquire residential properties even though it may be a building of, say, less than 10 years old, then it must be done. After all, the law provides for compensation at market prices. I would go as far as to say that we should also consider invoking the Land Acquisition Act if property owners or management corporations fail to maintain their buildings. Therefore, the provisions to allow management corporations greater powers to compel owners to maintain their properties are appropriate. However, it is another thing to say that neighbours and other property owners can now decide or influence whether they can now remain in their house, especially when en-bloc sale is justified purely on monetary gains and considerations, not necessarily for general public interest. I can understand the frustration some property owners feel when they cannot sell their property en-bloc because, under present law, even a single owner can frustrate an en-bloc sale. However, I cannot accept or understand the extreme some owners have gone to force and intimidate other minority owners to sell their properties en-bloc. The opportunity for quick and substantial capital gains has blinded many of these owners into thinking that everyone like themselves should decide to sell their houses simply on monetary considerations. Many give scant attention to other genuine reasons why some property owners prefer not to sell their homes despite the potential for huge windfall. The elderly may not want to move out or be burdened by new financial obligations. The unique thing about property is that there is only one of its kind. Another house is never exactly the same. There are also genuine concerns about location, for example, nearness and proximity to family members, school amenities and the comfort and familiarity with the general neighbourhood. Even on purely monetary considerations, as different purchasers may have paid different prices for their property, the monetary gains to different owners are not the same. Therefore, owners do not necessarily have the same incentives and motivation to sell, especially in the current property market. What if the minority owners have to sell at a loss? It is for this reason that I think the Strata Titles Board should be strengthened not only in numbers, as stated in section 87, but also in terms of its representation so that the Board can effectively perform its function of protecting minority interest. I would urge the Minister to provide for clearer guidelines to assist the Strata Titles Board so that the genuine interests of the minority are not sacrificed purely because of the monetary interest of the majority. It must be on the onus of the majority to ensure that every possible way has been explored to protect the minority interest through preferential purchase of new apartments on redevelopment sites. It should also be the responsibility of the Strata Titles Board to ensure that non-monetary issues and the interest of the minority owners are given sufficient weightage before the Strata Titles Board can make an order under section 84A(6) or (7). Until now, property ownership has a proprietary value which is permanent and cannot be removed except for special circumstances, for example, by Government Land Acquisition. As such, the idea of Singapore as our home can be promoted because there is a sense of permanence to one's neighbourhood and home. It may be bricks and mortars that make a house, but a home is about shared experiences, fond memories and emotional attachment that can never be equated in monetary terms. These are matters that deserve very careful consideration. Given the current property market, there is a lesser need for quick action. I therefore welcome the Minister's decision to refer this matter to a Select Committee so that views from a wider cross section of the people can be obtained. This issue has attracted much public debate. Clearly, a consensus on this matter is preferred. Finally, I believe that there should exist in Singapore the recognition that in our homes or friends and our neighbours, our emotional attachment to our neighbourhood are matters which are far more important than the windfall gains one can make from an en-bloc sale.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare my interest as the owner of a strata title lot. Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. In land-scarce Singapore, we have no choice but to maximise land use through proper land use planning. The recent revision and development of the Concept and Development Guide Plans by URA clearly indicates the need to update land use plans in Singapore. This is necessary so that we can keep up with changing population and economic trends. This Bill indeed will facilitate better utilisation of land through en-bloc sales of certain property. At the same time, it will enable the Strata Titles Boards to function more effectively and efficiently for the benefit of all subsidiary proprietors and flat owners. Sir, I would like to raise the following points on the principles and implications of this Bill. Collective sale of property Clause 8 inserts a new Part VA (containing new sections 84A to 84F) to facilitate en-bloc sales of land within a subdivided building. But it only applies to owners of flats or units in a strata or subdivided building or development with more than 10 units or flats. The clause seems to discriminate against developments of 10 units and less. I hope the Ministry could clarify the need for this requirement. Sir, to be consistent in encouraging en-bloc sales, we should remove this requirement and allow all developments that are eligible for en-bloc sale to make an application for collective sale. Time period requirement for en-bloc sale This Bill permits owners of 80% share value in a development to apply for collective sale if the lots are more than 10 years while a 90% share value is required for lots which are less than 10 years. In principle, I agree that the 80% and 90% share value requirement will facilitate en-bloc developments. However, the 10-year time period requirement may result in wastage of resources. This is particularly so for developments which are less than 10 years old. Technically, the life span of a building is about 60 years before physical obsolescence takes place. But in a fast-pace society like Singapore, buildings tend to have shorter life span due to economic obsolescence and changing social trends. Despite this, it is wasteful to facilitate en-bloc sale and development of buildings that are less than 10 years old. In fact, with the introduction of new building materials and technology, buildings are built to last much longer. Thus, I hope the Ministry will reconsider the time period requirement for en-bloc sale application. In addition, it would be prudent to specify that applications for en-bloc sales for developments below 10 years should obtain approval from the Minister. This would curb any speculative developments which may have other repercussions or economic implications. Distribution of sale proceeds One of the stumbling blocks in en-bloc sale is the obtaining of consensus among subsidiary proprietors or owners with regard to the sharing of the sale proceeds. Subsidiary proprietors or flat owners often have differing opinions as to the methods of sharing the proceeds. This has indeed hampered a number of potential en-bloc sales. The Bill has not addressed this problem. To facilitate en-bloc sale, the Bill should state clearly the method or formula for sharing the sale proceeds. Based on past en-bloc sales, the use of share value has been commonly adopted as an acceptable means to distribute the sale proceeds. Jurisdiction of Strata Titles Boards Clause 14 has removed the jurisdiction of the Strata Titles Boards to adjudicate disputes between management corporations and developers. In practice, management corporations often encounter problems when taking over new developments from developers. These problems may range from simple disputes concerning handing over of relevant documentation to major disputes such as repairs of major building defects. Very often, these disputes are technical in nature and could be either mediated or adjudicated by the Strata Titles Boards. However, with the new amendment, all these disputes would have to go to the courts for settlement. As such, it may create an influx of cases, thus hampering the efficiency of our courts. Instead, we should expand the jurisdiction of the Strata Titles Boards to adjudicate disputes between management corporations which have become common in recent years. Composition of Strata Titles Boards Clause 11 increases the number of persons on a panel from which the Strata Titles Boards may be formed to 24. The increase of panel members from 20 to 24 is probably attributed to the increase in the number of strata title developments, and the amendment in section 86 which allows parties to a dispute to have a say in the choice of members forming a board. As the real estate and construction industry is small, it may be better to increase the panel members so that the Minister would have more leeway to appoint one or more Strata Titles Boards to expedite dispute settlement. Thus, I would suggest that in line with the principle of appointing management corporation council members, we should allow the Minister to appoint a panel of members but subject it to a maximum of 30 members. In this way, the number of panel members may vary from time to time depending on the availability of expertise and the number of disputes. Sir, I support the Bill.

I am obliged to you, Sir, for giving me this opportunity. Sir, I rise to support the Bill and I congratulate the Minister for agreeing to send the Bill to a Select Committee. This has been proposed by Members as well as the public, because it is a very important question that we are going to deal with, ie, the question of property rights. I must, first of all, declare my interest. I am a practising lawyer and I am also a member of the Strata Titles Board. Sir, Singapore has limited land supply and it is of utmost importance that we utilise this to the maximum benefit of the community. This is why the success of Singapore has largely been attributed to the very equitable way in which land acquisition has worked. In this particular case, no acquisition is being made. All this Bill hopes to do is to facilitate en-bloc sales. Mr Speaker, Sir, one question that has bothered me and other Members is this 10-year period. It is not adequate. We should at least allow a minimum of 15 years. I am happy with the requirement of a percentage of at least 80%, because I think that is also the practice in other jurisdictions. Prof. Chin also spoke about the Strata Titles Board. Sir, the Strata Titles Board is made up of the President, Deputy President and two other members. In fact, it is better than what you get in the High Court because in the High Court only a single judge hears the matter. It would also be more expensive and time consuming. The other advantage which Members may want to know is that the Board always tries to mediate. In fact, I have been sitting on the Board for more than a year now. The matters which I have dealt with have always been settled without going through a full hearing. So I would like to tell the Members of this House that the Strata Titles Board may be a more appropriate panel because it is made up of people who are not just lawyers but also engineers and architects who appreciate the dispute better. So I hope Prof. Chin would change his view after hearing my arguments. Sir, there have been some complaints from members of the public, both in the news media as well as some people who have approached me. I know of a case of a retired librarian in the University of Singapore who lives in Holland Road. Her worry is that if her property is put up for en-bloc sale, she would miss the company of relatives who are nearby and other facilities. But I tell people who have this problem that it is in the interest of the community at large and especially, in view of the MRT development, that we should allow maximum utilisation of our land. We have got limited land supply and community interest must take precedence over that of the individual right. As I said earlier, one of the advantages that we have is that because we did not enshrine in the Constitution the right to own property, as some other countries did, we have this development. Sir, I move to another area which I am a little concerned. Prof. Chin has also mentioned this. This is new section 84A(10). The notice to be given requires only two days' notice. I do not think that is sufficient. If you post a notice on Saturday, the next day is Sunday. I think we should at least have a minimum of five days' notice. Another Member also raised the question of who is to give notice. I think that could be easily addressed. The Registry of the Strata Titles Board would give the notice where members have not been served. It could be a condition that before an application is heard, all the parties have been served properly. Sir, another area that I am concerned is this. If we do not change the law and allow, as I have said earlier, the period of 10 years to stand, then a lot of properties that have been developed recently and are in good condition would be torn down and rebuilt, which would be an economic loss. Another area which I think we should also consider is that probably the owners of terrace houses in older estates may wish to have them developed if the plot ratio is increased from two storeys to three storeys. Because some of these estates are in fact in worse condition than some of the HDB estates which are better managed. This is something which the Minister may want to consider. Sir, the office of Registrar is being created and I am grateful to the Minister for this because, with this amendment, many applications could be dealt with by the Registrar. So the full Board does not have to sit. All we require is the Registrar to deal with applications which are not controversial in nature and it would be helpful when the law comes into existence to appoint a Senior Legal Officer as the Registrar. At the moment, the person holding office is actually qualified for District Judge. I hope the practice will continue. As I said earlier, I would like to assure Members once again, my experience over the years is that both parties always want to discuss the matter and, in fact, in most cases, mediation succeeds. Sir, I support the Bill.

I am much obliged, Mr Speaker. I rise to welcome the reference by the Minister of State of this Bill to a Select Committee, which some of us have asked. I think we need to carefully consider the Bill because we are changing existing rules and private rights. We are changing the ball game. And I want to share some comments and thoughts with the Minister, hoping that this will go to the Select Committee, based on four topics: first, the question of public interest; second, the difference and balance between private property and what the Minister of State has called "communal living"; third, the safeguards; and fourth, the use of the Strata Titles Board as opposed to court. The first is on public interest. As many Members have said, land is a scarce resource and Singaporeans accept the principle of land acquisition for public interest by the Government. Some, however, will feel that these amendments differ on the public interest but instead serve windfall private profit. I also agree, as many have pointed out, that there is a public interest to protect Singapore's landscape against slums. However, I urge us just to consider that this concern can be met much more simply. Government authorities may issue orders to management councils of such slummy buildings to maintain properly or to face court proceedings. And if they persistently refuse or fail to do so, then condemnation orders can be served or the management corporation may be dissolved. So I do not see this strongly as a matter of public interest. It is more a question of that majority in the building of private owners against a minority. It is certainly true that under the present law, many may be frustrated. Some have called this the tyranny of the minority. I believe the Minister of State used this term in an earlier parliamentary sitting when he introduced the outline of the present Bill. But others did not see this as a tyranny but rather as a minority simply protecting their rights. They point out that the majority is not stopped from selling their units if they choose to do so. What they cannot do is to get the windfall premium by selling en-bloc. No one is trapped in a building but they are stopped from selling somebody else's house under them. And I think in this sense, this is a debate not simply about efficiency in land use, about abstract rights. This is a debate about the idea of Singapore as our home. We have encouraged home ownership. We wish that Singaporeans feel that the nation is their home, their permanent home which no one can take from them. Of course, this is best served by allegiance to the nation as a whole. At our National Day, I am sure many people will feel that allegiance. But on normal days, in our dreams, in our thoughts, in our hearts, that sense of rootedness of home belongs to one's specific home, one's specific neighbourhood. And in many ways I think that is why private property in Singapore has demanded a premium not merely for the facilities or the quality - the HDB quality is going up all the time - it is for that idea that this home is a private property belonging to me. Therefore, I do not agree that condominiums are about communal living. The way I look at it is what is common is very small. If we ask ourselves: can somebody by vote at the management committee invite them to my front door, I think the answer is no. If the answer to an invitation to the front door is no, then how can it be that the majority can also sell out not just my front door but my whole house from under me? So I want to distinguish between this idea of public interest and the majority in a private building and, secondly, the idea of communal living against the idea of private property. As I said also, there is an emotional attachment to a home and this is very difficult to translate purely to monetary terms. As such, I share the concern many Members have expressed that the conditions of a bona fide sale at arm's length transaction are simply not enough. The attachment which an older member may feel for his or her home of 20 years would be considered irrelevant in this equation. This is a monetarisation of emotional attachment and that idea is contrary to the idea of Singapore as home. There are many personal reasons for preferring not to sell. It includes circumstances like the owner, such as an elderly or ill person, who may not be able to stomach the idea of having to pack everything and move. There is a convenience factor of being near to other family members or the school or amenities, or to simply a neighbourhood with which you are familiar. Additionally, there are hard economic reasons for some preferring not to sell. The purchase price paid by different owners at different times may vary considerably. For example, a condominium unit that fetched, say, a quarter million dollars in 1986 or 1987 may cost by 1990 some $400,000, and then 1994, perhaps at the height or later, to fetch $1 million for the same unit, more or less. As such, if an en-bloc sale results in a price of $1.1 million, say, to all the buyers, the profit of different owners would differ considerably. And so they have different incentives to sell. This is a rational decision, not an emotional one. This is a hard dollar and cent reason for us to help people hang on to their properties and not have them pried out from their hands. And, of course, I do not think this House needs to remember that in the present market where prices are lower than the peak, it could result in a loss. I am gratified that the Minister of State now says that we guarantee that deals do not go through if they result in a loss. I move on to my third point that more safeguards are needed. I share Prof. Chin's concerns that it is the court who is much more appropriate to fathom the mixture of personal loss, economic loss, rather than the Strata Titles Board. And I do not echo the sentiments expressed by my fellow NMP Mr Rai. I also share the concern that if we are to consider any factors put forward by anyone, this is not in the Bill as drafted. I think we have to consider this particularly because, as I understand them, en-bloc proposals may differ considerably not just in terms of price but also in additional terms such as preferential treatment for new apartment once it is built, rent-free periods - all these differ from deal to deal - and there must be room for the Board or the court to fully consider these reasons as well as the price. I also noted the Bill, and the Minister of State has emphasised mediation. But I suggest that this mediation is not sufficient because if it fails, the majority can still rely on the price. I share the concern about the timeframes regarding the 10-year properties and the voting percentages outlined earlier by the Minister of State. I wish to finally close on just a few broader points or suggestions. The first is that when this Bill goes to a Select Committee, I ponder who would speak for the minority owners. I think the developers are well taken care of. They are well organised and can speak with an equal and loud voice. There has been some anecdotal evidence about Kim Lin Mansions or other isolated cases. The Minister has not shared with us how much feedback, how many complaints. And I would ask that the Select Committee go beyond just being open to views but rather seek to survey, study and genuinely solicit views. The second wider suggestion I have is that the Bill be better served and the minority interest better protected if the majority who wish to sell be placed in a fiduciary relationship to the minority whereby undertaking the sale, they will take on duties to safeguard the interest of the minority as best as possible. The third and a more general point I wish the Minister of State to put before the Select Committee is that, might it not be better not to exchange existing private rights, but rather to change them prospectively for land and developments that will now arise. This of course has the disadvantage of making different types of land and making choices more complex. But this has the advantage of making sure the people who are presently situated in one system of rights do not find that system changed to their adversity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I voice my unhappiness about the Bill. A number of other speakers, particularly Prof. Chin and the speaker following him and now Mr Simon Tay, have voiced their concerns which I was going to voice, and so I do not propose to repeat them. Suffice to say that I think they are well-founded and these views must be given sufficient consideration. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us not make any pretence. This is not a case of a minority or even a single man holding out against the society. It is not a question of society's interests that will be adversely affected if we give way to the man's wish and freedom to do what he wishes. This Bill simply panders to the greed of the developers and the other co-lessees who see, as has been said, a way to get rich quickly. That would appear to be the only reason for this Bill. There is no question of any national interests coming into this. There is, as has been pointed out, the Land Acquisition Act and even there, let me say, it is felt by many that that Act itself is being abused from its primary, original purpose which was that it should only be used for national interests; it is used for lots of other reasons now. So let us not pretend that a minority, even if it be a single man, is holding society to ransom. This adds another instance to the list that is already growing in Singapore where the citizen is coerced. He is coerced to do something against his will, against his freedom to do what he wishes to do. Is that the kind of society we want in Singapore where a citizen is coerced at every turn and corner? Or is it a society where the citizen feels that he is free to make his own choice provided of course it does not harm the society at large? I am sure the answer to that must be quite plain. The second point that I wish to raise, and that has been raised by Prof. Chin, is why cannot we allow or ask the majority of the owners to take their application to court. What is wrong with the courts hearing it? Then at least we have an open public hearing. We will have representations on behalf of the minority and we will hear representations from the majority. In a hearing before the Strata Titles Board, we do not get this openness and we may not even get a reasoned decision from the Board when they do come to make a decision. But the courts do have to give their decision. So is it not more preferable that this matter should be left to the courts? After all, they are vested with the judicial power in this country and we should allow them to function in the role that they are intended to function and not keep taking away from the courts their function and giving it to statutory boards and civil servants and the like. My objection to this Bill is on principle. I think it is wrong to force one man to give up his property. I do not want to go into the reasons why he may be against the sale. Some reasons have been advanced but whatever it is, it is the principle. Do we rob a man or woman, as the case may be, of his or her freedom to do what he or she wishes to do with the property? Why is that necessary in Singapore? As I said, in a number of things, citizens are now being coerced. I think there should be a limit to this coercion.

Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I am surprised, Sir, that the Government should succumb to the greed of property owners and take away the principle of unanimity in regard to en-bloc sales. In 1987, at the last major amendment to the Land Titles (Strata) Act, the Government held firm to the principle of unanimity as regards the sale of the whole development comprised in a Strata Title plan. Why should the Government now make a complete about turn and go back on its own belief? I believe that the principle of unanimity is correct and the Government should hold on to it. The principle has been upheld by the Government up till now because it believes that the minority interests must be protected. There will normally be a few people who live in a large block of private flats who do not want to be moved out. These people are not spoilers or people who want to hold the other flat owners to ransom and demand high prices for their own units. They just do not want to move out whatever the going price is paid to them. I know of such instances in a private development where an en-bloc sale was proposed. Each flat owner was offered about $1 1/2 million as compensation. Those flats were first purchased in 1969 for only about $27,000 each. So the price of $1 1/2 million was a windfall. It was like touching a lottery. But there were two ladies who refused to sell their units. Those two flat owners did not ask for more money. The compensation paid to them was not an issue. They just do not want to move out and live somewhere else. Many people of course will call them stupid or unable to comprehend them for refusing such large sums of compensation money. But if we value freedom and value the principle that one has a right to live where one chooses for whatever reasons, then I believe we can start to understand the refusal of those two ladies to budge from their places of residence. Normally, one is only forced to move out of one's home in times of war, or in times of natural disaster like an earthquake, or where there is a widespread contagious disease in the community, or one's property is required for public development. Other than those instances, I do not think that in a civilised society, one should be forced to be evicted from one's own private property against one's own will. The governments of other countries may want to do it to their own citizens. But I do not think that we should follow them. If a property owner wants to make money out of his own property, he is entirely free to do so. But I do not think that he has a right to drag other residents into his money-making scheme if the other residents do not want to have a hand in it. I think a society must have some ideals, some principles to hang on to. If a society has no principles, no ideals at all, that society, for the short term, may prosper but in the long run, it shall surely collapse. I cannot accept the belief of a well-known businessman in Singapore when he said that everything is up for sale except his own wife. I am certain we do treasure certain things which cannot be sold whatever is the price offered. Expediency as a philosophy is not a good philosophy for our nation. The American nation, despite its commitment to business and seeming expedient ways, has endured for over 200 years, because it still holds on to certain sacred beliefs and ideals as enshrined in its constitution. As for Singapore, it must not throw all ideals and principles to the wind. For me, I believe in the sacrosanctity of my home. I should be allowed to stay in it as long as I like. I therefore cannot support a law which will allow others to force me out of my home all because they want is to make more money out of it.

Sir, first, let me thank the many speakers who have spoken. Since the Bill will be going to a Select Committee, I will not address all the points, especially the technical ones which can be considered at the Select Committee. However, Sir, I should take this opportunity to outline the reasons why the Government has taken this approach. As stated by many Members, the underlying objective of the Bill is recognising land is scarce in Singapore and the fact that the plot ratios of many developments have been enhanced, there is a need to facilitate the realisation of more housing units for Singaporeans. We are talking in many cases of prime areas, freehold, 999 years. From the records that are available, some developments have yielded two to three times more units for ourselves, for our children. So this is a step that we take which will have long term impact. Of course, as many Members have stated, yes, indeed we are dealing with property rights that can be sensitive. But I think we have to also understand that in land scarce Singapore, we should not flinch from taking measures that are necessary which will benefit both Singapore and Singaporeans, which indeed we did in the 1960s when we introduced land acquisition. These land acquisition policies have facilitated and resulted in developments that have made Singapore one of the best cities in the world. Of course, some Members may say that the example may not be quite the same. But I would argue that there is a public interest element, not just in land acquisition but also in en-bloc sale. Let us not forget that, unlike land acquisition where a person's property is acquired, he may lose out financially, the distinguishing factor here is that in an en-bloc sale, the minority owner would very often benefit substantially financially. That is the first point I want to make. The other point which we should also bear in mind is that, like I have said in my speech, the new scheme will not apply to landed properties, even though one of the Members had urged for it to be applied to terrace houses. I think the difference is fundamental and this is one point that perhaps Singaporeans do not fully grasp, the legal significance of buying a condominium where what a person buys into is a strata lot. He buys into common property. He is designated share values in common property. He has no specific land lot. He has got strata rights, essentially enjoyment of the air space where his unit is located. So what the majority want to do, in effect, is to exercise their rights over the common property. If there are 99 owners in a 100-owner development, assuming the share values are equal and equal area also, what the 99 owners say is, "We want to exercise our rights to sell this strata development" where every owner who comes into this development, unlike buying landed property, knows what he is going in for. The other point, of course, is besides just the legal nature, one cannot understate the fact of communal living in strata development. And this is another point, which is that Singaporeans over time will better understand what the Land Titles (Strata) Act is all about. It is a complex Act with 130 sections. Why? Because living in a condominium is not just buying your own property and living away from everybody else. There are legal duties; there are legal liabilities. And that is why a management corporation is formed in all developments with powers over many areas. So this is the other point which we should note. Members have talked about the 10-year rule. Our approach, as I said in my speech, is not to dictate which developments are ripe for en-bloc sale. We leave it essentially to the owners. So there is minimum intervention, unlike Mr Simon Tay who had asked why we do not stipulate terms and conditions in the sale and purchase agreement. We take a non-interventionist approach. I think the starting point is that we leave it to the majority owners. If 80%-90%, all like minded, all with their own faculties to decide what is best, say that this is the way to go, provided, of course, the transaction is at arm's length, there is no collusion, then the sale goes ahead.

Sir, I just want to clarify that I did not mean that I was encouraging the Bill to allow stipulation of terms and conditions. I was only pointing out that terms and conditions in different en-bloc offers do differ, which may then have to be considered by the Board.

Thank you for the clarification. Sir, going on this basic objective of creating more space for Singaporeans, we have decided on the 10-year rule. Going on present records, it will not lead to national wastage. One or two speakers had asked whether the 10-year rule, where the buildings are relatively new, would lead to wastage at the national level. From the records, only about 20% of en-bloc developments have been less than 10 years. Nevertheless, we also know that there may be good reasons why owners in a development which is less than 10 years would want to sell en-bloc. It could be because the plot ratio has been enhanced substantially. It could be because the development is next to a vacant plot of land and there is reason to sell it so that development can be built on a larger piece of land. Or it is next to another development which is perhaps also less than 10 years old, but it makes economic sense to sell it together. As the approach we take is to facilitate en-bloc sale, we have adopted the 10-year rule. Mr Lew says that this will mean that it goes against another objective which is to rejuvenate estates. That is a secondary objective. In time to come, when estates become older, I think this will come to the forefront. But at the moment, the primary objective is to help realise enhanced plot ratios so that many more homes can be created for Singaporeans. The other big area that we looked at was the role of the Strata Titles Board. I think, like I have said in my speech, it is an important safeguard. The Strata Titles Board will be enhanced. There will be more members. And as Mr Rai has rightly pointed out, based on personal experience, the Board comprises senior professionals in the various fields which are relevant to what the Strata Titles Board will have to do, not decide on the law, but decide on whether the sale price is one where there is no collusion, decide on the method of distribution, whether it is unfair to the minority owners. The composition of the panel will ensure that this task is better done, rather than a judge sitting in court fettered by the rules of evidence. The other point, of course, I think Mr Rai again brings it out poignantly is the mediatory role of the Board, which again a court will be less suited to do. In a more informal setting, the Board takes a mediation role. That is very critical. As I have said in my speech and Mr Rai, based on his experience, has also backed up, in many cases, the Board will mediate. In many cases, they will succeed in mediation. In many cases, people who may not want to sell, especially those who are not based on financial reasons, if there is skilful mediation, if the parties, especially the majority parties, are encouraged to give some latitude to the minority owners, maybe arrange, if a person wants to live in the area, for the developer to give a right of first refusal, so that he or she can continue staying in the area, relocation or whatever, I think many of these problems can be settled. The Board will be much better. The other point which I want to say is that I would agree that we should not typecast majority and minority owners, because there are minority owners who may not want to sell based on financial reasons. Yes, there will also be other minority owners who, because of emotional or sentimental attachment, do not want to move. Therefore, I would agree that we should not fix them with the term "tyranny of the minority". When I used it in this House in the earlier debate, it is not to characterise them with a slur, but to describe the situation where one person saying no will prevent the transaction from going through. In this sense, it is one person's objection which has prevented the realisation of the desires of the vast majority. So the corollary to that is that we should not characterise majority owners, which has been done in this House by several speakers, that they are greedy, they are avaricious, all they want is to make money. I think it is not fair on majority owners, if it is what they are waiting for. But it does happen that Government's actions result in certain people getting richer, getting a windfall. So shall we begrudge that? I would say no. Shall we facilitate it? Well, if it results in a public interest being met, which is the creation of more homes for Singaporeans, a lot of them in prime freehold areas, then I will say yes, provided, of course, there are sufficient safeguards, and the interests of all parties are taken into account. And this indeed is the approach we take in the Bill, if you look at the specific criteria in the Bill taking into account all the objections of the minority, all the circumstances of the case, all the interests of the parties. Nevertheless, part of the basic approach is that we know that it would be difficult to go away from basic objective criteria. That is why I said in my speech earlier on in this House, that the primary function of the tribunal would be to see whether it is an arm's length transaction, bona fide, no collusion and so forth. But, at the same time, there may be exceptional circumstances. I have mentioned one, which is that no party should lose out financially. If you sell your property at a loss or you sell your property and you cannot redeem it with the bank, then it will be a ground for the Board to intervene. So let us take that approach and see how the Board works. Sir, the Bill will go to a Select Committee. So I do not think I need to go into the details. I want to thank Members for their many suggestions. Some of them are technical suggestions to improve the working of the Board, to improve the working of the Bill, which can be considered at the Select Committee.

Sir, the Minister of State seems to base his main ground on land scarcity in Singapore. That would appear to be the primary reason. Has the Government considered taking over some of the golf courses? Do we not have too many golf courses in this country?

Sir, this matter of golf courses is nothing new. Government has defended in this House why certain lands are designated for golf courses because they cannot be used for built-up developments.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved,

"That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as the Committee of Selection may nominate." - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

Order for Second Reading read. 4.44 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 1998 seeks to give legislative effect to the income tax changes announced in the February 1998 Budget Statement. Opportunity is also taken to incorporate four other amendments to the Income Tax Act. I shall begin with the tax changes announced in the Budget Statement. There are a total of 11 tax changes which require amendment to the Act. I have introduced a number of new tax incentives in the 1998 Budget and they are: (a) a tax concession to promote the bond market; (b) a tax concession package to help Singapore develop as an electronic commerce hub; (c) tax exemption on income for approved insurance companies deriving from writing offshore marine hull and liability insurance; (d) tax exemption on income derived from uplift of freight from Singapore; (e) one-year accelerated depreciation allowance for companies which acquire approved equipment or technology which meet certain criteria relating to noise and chemical exposure levels and, finally, (f) a further tax deduction to companies for approved relocation and recruitment expenses incurred in the hiring of talent from abroad. Clauses 5, 6, 11, 13, 17 and 20 amend the Act to provide for these incentives. I have also announced the extension and liberalisation of several existing tax concessions. Clauses 3 to 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 21 amend the Act to provide for the following: (a) extension of the tax holiday granted to the Singapore International Monetary Exchange Limited (SIMEX) for another five years; (b) extension of the current 10-year limit for venture capital funds to enjoy tax exemption on the gains from the disposal of investments, for a further five years; (c) extension and liberalisation of the Tax Exemption Scheme for Syndicated Offshore Credit and Underwriting Facilities for a further five years; (d) liberalisation of the tax concession for the unit trust industry; and (e) removal of the yearly restrictions in the tax deduction limits for general provisions made by banks. Tax Changes Not Announced in the 1998 Budget Statement I shall now deal with the four tax changes that were not announced in the 1998 Budget Statement. The first tax change pertains to tax deduction for donation of computer equipment. At present, companies that donate computer equipment to educational and research institutions are allowed a tax deduction equal to the value of the donation. The scheme is to encourage companies to donate computer equipment to these institutions to help them upgrade and maintain the quality of information technology training at the forefront. To enable other organisations to also keep pace with the developments in information technology, I have decided to extend the tax deduction scheme to include donation of computer equipment to public libraries, community centres and voluntary welfare organisations. Clause 15 amends section 37(2) of the Act to provide for this extension. The next tax change relates to the promotion of trading of Singapore goods and services. Currently, double tax deduction is granted for expenses incurred in the promotion of Singapore goods and services. As the current provision in the Act is rather restrictive with regard to the type and extent of expenses incurred that would qualify for the double tax deduction, clause 8 amends section 14B of the Act to provide for more flexibility in order to encourage the trading of Singapore goods and services. The third tax change relates to the tax incentives I announced in the 1995 Budget to promote offshore leasing of aircraft. Under the incentive package, aircraft leasing companies that operate from Singapore are taxed at a concessionary rate of 10% on their income derived from offshore aircraft leasing. To further boost the attractiveness of Singapore as a location for aircraft leasing companies, I have decided to extend the tax concession to cover the income derived by approved aircraft leasing companies from aircraft management activities. Clause 19 amends section 43I of the Act to provide for this extension. Finally, the last change is to improve tax administration. At present, the Act requires a person carrying on a trade or business to issue receipts and maintain records of such receipts issued for tax purposes. However, the Act also provides for the Comptroller of Income Tax to waive such a requirement for businesses such as fast food restaurants where the turnover is high but the value of each transaction is low, subject to the company being able to satisfy certain conditions. For ease of administration, clause 2 amends section 2 of the Act to enable the Comptroller of Income Tax to delegate the power to approve such requests to the Deputy Comptroller or an Assistant Comptroller of Income Tax. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill seeks to give effect to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1992 (CLC 92) and the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage in 1992 (Fund 92). Both Conventions were adopted by the International Maritime Organization. The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 (CLC 69) and the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1971 (Fund 71) set the international rules and procedure for dealing with liability and compensation for oil pollution damage. These Conventions provide for the sharing of the costs of compensation between the shipowners and cargo interests. Compensation is initially paid by the owner, whom the CLC 69 makes strictly liable for oil pollution damage. Since CLC 69 also generally provides for limitation of the owner's liability, additional compensation is available, if needed, from the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (the 1971 Fund), established under Fund 71. The Fund is financed by contributions from importers and receivers of oil. Singapore has been a party to CLC 69 for many years. The existing 1981 Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act implements this Convention. But the CLC 69 and Fund 71 have been found to be inadequate to meet current levels of claims. In 1992, the IMO adopted two Protocols to amend CLC 69 and Fund 71. The Protocols primarily raised the level of compensation that victims of oil pollution can claim as a result of an oil pollution from ships. Under CLC 92, the limit of compensation has been raised from about S$30 million (in CLC 69) to about S$130 million, or slightly more than four times. Under Fund 92, the limit of compensation has been raised from about S$130 million (in Fund 71) to about S$436 million. The volume of oil imported to and exported from Singapore has been increasing steadily over the years. A large number of very large crude carriers (VLCCs) transit the Singapore Strait. As the maritime traffic in our waters and in the Strait increases, so too does the risk of a serious pollution incident. In fact, if Members may recall, such an incident did occur recently in October 1997 when two oil tankers collided in the Singapore Strait spilling some 28,000 tons of crude oil into our waters. We would like to have a higher limit of compensation in the event of a serious pollution incident like this. The MPA consulted various public and private sector organizations involved such as the Singapore Shipping Association, oil industry, TDB, EDB and MTI. They have all supported Singapore's accession to the Protocols. Singapore acceded to CLC 92 and Fund 92 on 18th September and 31st December 1997 respectively. These will come into force one year later. In other words, in September and December this year respectively. Our accession to CLC 92 means that Singapore-registered oil tankers will have to be covered by insurance against liability for oil pollution damage for a higher limit of compensation. Further, tankers calling at Singapore must also be insured to the same higher limit. Our accession to Fund 92 will enable victims of oil pollution damage to seek additional compensation where compensation from shipowners or their insurers is insufficient to meet the claims. As a party to CLC 92 and Fund 92, Singapore is obligated to give effect to the provisions of these Conventions in its laws. The Bill contains the essential provisions to give effect to CLC 92 and Fund 92. Administrative and procedural matters will be dealt by subsidiary legislation. Besides the higher compensation available to oil pollution victims which I have just mentioned, there are the following differences between the old Act, which implements CLC 69, and the Bill which implements CLC 92 and Fund 92: Under clause 6 of the Bill, owners of ships not exceeding 5,000 tons can limit their liability to a fixed sum of 3 million special drawing rights (SDRs). This is equivalent to about S$6 million. Under clause 3 of the Bill, expenses incurred for preventive measures are recoverable even where no spill of oil occurs, provided that there is a grave and imminent threat of pollution damage. Provisions of the Bill apply to pollution damage both in the territory (including the territorial sea) as well as the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of Singapore. Provisions of the Bill apply to spills from sea-going vessels constructed or adapted to carry oil in bulk as cargo, whether laden or unladen and apply to spills of bunker oil from such ships. In giving effect to Fund 92, the Bill requires contributions to be paid to the Fund by an importer or receiver of more than 150,000 tons per year of oil. The major oil companies and oil traders in Singapore will contribute to the Fund. The amount to be paid each year will depend on the number and size of oil spills in the States party to the Fund 92, the amount of claim that exceeds the limit of the CLC 92, the cost and expenses of administering the Fund and any deficit from operations in preceding years. The amount of contributions is to be fixed by the Fund. The Fund shall, subject to certain prescribed limits, be liable to any person who is unable to obtain full compensation for oil pollution damage from the shipowner or his insurer if the shipowner is incapable of meeting the claim or the claim exceeds the limitation fund of the owner established under clause 7. The Bill also provides for the fines imposed for any offence under the Bill and sums collected to be paid into the funds of the Authority. Payment of fines to MPA will enable it to recover part of the clean up costs for oil spills from unknown sources and investigation expenses relating to pollution incidents. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to support this Bill. This Bill has two main parts: one on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution and, secondly, on the accession to the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. Singapore as an international port and maritime centre should subscribe to these two conventions and fund, which serve to limit liability to ship owners, and yet protect the interest of the countries around the seas where the pollution occurs arising from these ship operations. As the Minister pointed out, Singapore has been a signatory to the Civil Liability Convention of 1969, which was convened arising from the environmental pollution and damage of the "Torrey Canyon" in 1967. This Bill is to be welcomed. The question I want to ask is why it took so long for us to be a signatory to it. The Civil Liability Convention (CLC) will only be in force on 17th September 1998. In this period since the Convention was operational in the other more progressive countries, why were we so slow to join in? In this period between now and 17th September 1998, owners of vessels operating in our waters are exposed to liability because of the limitations of CLC 69. We have already experienced vessel collision like Orapin Global and Evoikos in October 1997, which caused major pollution. So technically we are still exposed till 17th September 1998. Does the accession to this Convention 92 mean that our ships from the neighbouring countries will be restricted in trade around our waters and our port, because such ships registered in these neighbouring countries may not be signatories? And will the higher insurance premiums and standard requirements imply that our port will be less open because it is more restrictive given the higher stringency for the regional vessels? Will this have implications for us in serving the regional vessels in an economically difficult period? Clause 18 of this Bill stipulates that Government ships be exempted from these regulations. I can accept if it is due to matters of war, but navy vessels also operate within our congested waters around the port and around Singapore and they should be equally liable for such pollutions if they are due to accidents or through negligence. Under clause 7, subsection 3a(i), liability damages are determined in SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) expressed in Singapore dollars. My question is: why must the rate of exchange be determined by the date of judgement? Bearing in mind that such damages extend into millions of dollars, and judgement and settlement can extend over years, should not the rate of exchange between SDRs and Singapore dollars be determined on the date of the event or the last closest rate to reflect the real cost damages? On the Fund Convention, it puts our importers of oil and refineries on the need to contribute to this Fund. Does it affect the competitiveness of our refineries or oil importers when other refineries, including state-owned ones in other neighbouring countries, are not signatories? Sir, I support this Bill.

Sir, I thank Mr Chay for supporting the Bill. He asks why is it that we took so long to operationalise these two conventions (CLC 92 and Fund 92). Let me just point out that although they were adopted by IMO in 1992 (hence the name CLC 92 and Fund 92), both these conventions have only entered into force internationally in 1996, two years ago. The practice is to have a minimum number of countries accede to the protocol before it comes into force. It is our practice to accede to these conventions after it comes into force internationally. When it did so in 1996, the Government then started the process of consultation with various interested parties. In our case, of course, we consulted not only Government agencies and Ministries, like MTI, TDB and so on, but also other relevant parties in Singapore like the Singapore Shipping Association (SSA), oil traders, oil refiners and so on. That was done and completed last year and the Fund was acceded to last year and will go into operation this year. So I can assure the Member that there was no undue tardiness in this area. As to what happens in between CLC 69 and CLC 92, in the period before CLC 92 comes into force, we are still governed by the provisions of CLC 69. If there are any pollution incidents that happen now, these will be covered by CLC 69. The Member mentioned the Evoikos incident. I would like to inform him that based on the estimates of the damage that has been caused by the Evoikos incident, MPA is confident that the clean up cost will be covered or met in full under CLC 69, the old convention. This of course is due in no small part to the fact that MPA and the relevant agencies took swift and preventive action to ensure that the damage was not unduly extensive. CLC 69 coverage is sufficient to cover any contingencies that we anticipate, if we are fully prepared for such emergency. However, to be safe we have decided to accede to CLC 92. The Member also asks about higher insurance premiums and what happens to ships of countries that do not accede to the CLC 92 Protocol. Based on international convention, first of all, ships of countries that are party to CLC 92 will have no problem because under that convention they are obligated, as Singapore-registered ships are, to obtain the necessary insurance. However, ships which are not a party to CLC 92 will need to obtain a CLC 92 certificate to call at Singapore. What this means is that they must obtain the necessary insurance which will provide for the higher limits of indemnity required under CLC 92. In actual fact, the Protection and Indemnity (P&I) clubs that insure the ships and provide the insurance certificates informed us that most probably there will be very little or no increase in premium for a CLC 92 certificate as compared to a CLC 69 certificate. This means that there will be very little cost impact on ships calling on Singapore. Because the P&I insurance cover today is already very high, there would not be any significant increase in the premiums which means therefore that the cost impact on ships will also be negligible. Are Government ships exempted? The two Protocols (CLC 92 and Fund 92) only apply to ships which are constructed for the carriage of oil in bulk as cargo and also of course to the spillage of bunker oil in the ships. So if such a ship is owned by government, by a state, or by a state-owned company, then the convention will apply to those types of government ships. Mr Chay also asks why the conversion rate is set at the date of judgement rather than at the date of event. This is part of the international agreement that has been thrashed out and settled among various countries. There must be a reason why they have set it at the date of judgement. I am not familiar with the reason why that has been so. But that is an international convention and Singapore is obliged to follow. If he is interested, I can find out the reasons and respond at a later date. Finally, on competitiveness of oil refineries and whether Singapore oil refineries will be affected in terms of high cost. As I indicated earlier, before we acceded to this convention, we canvassed the opinion of all interested parties from Singapore, including the oil refineries, and all oil companies have expressed support for this convention. I believe major oil companies in Singapore, they are multi-national companies, find it in their own interest for Singapore to accede to this convention. Firstly, it means that they are actually protected because CLC 92 sets a cap on their liability; and, secondly, I understand that they do buy insurance, they contribute to private insurance anyway. So the contributions to this convention would, I assume, be in lieu of contribution to their own private insurance funds. In that sense, I do not think that there will be any major impact on their competitiveness. I believe those are the few questions that were raised.

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 Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.12 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Control of Plants Act was enacted in 1994 to consolidate legislation relating to plants and plant products. To fulfil Singapore's obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS Agreement, the Inter-Ministry Committee on the TRIPS Agreement recommended legislative amendments to various Acts including the Control of Plants Act. My Ministry and the Primary Production Department (PPD) have taken this opportunity to review and update the existing Act. Sir, the main changes to the Act concern three areas: One, regulating the import and transhipment of fresh fruits and vegetables to safeguard the health of humans; Two, fulfilling Singapore's obligations under TRIPS and other WTO Agreements; and Three, improving PPD's operational effectiveness. I shall now go through and explain the rationale of the three main changes. First, regulating the trade in fresh fruits and vegetables. To address increasing concerns about the safety of the food Singapore imports, the Bill enhances the powers of the competent authority to impose conditions on the transhipment and import of fruits and vegetables. Stringent controls are also necessary to protect Singapore's trade in plants and plant products. Under the existing provisions of the Act, PPD has no legal power to impose or enforce any conditions on transhipment of fresh fruits and vegetables. This poses a potential health hazard as such products, although not meant for local consumption, may introduce harmful micro-organisms and pests into Singapore. Examples of potential threats are E. coli 0157:H7, an organism causing severe food poisoning and the Mediterranean Fruitfly, an insect that is detrimental to our trade in fruits. To allow PPD to impose sanitary controls, clause 2 provides a new definition of "tranship" and clause 5 re-enacts Part II of the Act to require a person who wishes to tranship fruits or vegetables through Singapore to obtain a licence, and also a permit for individual consignments of fresh fruits and vegetables. There is also a need to enhance the competent authority's control on imports of fruits and vegetables. New section 7 requires an import permit for individual consignments on top of the licensing requirement in the existing Act. With the two-tier control system of licences and permits, PPD will have the flexibility to impose and enforce conditions on both imports and transhipments. Under new section 30, PPD can restrict an import or transhipment immediately by withholding the licence or permit in respect of sources of fruits and vegetables when evidence is received of any disease outbreaks or other hazards related to fruits and vegetables and which may be brought into Singapore through import or transhipment. This speed of action is necessary as the jet age has allowed goods to be transported between countries in a matter of hours. Sir, I now turn to fulfilling Singapore's obligations to the various WTO Agreements. Mr Speaker, Sir, the next major feature is how to fulfil our obligations. Firstly, clause 6, incorporating new sections 15A and 15B, is proposed to comply with our obligations set out in Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement. Under section 15A, the Director of Primary Production is obliged to take reasonable steps to protect certain confidential information received by him in relation to applications for registration of innovative pesticides and not to use the information to process other applications for registration of pesticides. Section 15B describes the circumstances where the obligations under section 15A do not apply. Secondly, the new sections 30(4) and 31(A) have been introduced to fulfil Singapore's obligations under the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. The WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures places certain obligations on WTO members with regard to the administration of import licensing procedures. These obligations are aimed primarily at promoting transparency and fairness. Section 30 requires the Director to provide the application with written reasons if he refuses to issue or renew the licence or permit applied for under the Act. New section 31A allows any person aggrieved by the decision of the Director regarding the grant, renewal, suspension or revocation of a licence or permit, to appeal to the Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry has also reviewed PPD's current operational needs. Clauses 9 and 15 will provide PPD the flexibility to carry out its operations with greater effectiveness. To allow PPD to overcome resource constraints and focus its limited manpower on the critical areas, clause 9 proposes amendments to section 26 to provide PPD the flexibility to outsource less critical operations to the private sector. These operations include the inspection of plants and plant products for the issuance of phytosanitary certificates; and the analysis of imported fresh fruits and vegetables for contaminants. The outsourcing of inspection for the issuance of phytosanitary certificates is allowed under the International Plant Protection Convention which is the reference point for the WTO on international standards, guidelines and recommendations on plant health. The United States has already taken advantage of this provision to introduce a scheme to accredit private companies to carry out such inspections. With modern transportation methods allowing pests and diseases better chances of surviving international travel, another critical function of PPD is the prevention or the containment of any inadvertent introduction of pests and diseases that could be detrimental to our plant trade. Operationally, PPD needs to enter private premises, such as farms, nurseries and warehouses to detect pests and, if need be, carry out eradication tasks. Based on data gathered, PPD would evaluate the impact on our trade in plants and plant products and decide whether import restrictions should be imposed and take remedial actions such as eradication operations. Early detection will provide us the opportunity to eradicate a pest before it is established. Current legislation presumes the entry of private premises by authorised officers to carry out pest surveys. In practice, if permission is denied, no entry can be made. Section 20 of the Act is therefore amended to give PPD powers to enter any land or premises to conduct inspection surveys in order to ascertain the presence of pests and to gather the necessary data to determine the need, cost and scale of any pest eradication, control or quarantine actions to be taken. However, to address possible abuse of such powers, certain safeguards have been built in. Firstly, the officer must be an "authorised" officer. Secondly, the inspections can only be done at reasonable times and only after giving a notice under the hand of the Director at least six hours before the intended exercise of the power. Thirdly, the inspecting officer must produce an identification card, when requested. The United States and Canada have similar laws to empower their officers to enter premises for pest surveys and inspection. In summary, the Bill aims (1) to safeguard the health of Singaporeans with respect to fresh fruits and vegetables brought into Singapore and protect our plant trade through the control of pests; (2) fulfil Singapore's WTO obligations; and (3) allow PPD to overcome resource constraints and focus its resources on more critical areas. 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.

This motion is subject to the signification of support by at least one other Member. Does it have the support of any hon. Member?

I support the motion, Sir.

Much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, I beg to move, That this House records with gratitude the contribution made by our founding fathers in building a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual society and reaffirms these principles. Sir, this motion is a result of the National Education Exhibition. As we celebrate our independence, it is timely to recall and recognise the contribution made by our founding fathers. They fought for independence and built a progressive, peaceful and prosperous Singapore. Those of us who have lived through the tumultuous years cannot but feel a sense of gratitude. How we made it to where we are today has been compiled in about 36 minutes in a multi-media presentation. Sir, after the opening ceremony, the Prime Minister asked me how I felt. My reply was simple. The Exhibition has been an emotional journey for most of us who have lived through the period. How we made it is a miracle. Let me say this to the National Heritage Board and to MITA: every dollar spent has been well spent. They have done well.

5.26 pm Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am moving this motion out of conviction to acknowledge a debt to those who have made us what we are and to convey to the generation to come that these are principles worthy of emulation. Sir, an Indian classic Thirukural says it is not good to forget a benefit. We have benefited a great deal, Sir. The principles which I have termed in this motion are principles worthy of following because without them, we will be torn asunder. I have discussed this motion with some friends. They felt it was timely. I agree with them. Sir, this motion deals with founding fathers, but allow me also to deal with our forefathers. Before the British came to Singapore, the Malays were already here. Singapore was part of the Johor empire. They came from China, Indonesia, Malaya and India. They came not to set up a home but to return to their homeland after a brief sojourn, making some money. Some died without even seeing their families back home. Many survived in colonial Singapore. Some of our forefathers went to their homeland and brought their families to Singapore. They lived a very frugal and spartan life. Their life was one of pain and suffering. Through their toil and sweat, they built a place called Singapura, our home, their legacy for the future generation. Sir, we owe a debt to our pioneers that cannot be repaid. I hope in years to come, we can name one of our institutions after these pioneers. They deserve a lasting memorial. Our location has remained our greatest asset. It is God's gift to us, no man can take this away from us. Without any natural resources, Sir, except its location and its people, the island prospered under the British rule. The strategic location of this island attracted traders from South East Asia and elsewhere. For decades, life centred on trade. More and more immigrants made this island their home. Sir, with changing of the time, especially after the Second World War, the political landscape underwent change. It awakened national consciousness and our leaders realised that they had to be masters of their own destiny. The Rendal Constitution set the tone for elected government with powers still in the hands of the British government. This was in 1955. The colonial office realised that the status quo could not be maintained. There were the student riots as well as the Hock Lee riots. Things started changing. Singapore attained self-government in June 1959. The PAP under the leadership of Mr Lee Kuan Yew formed the first self-government. In symbolic change, Sir, the Ministers were sworn in City Hall and not in the Government House. Subsequently, six months later, on 3rd December, Encik Yusof Ishak took office as the first local Head of State. And it was a historic occasion, for the first time we sang "Majulah Singapura". As a student, we were given a national loyalty card. Sir, I still have this card and this is a symbol of our loyalty. It reads, "Majulah Singapura, susunan kata dan lagu oleh Zubir Said." Sir, we entered Malaysia in 1963 as a free people. We had to leave the federation in 1965 and became an independent republic. We went into Malaysia in the hope of building a Malaysian nation, but we did not succeed. We must never forget our stay in Malaysia which provided us a valuable lesson. When we became a Republic in 1965, we were not certain as to the future. The resolve by the leaders and the people has made us succeed against all odds. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is men like Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr Toh Chin Chye, Dr Goh Keng Swee, Mr S Rajaratnam, Mr Ong Pang Boon, Mr Lim Kim San, Mr E W Barker, Encik Othman Wok, Mr Hon Sui Sen and others we owe much. We also remember Mr David Marshall for his dream of Merdeka. These men are representative of their time. These men could have lived a fairly comfortable life from any calling of their choice but they decided to help the people in building a modern, prosperous Singapore. They literally risked their lives and limbs for Singapore. They were a product of history. They knew what it was to be treated as a colonial people. And let us hope that the best sons of Singapore would follow these leaders' footsteps, just not in the Administrative Service but also in politics, for our scholars must never forget that they owe a duty and debt to society. Sir, we can overcome the present and future difficulties provided we have the resolve. In every society, the cream of the society decides the fate of the community. But we must never forget that there will be no cream without milk. It is equally important for us to dedicate the course of our society from which must come the leaders. Sir, permit me to pay tribute to our civil service as well. People like Mr Howe Yoon Chong, Mr Sim Kee Boon, Mr J Y Pillay and others who gave their best beyond the call of duty, for no Government policy can succeed without a dedicated, honest, civil service. This House and the nation can be proud of our civil servants. We also pay tribute to our citizens who worked hard, hand in hand with the Government, for no government can succeed without the support of the people. We can overcome difficulties provided we are firm in our resolve. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, multi-racialism is a strong thread of our national fabric, both for the majority and minority communities; in fact, all Singaporeans. We must feel at home and at ease with each other. In many countries, the so-called multi-racialism is at best a dressing on the dining plate. In some countries, minorities are persecuted, humiliated and suffer worst indignities. Our appeal to these countries is to respect and protect the minorities. In multi-racial Singapore, our young children go to the same school, share the common goal and aspirations, learning each other's culture and mix with each other easily. These principles must be cultivated, but we cannot take them for granted. We must nurture them. We must not just be tolerant. Tolerance to me, Sir, is very passive. We must do more. We must be active. We must respect each other's beliefs and traditions. Moving on to language, Sir, language is a very sensitive issue. We have chosen English as the medium of learning. Malay is our national language. We sing our national anthem in Malay. We have decided we must learn our mother tongue, Mandarin, Malay, Tamil, Hindi, Punjabi and other Indian languages. These languages will act as a ballast, to quote our Education Minister, RAdm Teo Chee Hean. These languages will help us preserve our heritage. Sir, the Government is committed to nurturing our mother tongue and it is prepared to change its policy whenever there is merit in the proposal. Sir, moving now to religious harmony, this is the most sensitive issue. We have seen two riots which have religion as the basis of civil disturbances. Some of us felt very strongly and made representations to the Select Committee on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill. And we are grateful for Parliament in passing this Bill that we have religious harmony in Singapore. Sir, we are a people of different races and different religions. We have only one dream, the dream to build Singapore where people live in peace. The citizens have pride in our nation. Our young must find it worthwhile to stay and make their contribution to this country, their homeland. I say this because in many countries, religious strife has harmed the people and the country. We have built an honest and stable Government. Our people believe that there can be no peace and prosperity without a strong government. It is essential to have political stability. Sir, I end my speech with a reference to the Proclamation of Singapore. Allow me to quote from the Proclamation: `As from the 9th day of August in the year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Five Singapore shall be forever a sovereign, democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society.' May I ask the House to support this motion, Sir? Question proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as an English-educated person, I wish to speak in Chinese today to express the gratitude I feel towards the contribution of our founding fathers in establishing a multi-lingual policy. After all Chinese is my mother tongue and a language which I deeply enjoy. The recent economic crisis in all the Asian countries had noticeable ramifications at all levels. The tension between Malaysia and Singapore is one example. It arose due to economic and historical differences, with each country arguing and defending its own ground. The persecution of Chinese in Indonesia was another painful and traumatic event, heightening our awareness and anxiety toward inter-ethnic conflict. Against this background, the recent National Education Exhibition which related the growth of Singapore from a colony to its independence and the resilience with which our pioneers struggled to build this country, truly won my admiration. The National Education Exhibition portrayed our society as multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-lingual. That Singaporeans have for 33 years co-existed in harmony and collectively worked hard to develop this nation - amidst the throes of vast global transformations - is an accomplishment which we must all cherish and feel proud of. But can we sustain this hard-earned harmony through future generations without trouble? The younger Singaporeans today have no understanding of the 1964 racial riots and are rather unaware about ethnic issues. Does this point to the success of our multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-lingual policy that made "race" not an issue at all or does it signal a lack of sensitivity towards ethnic issues? What concerns me are two issues: education and language. Our education policy created a group of elites such that those who finally entered tertiary education are primarily Chinese. Even among Primary and Secondary schools achievers, Chinese in relative percentage terms still do better than the other ethnic groups. I do not think this is due to any discriminatory policy adopted by the Government. It reflects more the varying attitudes toward education among different ethnic groups and the lack of adequate resources in some families to allow the children to complete their education successfully. As such, I reckon that what Singaporeans have to be concerned with is how to strengthen and elevate the educational attainment levels of all the different ethnic groups. The other concern is on the language issue. Till today, there are still many Chinese Singaporeans who share negative views about Chinese culture and its transmission. Despite the openness which the Government has adopted towards the four official languages, Chinese being one of them, there are many Chinese who will not embrace and accept their own language and heritage. These in particular are the English-educated who regard English as Singapore's main language, a superior language which was passed down to us from the colonial days. Consequently, when the Chinese-educated community organise a talk or study group and invite eminent scholars to come to share their insights on Chinese culture, such an event would be regarded as a chauvinistic activity when it clearly is only a cultural and academic exchange. The recent cultural symposium organised by Lianhe Zaobao was essentially an experience for some Singaporeans to find their lost heritage. Twelve hundred participants were there to seek intellectual stimulation and a diversity of views on life from four eminent personalities. I personally was appreciative of the effort the Lianhe Zaobao gave to encourage this high level of cultural dialogue. In my view, such an event represents a form of cultural renaissance and does not represent narrow-minded ethnocentric chauvinism. Moreover, Chinese culture being one of the world's greatest cultures, has been highly regarded by scholars in America and Europe do we then judge their enthusiasm as misplaced? What the English-educated did not realise is the fact that in an increasingly Westernised city-state like Singapore which is dominated by the English language, the Chinese-educated also feel neglected. But the Chinese as a majority group in this country must not disregard the sensitive reactions of the other groups. One specific example was the recent discussion by the Nanyang Technological University on the creation of a Chinese Cultural Institute and cultural elite. A non-Chinese felt strongly enough to write to the press pointing out that this move directly contradicted the early principles of a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual society. Other individuals asked: if we talk about a Chinese cultural elite, what about Malay or Indian elites? Or should each of these cultures in their search for cultural excellence, at some level also promote the larger Singapore culture by encouraging the elites in each group to build bridges of linkages to help our diverse groups achieve an even higher level of consensus? I personally feel that the issue of race cannot be broached by the intellect or conceptual theories. I grew up in Little India. During the 50s to the 70s, the neighbours I contacted were Malays, Indians and Chinese. Because my parents had always related to different ethnic groups, this exposure had made my brothers and I develop a high level of acceptance of other races. This is the reason why till today, I have close friends from different races. I may not clearly understand their cultures, but this ignorance has not prevented our friendship from developing. I raise this example to express a fact that the barriers between races must be removed by interpersonal relationships through communication. Such communication must be sustained over a long period, to allow us to develop from different experiences our respect and friendship for one another. The kind of heart-linked relationship for one another is the best assurance against racial conflict. At this juncture, I make a call for all principals, teachers, parents, Government and community agencies to organise more light entertaining events in order to create the opportunity for different ethnic groups to meet and have the chance to correct their biases for and misunderstanding of one another. We cannot merely "talk" about multi-racial society; we need to give time to organise activities to "act out" our beliefs and encourage more noble bridge makers to take the lead. The Racial Harmony Day is only a symbolic event, what is more representative of our harmony is the creation and continuity of multi-racial relationships at all levels. At the present, we are asked to be open and welcome foreign talents to our country to help our economic development. With their arrivals, the diversity in our multi-cultural society takes on an additional dimension, making it all the more necessary that we keep developing the heart-linked network to achieve overall social cohesion. If we can objectively adopt a larger perspective on global cultures by recognising that the search for all cultural sources is like digging a well: that as we dig deeper, we will find that all different sources from the well will lead to one undifferentiating source. If so, why do we not adopt a tolerant attitude towards accepting our commonness? If we start digging our multi-cultural wells based on this reckoning, we will finally reach the Big Singapore Culture which will be a mix of tradition and modernity, East and West, people's culture and elite culture.

Sir, I had not intended to speak. I jotted down some points, but I thought the motion moved by the Nominated Member was so self-evident and worthy of support that it was not necessary for me to speak. However, I do rise now to raise some concerns for the future. I share very much the gratitude, expressed already, that we build from our good days of racial harmony in the past and I share a pride in that Singapore, when it was in Malaysia, stood for Malaysian Malaysia, and then stood for Singaporean Singapore to act, as our pledge says, regardless of race. But I am perhaps more cautionary for the future. One of the lessons I extracted from history was that we should not take harmony for granted and that there are possible concerns for the future. We stand in good stead because the Constitution promises, in Article 12, protection of all citizens against discrimination based on race. But I must share with this House a perception that we have moved from the idea of a pledge, regardless of race, to a policy of acting with due regard to race. I think this perception is wrong. I think there is no change in Government policy. But I do share some concerns that there may be, and I stress the words "may be", unintended consequences of some existing policies. I hope I am not misunderstood here - policies which in themselves may be nothing wrong, maybe good. But there have been concerns raised at various youth seminars I have attended in this last year that I wish to share. First, and I think this touches very much on NMP Mdm Claire Chiang's point, the Speak Mandarin campaign. As far as I understand from the interpretation, she suggested that English-speaking Chinese Singaporeans, such as myself, were wrong to regard English as superior. I think she is right. English is not superior to Chinese. But neither is Chinese superior to English, nor to any other language. I think that there is nothing wrong with each race trying to learn the language which they associate with their mothers, even if their mothers do not speak that language. But I am concerned of the unintended consequence of this policy. I have heard many anecdotal stories of unthinking individuals who, in the name, the misused name of the Speak Mandarin campaign, switch to Mandarin when there are Malay, Indian or others like me, non-Mandarin speaking colleagues, present. This is an exclusionary practice. Must all Chinese Singaporeans speak Chinese? Is English language only for work? What if, as I do, I think, dream and write from my very heart in English? As I said, I do not claim that English is superior, but I do not think I am less Singaporean because I do not speak Mandarin and Chinese, and I am Chinese. I tried my best to learn about Chinese history, the overseas Chinese from English books. I hope my child will learn Mandarin because that is the school rules now. But I do not think I enjoy a lesser place in the sun, and I do not think that is what Mdm Claire Chiang was saying. The second unintended consequence which follows from this is the concern of SAP schools. Mr Shriniwas Rai, the NMP, said that our schools tried to build multi-religious, multi-racial, multi-lingual harmony. I think that is true. That is what we are trying to do. I think it is good to promote bilingual students among those who can cope with two languages as first language. Do not get me wrong. SAP schools themselves are a useful thing. But there is a concern that the inter-racial and cultural mix in such schools is reduced, the understanding and interaction of the bright and young is limited to those who are predominantly of one culture, one race. We must remember that schools are not about purely what we learn from books but what we learn from each other, from fellow classmates. The skills of citizenry, of getting along, are built in school. This must include in Singapore racial understanding. So we need to search for a balance in these policies, and to guard against unintended consequences which we may face in the future. The third is of ethnic self-help groups. The Government has said that it thinks this is the best way to mobilise self-help. I think self-help groups are a fact of life which many people embrace at present. But it should also be emphasised that ethnicity of race should not be the only basis of volunteering your service, or volunteerism. People may and should increasingly volunteer for a common cause, not for a common race. There is a need to foster community across ethnicity. So when I see initiatives such as the Prime Minister's call for civil society or for CDCs which are based more in geography, or neighbourliness, this is good. Further along, we need to encourage self-help groups to have more joint projects and, if I may voice a suggestion, that one day further down the road, we should set a sunset clause for ethnic self-help groups, that in the end Singaporeans should help Singaporeans, not just those of the same race or ethnicity. Connected with this, the debate that is happening in Indonesia must touch us. One of the commoner suggestions in this debate is that identity cards or other official materials which describe a race should have this removed. Our ICs are similar. I wonder if this continues to be necessary. I point out that this is highly artificial given that our rules, as I understand them, follow the paternal line only. So there are classification problems for some people of mixed marriage who may continue to be registered in whatever race their father is despite how many other races they are married into. The connected concern is with newer Singaporeans and PRs. Many are racially similar from China, India or other countries in the region around us. But we must question if these newer immigrants understand the heritage that Mr Shriniwas Rai has talked about in moving this motion. Do they assimilate to this multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-lingual belief in Singapore? Do they understand? It is not just our children, a newer generation, these are newer arrivals. Tensions may arise between them and us, the older Singaporeans, and the basis should not be on race, on where we come from, but on citizenship and where we are going together as a nation. I have tried to look forward to the future and now I turn to the present. I have two concerns. The first is whether we should be thinking about how this economic downturn differently affects different races, and the efforts of help to all these people to upgrade themselves, whether they are Chinese poor, Malay poor, Indian poor or other disadvantaged groups, through their self-help and education, these efforts should not be wiped out in the present downturn. They should be monitored and this economic hardship should be evened out and helped along. Otherwise, as we learn again from other countries, economic hardship, if it is uneven, can lead to racial jealousy. The other present concern I want to share with the House is our efforts as a country, Singapore, to assist other countries in the region. I think we would be right to condemn the violence against the Chinese in Indonesia. But we, as a nation and a people, would be wrong to stop the condemnation from allowing us to help the genuinely poor and starving in the countries around us. The victims of famine and violence are not just Chinese. There are other races too. And we should provide assistance without regard to race, people to people, as good neighbours, as human beings, because human rights are being violated. As I have said, many of these policies which Government has put in place, I understand, and I think many Singaporeans support. I have tried to share some of the dangers of unintended consequences. We have a good base and I join Mr Shriniwas Rai in supporting this motion. It is a good base, however, and all history is, to build towards a future, not to sit back and take for granted. The greatest tribute to the past is that we move on from racial tolerance to racial harmony to racial understanding, and perhaps, at least in my view, to a future of a non-racial Singapore, a society in which race is no longer a factor to be considered in life, either for merit or demerit, but a society in which we are truly individuals and truly judged on our merits. The Minister of State for Communications (Dr John Chen Seow Phun): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Rai and Mdm Claire Chiang were touched by the National Education Exhibition. The historical events and lessons depicted by the Exhibition had moved him to move the motion. I think this is a commendable act and I agree with him that Singaporeans ought to feel a sense of gratitude for the contributions made by our founding fathers and indeed our forefathers. This is the kind of values we want to promote in our society. Mr Rai is right in saying that every dollar spent is well spent on the Exhibition. Everyone that I talked to, who has watched it, tells me that it was good. But their experiences vary. Some of the older Singaporeans were so touched that their tears flowed. The younger ones were less so. Mdm Claire Chiang tried to explain why. Although the younger ones equally enjoyed the show and felt that the production was good and entertaining, we cannot expect them to have the same degree of emotions as the older ones. The lessons, however, are no less relevant today. Mdm Claire Chiang and Mr Tay spoke about the concerns they have. Let me just respond to some of these concerns, and after that I would like to go on to something which I think is even more important. I agree with Mr Tay that we should not take harmony for granted. He expressed concerns about some policies, like the Speak Mandarin campaign, self-help groups, SAP schools, and so on. I am glad to hear that he realises that there is no intention to look at the policies from the racial angle. He knows that the intention for these polices is really to help build a stronger nation. If he takes the Speak Mandarin campaign as an example, he would agree that mother tongue is very important and if we lose this part of our culture Singaporeans will be less rooted. He talked about SAP schools. Again, here it is important that we want to promote the mother tongue, and he thinks that because of that, racial mix is reduced. But let me remind him that if you go to our housing estates, if you participate in our grassroots activities, you would notice that the racial mix is there. So our children in fact have got many opportunities to mix, interact, and get to know one another, even to appreciate one another's culture. I think the elected MPs would know, if you look at the cultural functions and activities that we organise, they are all multi-cultural, and the different races actually participate and learn from each other's culture. Even in schools, I believe that multi-racialism is taught very early and the schools also provide the environment to promote interaction. On the self-help groups, I think he would agree that at this point in time it is perhaps the best and most effective way for Singaporeans to help each other. Even in self-help groups, from my experience, a particular self-help group is not closed to other races to take part or participate in its programmes. But in order for us to draw the maximum support and involvement from Singaporeans, self-help groups are there to provide this most effective approach. Therefore, I would say - although I understand his concern about unintended consequences - that he be rest assured that the Government, the people and the organisations concerned know what they are doing and there is no question about the importance of multi-racialism. His concern about crisis affecting different races and whether it is uneven and so on, I think here again it is a question for the Government and the nation as a whole to tackle and I do not see any imminent problem in this area. I am also glad to hear that he talked about the need to extend humanitarian aid to neighbouring countries regardless of what happened. If you have followed the news, that is what we are doing. I have no problem with what he has talked about, like, for instance, the need for immigrants to assimilate into our society and our culture. But, to me, to debate Mr Rai's motion, it would be pertinent to ask ourselves how our forefathers would react to our expression of gratitude. Put yourself in the shoes of our forefathers, and if they hear about this debate, how would they feel? If you allow me, Sir, I would submit that they would probably have the following response: "My son, we are happy that you feel grateful for what we have done for you. But we will be even happier if you truly understand how we have got here today and carry on doing the right things to protect, preserve and build upon what we, as a nation, have achieved thus far. We had come to Singapore in search of a better life. Our success did not come about by chance. We had worked very hard and through our sweat and blood, we had earned a good living for ourselves and for our families. There were oppositions along the way. There were people, and perhaps they are still around today, who wanted to lord it over us. But we took our destiny into our own hands. It was not easy because we are small. How did we make it? We made it by promoting harmony and unity among ourselves, by sheer discipline and hard work, and by implementing the right social and economic policies. But most important of all, we made it because we stood up as a sovereign nation, pursuing a consistent foreign policy of mutual respect, mutual cooperation and mutual benefit. As a small state, if we cannot speak and act as equals among bigger nations, then we will be forever at the mercy of others. Therefore, never, never forget this crucial truth. The day you forget this will be the day you begin your downward journey as a nation. Do not let Singapore go down, even if we have to lose our lives, or we will never come up again." Sir, our founding fathers had painstakingly built up Singapore, our homeland, to what it is today. It behoves us to defend, protect and build upon it. I am taking advantage of Mr Rai's motion to remind Singaporeans what our response should rightly be, following this expression of gratitude towards our founding fathers. I think Singaporeans would agree with me that this is the best way to say, `thank you'. I think there is no disagreement here that this should be our right response, although concerns have been expressed. Let me just say a few words in Mandarin in response to Mdm Chiang's speech. (In Mandarin) Nominated MP Claire Chiang felt that the lack of national consciousness among our younger people was probably due to language problem. Perhaps, in the past, we had not done enough to inculcate in our younger generation knowledge pertaining to national consciousness. But I think the main reason is that the younger generation of Singaporeans have not gone through the type of hardship and sufferings experienced by our founding fathers during the war, the difficult lives in the post-war era, and the struggles in our early days of nation-building. Since they have not experienced such difficult situations, they naturally would have different views, different mindsets and different feelings. So we should go one step further in strengthening the inculcation of national consciousness in our young. However, I agree with her that in the promotion of racial harmony, the important thing is to have more interaction and communications among the different ethnic groups in our society. This is correct. It is for this reason that our policies, whether in public housing or in community development, are such that we constantly encourage inter-ethnic linkage whereby people of all races would live together in the same housing estate and in one big community. Our activities are always aimed at encouraging people of different ethnic groups to have further understanding and interaction with one another. Of course, I also agree with her that we should have mutual tolerance and accommodation for one another. This is very important. On the motion before the House today, I feel that apart from urging the younger generation to recognise the contributions made by our founding fathers and reaffirm and record our appreciation for such contributions, we should also think of how our founding fathers might react to our expression of gratitude. They may say, "Well, we are very happy to see that you are showing gratitude but, more importantly, you must realize how hard we had fought to bring Singapore to what it is today. As a small nation, Singapore is very vulnerable. You must work hard to see that we continue to have a place in the global environment." If we remember how our founding fathers had struggled and endured to bring us to the enviable situation we have today, we must not let them down. We must continue to persevere and carry on building on the strong foundation that they have built for us. I think this may well be the best form of expressing our appreciation for what they have done for us, and indeed the best way of saying `thank you' to them.

Sir, I just want to make some remarks on Mr Simon Tay's comments. As the Vice-Chairman of CDAC, I would like to explain that a self-help group like CDAC is not based on racial segregation. Although our purpose is to serve the Chinese community, students from other racial groups are allowed to join some selected programmes. For instance, our Students' Service Centre allows students of other races to participate in our training sessions. Many people probably have the wrong impression that self-help groups, based on ethnic communities, could divide our people. I think we had discussed this when we set up CDAC at the very beginning. But from experience we found that the most effective way for a racial group to help themselves is to let themselves produce and create the momentum so that they realise where their weaknesses are, and work out the programmes to upgrade themselves. If each self-help group has done its best, putting them together, it would be able to raise the level of progress of all groups in the whole nation, which need the necessary help, to a higher level. Let us look at history. When our forefathers came, I think they came as a group. We have Chinese clans; we have Indian clans. We have other groups. They probably operated and worked within their own group. They have contributed to the growth of Singapore today. And if you look at what we have in the commerce sector, we have the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, the Indian Chamber of Commerce, the Malay Chamber of Commerce. I was involved in the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for more than 10 years. I can tell you that if we mix all the traders under one roof, it is very difficult to work because sometimes the problem may not be a common problem. So it is not the most effective way to find a solution and to discuss common problems. But with these three basic groups and on top of it, there is the Federation of Chambers of Commerce for Singapore, which groups the three basic groups together, I think that is a good arrangement. The fact that we have three separate commercial groups is not a policy of racial segregation. Let me say that a beautiful painting is made up of different colours. Different races in Singapore, be it Chinese, Indian, Malay or Eurasians, are different colours. We paint the different colours on a piece of paper and as a painting, it looks beautiful. If you mix all the colours into one and paint it on a piece of paper, it is one colour. It will be a dull picture.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I expected, when I saw this motion, it has turned out to be a song of praise of those who have been in charge of the affairs of this country since 1959. The mover of the motion says he was so moved, he got emotional, and so he decided he must give vent to his emotion and move this motion in Parliament. I am glad that the two other speakers who followed him have brought him down to earth a little bit. He was floating on cloud nine, as they say, moved by his emotion. But I do not quite follow who he is referring to as founding fathers. He mentioned a host of names. Are they the founding fathers of Singapore? Is that what he says? Or are the founding fathers the people who turned Singapore from what it was a swamp in 1819 when it was first spotted into what it is today? So let us be clear as to who we are talking about when we talk about our founding fathers. One would have thought, listening to the mover, that before 1959, there was no racial harmony, there was no religious harmony, the different races were at one another's throats. Let me assure those who were perhaps not here, in Singapore that is, not even on the planet, in those days there was nothing of that sort. No doubt the British had their divide and rule policy, but in spite of that, the races did get along well together, and I think Mdm Claire Chiang said that herself about growing up in Little India. So it is not as though it was only after 1959 that we have had racial harmony, religious harmony, multi-lingualism and multi-culturalism. I question whether those values, those terms, still apply to Singapore. As has been expressed and this is something that I fear myself, there is a growing tendency towards compartmentalisation in Singapore. I know the Assistant Director of the CDAC tried to explain that the CDAC is not just purely Chinese. But we have the MENDAKI, we have got SINDA, we have got CDAC and now the Eurasian community thinks it has got to have its own and they set up their own. So the impression is that the different communities have to look after their own affairs, promote their own growth in this place and should not look to the other communities, that they themselves are responsible for what they are. That is not going to help, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in creating a Singapore identity. We talk about culture. Yes, we have got the Chinese culture, we have got the Indian culture, we have got the Malay culture. But what is the Singapore culture? Is there such a thing as the Singapore culture here? Or is it just making of money, that is Singapore culture? Have we tried to find a synthesis, as someone said in a letter to the papers, of the various cultures into a unique Singapore culture? Is any attempt being made or are the people who try to write something creatively slapped down because the authorities think it is a criticism? And how do we maintain religious harmony in this place? By telling the clerics that they are not to speak on any issue concerning society, otherwise they would be thrown into prison. Is that religious harmony? Let us examine all these platitudes that have been thrown about. Is any attempt being made to examine the society as it is today you will hear some of it when I move my motion to see what kind of a society we have become? And there is a great responsibility on us now for our children and our children's children. What are we going to pass to them? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is time that we consciously tried to avoid talking about the different races in Singapore and made an effort to talk about just Singaporeans. I have many a time said that I cannot see the need for showing the different races, the classification in our identity cards. When I am asked to fill up a form, and there are so many of these forms everywhere, you invariably find the box "race" and I enter the term "Human" because we must realise that whether we are Indians, Chinese, Malays or whatnot, we belong in the end to one human race, and that is what we are. And so I hope that we will try to create a oneness of all our people to gather in one single purpose and not keep them compartmentalised and say to them "you are responsible for your own development" and each community will take care of its own development. I proposed at the last sitting of Parliament that we set up a Board of Equal Rights and that was laughed at and dismissed, "We don't need it in Singapore." We do, because if we believe that everyone is entitled to his right without regard to his race, religion or what else, then we should have a proper body who will examine any complaint that he is being discriminated. That might help in creating the impression and sending the message to our people that we are truly interested in creating a one people united together, a one people, not four different peoples, united together in one common purpose, not our own separate purposes or our separate courses. I read, some four or five years ago, that the present Senior Minister who was then the Prime Minister speaking in one of the cities in Central Asia, said he was presiding over four fish tanks and there were different fishes swimming in different tanks, and he has got to see that they were kept separately. Let us try and get all the fish into one tank and live in Singapore as a single one people with one purpose, one aim and make an attempt to evolve a Singapore culture.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I just like to join in this debate hoping that I could clarify some of the confusion that happened during the discussion. As to who our founding fathers are, I think we should be referring to those who have planted the seeds of multi-racialism, multi-culturalism and racial harmony. The Malays were here. They had the island to themselves. The Chinese came here to escape famine. The Indians came here to work. The British segregated us and so did the Japanese. It was our first generation leaders who took the decision to put all these together and established as a principle of this nation, multi-culturalism, multi-racialism and racial harmony. These are the people we should thank for and be grateful for what we have today.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to several Members who have spoken. I am a bit surprised with Mr Jeyaretnam's stand. I thought that this was a very civil, courteous act. We will not get involved in party politics, but he must get involved. I think I want to take him to pre-1959 and I will take the historical process. I have read the Hansard before coming. I have done my homework.

How much of the Hansard have you read?

It does not matter, Mr Jeyaretnam. Let us talk history. In 1955, when Mr David Marshall formed an elected government, he felt that the Chinese and Malay schools had suffered deprivation. English was the supreme language, and this disadvantaged more than three-quarters of our people. The frustration of the Chinese students, the Tamil and Malay-speaking students could not be expressed by those who spoke English, and there was an All-Party Committee of Inquiry. Prior to 1959, you had no right of audience in this House if you spoke a language other than English. The rules of the game were changed, and that is what I call multi-lingualism. I speak with some fervour, Sir, because I took some risks. In 1986, my Hindi community wanted Hindi to be recognised. Prior to that, the then Prime Minister said, "No. If you are an Indian, you study Tamil." We formed a protem committee. We convinced the Government that our Indian students from non-Tamil background were losing culturally. So Government allowed Hindi and other Indian languages. And nowhere in the world such a minority community was given equal right with Mandarin and Malay. Is that not equality in multi-lingualism? I was surprised, again another aspersion by Mr Jeyaretnam on self-help groups. As Dr Ker has mentioned, if Mr Jeyaretnam was aware, he would not have made this allegation. I confess that I am not in favour of a communal set up, but there is no other alternative at the moment. I am the Secretary of SINDA and I declare my interest. As Dr Ker has pointed out, SINDA and CDAC are working together and eventually I hope, not 10-15 years but maybe 50 years from now, we can disband these bodies and we can all have a national organisation. You may laugh, but these are the realities of Singapore politics. I give you an example. We have Malay and Eurasian students in SINDA. We have non-Indian teachers teaching these students. Of course, I have told the Prime Minister several times that all the four umbrella organisations should work together. We are moving in this direction. Sir, on SAP schools, I share some of the sentiments expressed by my colleague, Mr Simon Tay. There is this danger which we will have to address. SAP school students will grow up, their best part of their life, isolated without having the benefit of mixing with the other communities. Of course, they play on the playing field and in surrounding areas. But in the school, they are left by themselves. My good friend, Zainul, was together with me in the University. We used to speak in bazaar Malay. We could exchange views even though we came from different backgrounds because we came from schools which have multi-racial students. My fear is that the SAP school students will be isolated. We must try to take some steps to correct this imbalance. Sir, several Members have spoken. What is Singapore culture? Singapore culture is not massing together into one, but each culture blossoms, taking into cognizance that there are different values, different cultures, different languages and different religious backgrounds. We cannot force one culture on the other, but we can co-exist. And we hope in years to come, we can create a Singapore culture. Nowhere in the world is there a mixture of so many races and languages and coming out with one. Even the Americans have tried it. They are still trying it. It is years, decades, centuries. So we have to live with this reality. In Singapore, we are a different community. We must not just tolerate, as I said earlier, we must appreciate and understand and take positive steps to inculcate in our youth the value of respect and understanding. And that is why I think the Government did a wise thing because nowhere do we have one community living in segregation. I think it was a very wise and bold decision. I think it was Mr Dhanabalan who initiated it and we should live by it. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it has been a long day. I have many things to say but I do not want to hold up the Members. I would ask this House that this is an act of civility. Let us vote unanimously on this resolution and show our appreciation. And as Dr Chen has pointed out, the best tribute we could pay to them is to live and improve upon them. The British never came here to give us multi-racialism. They came and they were very honest. They came here as a trading company, the East India Company. It was only in 1955 we started moving. That was why I made it very clear. I have clarified who were our forefathers. As regards our founding fathers, I refer to post-1955. If Mr Jeyaretnam remembers, I mentioned Mr David Marshall because he was a true son of Singapore. I am proud of him. Sir, may I ask the House to support the motion? Resolved, That this House records with gratitude the contribution made by our founding fathers in building a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual society and reaffirms these principles.

6.38 pm

This motion is subject to signification of support by at least one Member. Does the motion have the support of any other hon. Member?

I support, Sir.

All right. Mr Jeyaretnam, you may proceed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this House resolves that it is time to remove fear in the people's lives and to this end calls upon the Government: (i) to abolish all detentions without trial and (ii) to remove all forms of coercion of the people not authorised by Parliament.

Sir, this motion coming after the last motion, which must have filled Members with self-satisfaction, must come almost as a sort of treasonable activity on my part. And I have no doubt that the faithful press under the baton of an ex-Cabinet Minister will tell its captive readers in Singapore tomorrow that whilst the country was worried about its economic worries and anxious about its future, there is this man, Jeyaretnam, still bringing up old bogeys. I am used to all this, but that does not deter me from moving what I think is right and calling this House to face the realities of Singapore today. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is no question that fear grips our people's lives in Singapore and I will, in the course of my speech, show you where and how it is found. And there is no question that fear is a paralysis. It numbs you. Fear numbs a person into inaction. If you are suddenly struck with fear, you cannot even think. So fear is a paralysis that paralyses your thinking capacities. It paralyses your capability to do or act and that, I am sure, Members will agree is no basis for a society, especially for a society to go into the 21st century. As I said, whilst this motion may be thought as being irrelevant in view of today's present worries in Singapore, the main reason why I am moving this motion is because of the economic crisis. Let that be understood. It has been said more than once that the troubles in this region stem, if not wholly, partly from the lack of transparency and accountability on the part of the Government in the decision making process, and in denying people of their rights to take part in decision making and to question decisions. A number of economic measures have been proposed. They are not all that wonderful but, be that as it may, nothing has been said about what the Government proposes to do about this other cause of our recession, lack of transparency and accountability. And so I am proposing this motion that we take measures to correct that, not just economic measures, and this is a more important measure that we have to take, if we want to see that this country progresses economically in the future. What is the fear? What are the people afraid of? First of all, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is a fear of being locked up. I will tell you why and how it operates, but may I just, first of all, outline what is the fear in the people's lives. I hear this everywhere; the fear of the knock on their door at 2.00 am, the fear of being driven blind-folded and thrown into a prison cell without any recourse to the courts. That is a real fear, and we just cannot ignore it. What is the other fear? The fear for their rice bowl, the fear that should they in some way or other incur the displeasure of the Government or the powers that be, their rice bowl may be broken or cracked. Employees are worried that their employment may be terminated if they should show themselves to be partial towards any opposition party, or working with an opposition party. Businesses are worried or anxious that they should not be seen as helping in any way any opposition party, otherwise in some way or other, their business will be affected, and there are many ways in which the Government can make its displeasure known, and I will outline to you how it is done. In Singapore, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, over the years, from 1959, we have built up a system of patronage where anything is dependent on whether one conforms to what our rulers tell us is good for us. It is a society which is always looking to see what its patron thinks about its actions and, in Singapore, of course, the patron is the PAP or, should I say, the Godfather. You incur their displeasure and you suffer. You do that at your risk. How is this fear seen? Where is it manifested? You see it, first of all, if I may refer to my colleagues at the Bar, in the lawyers' reluctance to act for opposition candidates, and even in non-commercial suits against the Government. This is not something fanciful. This is real. The courts were told of the difficulties that Mr Tang Liang Hong had in getting a lawyer to represent him. He swore an affidavit in court saying that he had approached no less than eight lawyers and who, for some reason or other, declined his brief, and so he had to bring in a counsel from England to represent him. There was his wife, Mdm Teo Siew Har. I myself, Sir, approached two senior lawyers in Singapore to ask whether they would take up her matter and they said, "Mr Jeyaretnam, please, you know, we would have, in other cases, but I do not think we can in this case. Our partners may not like it. So, if you do not mind, we won't." So she could not get a lawyer. Even if you go to a lawyer with a suit against the Government, which has nothing to do with commerce or for damages arising from a traffic accident, but a claim because of some injustice done, lawyers invariably refuse to accept the brief. I have to tell you again, through my own experience, people come to me and say, "Mr Jeyaretnam, we have been to other lawyers. They do not want to take up the case." Then you have the reluctance of printers to print for opposition parties. We experienced this in the last election. It is not that they are worried about being thrown into prison, neither are the lawyers. They are all worried that their businesses will suffer. As in the case of lawyers and printers, they depend perhaps on getting work from the statutory boards, the Government and from other financial institutions, big companies. So they are worried that their businesses may be affected. Printers refuse to print posters or, even if they are prepared to agree, they would ask, "Can we leave our name out of the posters? We would rather not have our name on the posters?" Why? "Because we have got Government contracts. We cannot lose our business." Then there is the fear or the reluctance of owners of premises, be it shops or houses, to allow opposition parties any use of their premises. Again, I will give you an experience. After the last election, I decided that I would go into Ang Mo Kio to meet the residents there every week. When I first went there, there was a shopkeeper who was quite willing to let me have a little space there to sit down, only once a week for about two hours or so, and to see anyone who came to see me. But within two weeks he said, "Mr Jeyaretnam, I am sorry." I said, "Why?" He said, "HDB has sent me a letter saying how dare I let out my shop premises. I cannot let it out." He had not let it out to me. I was only occupying a space. But what is the good of me trying to argue with him that he had not let it out. He said, "Please, Mr Jeyaretnam, try and find another place." That's it. That is real in Singapore. Then you have the reluctance of Singaporeans to offer themselves as candidates for opposition parties. I have mentioned this time and time again. In the last election, we had three candidates who were very good quality. I do not want to mention their names but who, in the last minute, came to me and said, "My wife is very worried and very anxious. My children are worried. My brothers are worried. I cannot. They say I am mad or something, offering myself as an opposition candidate." That is what they told me. So I said, "All right, if that is what it is, stay out." So are we going to build up an opposition in Singapore when our citizens live in fear? An opposition, of course, is the sine qua non of a democratic society where different views may be expressed and heard. Then there is the reluctance among our people to express any opinion in public. This is because of the threat of being picked up at 2.00 am and thrown into prison. They look around even when they talk to you to see whether any officer from the ISD is around. Then there is the fear of voting for the opposition, even to cast their vote. This fear stems from the fact that the serial number on the Register of Electors is entered on the counterfoil. The 1966 Constitutional Commission drew attention to this and said that it was a violation of the secrecy of the ballot and they said that should be removed. But did the Government remove it? No. Then there is the fear among civil servants to talk to or see opposition parties, and particularly their leaders. Again, may I quote from experience? In 1982, when I was the MP for Anson, we had a problem about getting office space for me to see the residents. So we wrote to HDB and in the end I was getting a bit tired of the correspondence and I said, "I wish to see the Chairman." There was no direct answer to this. Then I happened to meet the Chairman at a private party. I had known the Chairman even before I became an MP. We were friends. So I asked him, "Have you seen this correspondence?" I think he said he was not very much aware of what was going on. I said, "May I come and see you?" I could see suddenly that he was taken aback. He said, "Well, I have to find out whether I can see you." Then I never heard from him after that. And this is the Chairman of the Housing and Development Board. How is this fear kept in place and maintained? Mainly by the threat of prison. Because there is this power in the Government to pick people up and cast them into prison, and without any recourse to the courts. May I say in 1988 or 1989, suddenly the courts decided, following the trends in other countries, that they had the power to inquire into the merits, and this was the judgement of the Court of Appeal. Fast on the heels of that judgement came the amendment to the legislation - the courts shall not inquire into the merits; it is not their business. And yet the courts in other countries do inquire into the merits of any detention, any imprisonment. So the position in Singapore today is that somebody who is detained under the Internal Security Act, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, has no legal redress. He is dependent entirely on the mercy of the Government. He may be released if he confesses to having been a bad fellow. But if he does not want to confess, he stays. And we have a classic example in Mr Chia Thye Poh who spent 23 years in prison, a man who belonged to the same party, who shared the same ideals as the founding fathers. But because after some years he decided that he could not accept their ideals and wanted to move away, he was picked up and imprisoned. This power is used not for the purpose that it was intended for but for purely other purposes - just to ensure that the PAP is kept in power. The most glaring example is the detention in 1987. Time does not permit me, Mr Deputy Speaker, to go through all the persons who were detained and the reasons given. But there was the case of one Miss Teo Soh Lung. And what was the reason for her detention? The reason was that she had facilitated the infiltration of the Workers' Party in 1984 by a group of Marxists after discussion with one Paul Lim Wah Chye, Tan Wah Piow, fellow Marxists and other activists. She had also actively assisted them in their efforts to make use of the Workers' Party as a vehicle to further the Marxist's cause. If ever, Mr Deputy Speaker, there was a fairy tale improvisation, this was it. All that Miss Teo Soh Lung did was to help out a little in our election campaign in 1984. She decided as a citizen that she should help a candidate in a constituency. She was not a member of the Party but called to help, bring about a better Singapore by trying to provide an alternative voice in Singapore, and that is why she was picked up. And then the Government built up this huge edifice of Marxist conspiracy, to infiltrate the Workers' Party - honestly, it is a lot of nonsense, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I was in the Workers' Party and I was then the leader. But that is the allegation against her. When she appeared before the Committee of Privileges of this House, because she had called for a resolution among the members of the Bar to criticise the restriction in the Newspaper and Printing Presses Bill that was then introduced, she was questioned by the Committee of Privileges on all these. She was told that she could not continue to be a member of the Workers' Party, which she was not, and also a member of the Council of the Law Society. Again one of the grounds was that she made use of the Law Society. So that is why she was detained, not because she was organising groups to commit violence in Singapore, not organising, going round urging people to arm themselves to attack the Government, but simply because she helped in the election efforts of a registered political party and was also trying to promote concern among the lawyers of the restriction on foreign papers circulating in Singapore. So that shows you the hollowness of the power that was used under the Internal Security Act to detain her. It had no basis at all. Then you have got the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, and that gives the Government the power to detain persons for one year at a time. Under this Act, it is aimed at persons who are alleged to be associated with criminal activities and who apparently cannot be brought to trial. One man, who was a trade unionist himself, was charged in the courts with conspiracy to cause hurt to Mr Phey Yew Kok who is now in hiding somewhere. He was acquitted. The court threw the case out saying that there was not a shred of evidence at the end of the prosecution's case. What happened to the man? Immediately after the acquittal, he was arrested and he spent about 10 years in prison. So much for the Rule of Law in Singapore. Then there is the fear maintained or applied through the provision of housing. Housing has become a political tool in Singapore. You have got to be on your good behaviour, otherwise you may not get your house or you may stand in danger of losing it. There was an instance of a couple some years ago, where the wife refused to undergo sterilisation after the second child was born. They decided that their religion forbade them, and they persistently refused. This was at the time when the Government was promoting the two-child policy which they later threw out realising that they had made a grievous mistake. This couple kept refusing. One fine day they found themselves served with a notice, giving them seven days to get out of their HDB apartment - I think they were paying rent - and they refused to move. Then a summons was issued requiring them to appear in court for an application on the part of the HDB to repossess the apartment. But after a defence was filed and after some time, they probably thought better of it and the summons was withdrawn. That was when the HDB still had to go to court. But now the HDB does not have to go to court if it wishes to repossess. I think it is section 58 of the Housing and Development Act where an occupier, whether he be a tenant or a lessee, can be dispossessed for a number of reasons. The HDB can retake the property and it does not have to apply to court. So what protection does a houseowner have? And the PAP boasts that Singapore is a society of houseowners. The HDB acts as the accuser; it acts as the judge; and it acts as the executioner. It decides whether the person should be dispossessed and then he is told he can appeal to HDB and again to the Minister, and that is final. And if the appeal is rejected, he has to go. And if he does not go, the tenant or occupier would be forcibly thrown out. So is there any wonder that people live in fear? The uppermost question is, "Are we doing anything that might offend our rulers, our benign rulers in this country? Are we conforming to all they want? Or are we showing signs of being independent ourselves?" Then you have the method of Ministers rapping people over their knuckles if they should so much as express criticism in the papers or speak. There was the case of a writer who wrote a feature article in the Straits Times weekly. Suddenly, she found herself rapped by the Prime Minister because she had written about the disaffection between the PAP and the people. And she was told off in no uncertain terms, "If you want to take us on, go into politics, otherwise shut up.". After that, there was no more article from her in the Straits Times. And, of course, the bosses at Times House would not dare to print anything more after that. Then you have the recent example of the Prime Minister criticising the businessmen who criticised the off-Budget measures. So there you have it. You are not supposed to criticise the Government where it hurts. You can always sing the praises of the Government but you cannot criticise them. If you criticise them, you take the consequences, and you know what the consequences are. You can be locked up. Your business might suffer. You may lose your house. Then the other technique, if I may call it "technique", is through the powers given to the income tax authorities. Mdm Teo Siew Har, the wife of Mr Tang Liang Hong, was going across to Johor, not running away, but she was suddenly stopped at the Woodlands Checkpoint and her passport was unlawfully taken away from her. And this was apparently on the direction from the income tax authorities. There was nothing, as I told the Minister when I questioned him on this last year, in the Income Tax Act which gave the Commissioner power to stop anyone leaving Singapore unless that person owed income tax to the Government. But Mdm Teo Siew Har was not paying any tax, she did not owe anything. So there are these fears. People know about it and it is no good pretending that these fears do not exist in Singapore. May I briefly run through the law. This power of detention, which is now found in the Internal Security Act (ISA), had its origin in the Emergency Regulations. That was introduced by the British at a time when there was a real threat. There was a threat of communist subversion. But it was intended to be purely a temporary measure, only for three months at that time, and the Assembly had to ratify it. I shall later, when I reply, read to you something about what the Leader of the PAP was then saying about all these Regulations and the power, because I do not have the time now. When Mr Marshall's government took over, Mr Marshall realised what a drastic power it was, that violated all rules of natural justice but he also realised that there was a need and he set up an Appeal Court.

Mr Jeyaretnam, some of the points you are making, you are tediously repeating yourself.

I am now looking at the law, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Come to the point.

I am looking at the law, not the instances of how it is applied. I am going to tell you about the law.

All right, carry on. Make it short.

But when the PAP took over, three months after it took over, they swept aside the Appeal Tribunal because the Appeal Tribunal had the power to release anyone detained under that power. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am spelling out what the law is and I was not talking about the law until now. Section 8 says "acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Singapore." That is as vague and nebulous as you can get. It has been used as though it was meant to be read as "acting in any manner prejudicial to the People's Action Party.". Then under section 74, the Police have the power to detain anyone under that Act for 28 days. No one disputes that in times of national emergency, in times of threats to the country, drastic powers may be necessary. But the Constitution provides for that situation and it is in Part XII, Articles 149 to 151. It says that if Parliament is satisfied that there is a threat, that there is real danger to the country, then it may enact laws to detain persons. But that, again, is temporary, to be reviewed every three months and to be repealed as soon as the threat passes over. So you got it under the Constitution. You do not have to have it as a permanent section of the law in the statute book. It is a moot point whether this power contained in section 8 is ultra vires the Constitution, taking into consideration Articles 149 to 151. I know that the Government amended the Constitution to exempt the ISA. But it is still a moot point whether this power is ultra vires the Constitution. Then you have got the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act which I have been talking about. It was intended to be temporary. But the PAP Government gave it life for 34 years after they took over and then extended it in 1989 and 1994 for five years at a time, and so it will expire next year, and I have no doubt it will be extended again. That was intended to deal with the secret society menace. But now it has become permanent and is used very effectively against persons, persons who are picked up by the Police are threatened that if they did not admit to what they are suspected of, they can be detained under section 30. Do you want that? You get an idea of how effective it is to keep people in fear and suppress them. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether I have got many more minutes left but before I

I think I have given you too much time.

Have I passed my one hour because I have got some questions. May I put the questions before I sit down?

Quickly put your questions then.

Yes. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I would like the Minister replying to answer these questions and I hope some attempt is made to grapple seriously with these questions and not just dismiss them. My first question is: is there any evidence that there are groups in Singapore plotting an organised sabotage of our society that requires Government to retain this power? The second question is: is there any evidence of preparation for terrorist activities? The third question is: why is the law of the land inadequate to deal with activities threatening harmony and peace in the society? We have got the laws. So why do we need these arbitrary detentions by the Government? And the final question is: as a matter of policy, will the Government announce immediately if anyone is picked up under section 74 of the Act by the Police, giving the reasons why the person has been picked up and revealing his identity? Because all this is done in secrecy. The people are left in the dark as to how many persons have been picked up under section 74 and then released before the 28 days are up, because they have signed the bond or agreed to be good men and women, conforming to everything that the Government has to say. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I just say that this is no basis for a society which professes itself to be democratic. It is a hollow claim that we are a democratic society founded on the principles of justice and founded on the principles of freedom when our people live under all this real fear. It is a hollow claim and I think it is time that we decided to be honest with ourselves and remove the fear from our people's lives. We can then go into the 21st century as a proud people, a people who are not afraid, a people who know what their rights are, a people who know that they will not be deprived of anything except under the Rule of Law, ie, they would be tried by a competent court and convicted before they are put into prison or deprived of their goods or property or punished in any way. Then we can be a proud society. But if we continue as we are, I do not see how we can be a proud society. I do not see how we can progress economically with our people denied any participation in the decision making process of our country. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to respond to Mr J B Jeyaretnam because I believe it is not that there is fear in people's lives in Singapore, as Mr Jeyaretnam puts it, although there is indeed a fear amongst many Singaporeans to speak their mind. There is a perception that public criticism of official policies is not welcomed, brought about by a legacy of the past. However, this is not necessarily an indication of things to come. Recent introduction of more and wider channels of communication and a more open attitude towards public participation gives hope and justifies a more optimistic attitude in the future. For example, Government's suspicion towards civil groups may be an understandable legacy of the past when pro-Communist elements took guise of various societies, but this attitude has to change for the future of civil society. Therefore, we must be clear as to what kind of fear that prevails in our society. Fear exists in so far as the public perceives the Government to be constantly on the look out for dissenters and also out of respect for our preventive detention laws. This perception could also be due to the existence of red tapes covering a wide range of registration and licensing laws on registration of societies, organisation of public meetings and publication of newsletters - that tend to discourage citizens' initiative and do little to demonstrate the increasing tolerance of differing opinions. I believe that in most cases fear is exaggerated. Singaporeans tend to exaggerate the harm that will come to them if they voice critical views. However, it is quite understandable and natural for Singaporeans to get a little paranoid. This is because the Government, to my knowledge, has never told Singaporeans unconditionally that they have nothing to fear when speaking out. Yes, there have been many invitations extended to Singaporeans to express their views, but these are usually conditional. Singaporeans are told to speak freely as long as they are constructive and respectful of our leaders. This may seem, on the surface, to be quite a reasonable condition but, in fact, it places an onerous burden on the ordinary citizens. Who decides whether criticism is constructive or respectful? It is only the citizen himself who knows his own motives. But we must be very careful not to attribute these fears simply on historical occurrences, on Government or on politics. Fear, in this case, is also a cultural phenomenon. Fear, in Singapore, is instilled early, from when a child goes to school and taught that failure brings shame on himself and his family, that an academic performance is the hallmark of excellence and his worth is judged mainly by his examination results. Ask any school teacher or even bosses in commercial practice on how difficult it is to get people to speak up, especially when it is against established norms and practices. Even participants and members of feedback groups that were formed under the Feedback Unit, of which I am a member, had initially expressed fears about expressing their views despite the fact that these channels were established simply for that reason - to gather honest and considered views from a wide cross-section of the people. Many of these participants are themselves very surprised by the absence of any form of restriction or censorship when presenting their views on politics and media. Some were pleasantly surprised that their recommendations were presented in this case to the Chairman of the Singapore 21 Committee. Let me highlight a few of these suggestions to demonstrate that carefully considered views of non-partisan citizens have been given its attention. (a) For example, parliamentary reform. Mr J B Jeyaretnam may be pleased to know of suggestions to increase the number of NCMPs or Opposition Members in Parliament to form at least 10% of the total number of MPs. (b) Press freedom to allow more and alternative views to flourish. (c) Balanced reporting of Parliamentary debates to highlight alternative views. (d) A more open political climate and the need to change the Government mindset to allow expressions of political views without fear of being chastised for meddling in politics. These are very serious but carefully considered views of ordinary citizens. I must say that many of the members were pleasantly surprised that while their views may be considered radical and brave, it was received without the robustness of response that in the past some may have come to expect. To me, this represents a significant development in creating an environment where freedom of expression can thrive even when the views do not represent the accepted norms of the day. However, what is important now is to spread the message and confidence among all Singaporeans that there exist in Singapore opportunities where ordinary citizens can participate in decision making without fear or reprisals. Therefore, the long-term solution to this climate of fear is to re-educate our people and to allow them to realise that it is all right not to conform, that their pecuniary interests and those of their family members are not affected by their actions. The elimination of fear factor is overall a good thing since a creative and vibrant, not to mention competitive and innovative, society can only thrive in an environment where mistakes are forgiven and non-conformity tolerated generously. It also requires the Government to change their mindset and paradigms, because what might otherwise be negative energies can be harnessed for the good of society in general. This is especially important in view of the fact that time and again when issues of freedom of expression surfaced, the Catherine Lim affair would not be far from the minds of most Singaporeans. Mr J B Jeyaretnam referred to her in his speech. Of course, nothing really happened to Catherine Lim after she wrote her two political commentaries. She was not locked up, sued, fined or anything like that. All she got was a verbal response and a challenge for her to join politics if she felt strongly against the Government. While some may think that this was a reasonable response, others, especially the better educated, still refer to the Catherine Lim affair as an example of Government's intolerance to criticism. Catherine Lim is an accomplished professional writer. If even her words and motives can be misconstrued, then what hope do other Singaporeans have of getting their points across? I think this is what alarms Singaporeans. You have to be careful in what you say, should you not be misunderstood. Singaporeans fear the risk of getting a disproportionate response. It is not surprising therefore that some Singaporeans feel fearful to speak out. But the fact remains that it takes courage, bravery and an element of thick-skinned stubbornness to stand up and be counted for one's views, especially when they are at odds with the general norms of society. It is for society as a whole to attach a positive value to someone speaking his conscience, because what is worse is to have Singaporeans who are passive and disinterested. It is also for the man himself to be ready to receive and accept criticisms and rebuttals on views which are made public so long as they do not develop into personal attacks and vendettas. Failure to remove the perception would reinforce the thinking that opposition and disagreement do not pay. Overwhelmingly, the economic animal in the Singaporean is encouraged and his rational side tells him that politics is a dirty game and we should not meddle in it, just in case. We need to remove this perception. I am, however, confident that given time, as more people become familiar and be involved in the existing channels, many of the perceptions that we now have will slowly disappear. If developments in the past are any indication of the future, we can look forward more optimistically and assure ourselves that freedom of expression is alive and kicking in Singapore. I now move on to Mr J B Jeyaretnam's suggestion to abolish all detentions without trial. I suppose in an ideal society without threats of racial and religious chauvinism and extremism, intimidation, rumour mongering and underground clandestine operations, there will be no need for the Internal Security Act (ISA). I for one, however, feel that our young multi-racial society, having just got out of racial and Communist threats, cannot take the attitude that these problems which have necessitated the introduction of ISA in the first place are now completely behind us. The fact that we have relative peace and freedom from some of these extremist problems makes it all the more important that ISA should be retained. Clearly, one can argue that ISA is indeed extreme, but we should take comfort that it is needed to be used against extremists and under extreme circumstances. The ISA is not meant to be used to restrict political opposition. I would, however, like to suggest that we consider amendments that would allow for greater accessibility and checks and balances to have a more transparent judicial scrutiny and to make the Executive more accountable for their actions. Perhaps we should consider removing the fetter of the judicial interpretation imposed in Article 149(3) of the Constitution and sections 8(a) and 8(b) of the ISA. Essentially, the combined effects of these provisions fix the law of judicial reviews of executive detention to 13th July 1971, which is the date of the decision in the case of Lee Mau Seng v Minister for Home Affairs was rendered. In that case, the High Court held that the test to be used in determining the legality of the decision to detain was a subjective one and not an objective test. That is, the courts cannot ask or question the basis, grounds and allegations for the detention of a person. This has effectively overruled the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal to have an objective test as in the case of countries like UK, Pakistan and Bangladesh. I would also suggest that we review Article 151(4) of the Constitution to provide a tribunal to review detentions under the ISA be made up of High Court Judges who enjoy security of tenure and remuneration. This will ensure the greatest degree of impartiality possible. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the ISA is no doubt extreme, but it has served us well in dealing with extremists and extreme circumstances. The ISA today is still relevant and necessary for peace and stability of our society. And for that, Sir, I do not support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, given the time, I shall try and give my comments as briefly as possible. I tried my best to listen carefully to both the NCMP who moved the motion and to the speaker before me, NMP Mr Zulkifli. But I want to differ from some of their comments. I am not a member of any political party, neither the PAP nor opposition. I wish instead to focus my comments about ordinary citizens and civil society in Singapore and then about preventive detention which I teach as part of constitutional law in the Faculty of Law. Do we citizens fear? If so, why? Conversely, should the Government on behalf of the nation fear and, if so, why? Those are the central questions I come to. And in addressing these questions, let me differ also from the NCMP, in focusing not so much on the past, but on the present day and perhaps some of the future. I think it is true that some citizens do not speak up or participate, or do not speak up much or participate much. I think it is also true, in today's Singapore, that this is changing. Polls have consistently shown that more Singaporeans want a say in the policies of the country and this is especially true of younger Singaporeans. A youth conference in the early 1990s was quoted in the papers as saying that the participants feared speaking up and therefore had no ideas. Today, youth conferences give frank and often well-thought through proposals, in detail, in writing. This has been my experience in working with the Singapore 21 Committee, of which I am a member (although I do not represent their views here). Sir, to me, fear is a very big word and the preventive detention laws do not sufficiently explain why Singaporeans do not participate more, or more Singaporeans do not participate. Because the polls that showed the people want to participate more also showed that Singaporeans trust the Government and they expect the Government to solve their problems for them. That is also clear. These two things are not contradictory. Rather the trust of people means that people expect the Government to think and do everything for them. In some ways, there is the culture of over-dependence combined with the culture of complaint, to sit back and complain. This breeds a certain tidak apa attitude. Singaporeans expect others to do something for them, the Government to do something for them. I think it is also true, however, there is something that I have learnt to call the "black book" factor. That people do not speak up, not so much because they fear detention or jail, but because of smaller concerns, about not being in someone's good books, in being in a "black book". It is true that non-politicians who have spoken up have faced very strong robust responses. As Mr Zulkifli Baharudin has said before me, there is no promise today that we have a free for all. So today people who speak up risk being seen as engaging in politics, they risk being publicly scolded. I think this should change in the future. We need to move towards consultation which we have seen, and from there, to a greater sense of participation. We need to build up Singapore's heartware, we need to build up Singapore's civil society. This is the utility of freeing people from the "black book" syndrome and encouraging their speech and participation, to give people a sense of ownership, that Singapore is their home. If it is our home, we must be comfortable here. We must be able to speak freely. We must have a part in deciding how to do things, how to arrange the furniture in our home, and also we must have a hand in doing the chores around the house. We must do things for ourselves. To encourage this, I urge the Government to be more tolerant and have a greater acceptance of differing points of view. Let me turn then, with this view, to the particular concern of the motion of preventive detention. Is it necessary to abolish all detentions without trial? In Singapore, besides the Internal Security Act, there is the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA), Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act, which have similar laws. Let me focus first on the ISA. Mr Jeyaretnam has given the original justification and that it was inherited from the British. Some may feel that there is a change of circumstance, that today there is no serious threat of criminal unrest. But I think it is necessary to point out that very few countries which had inherited this law have got rid of it entirely. More so, that universal human rights recognise the right of countries to retain such laws of preventive detention in times of emergency, in times when the life of the nation is under threat. It is true that Singapore's ISA laws differ, in the sense that judicial review is limited. The judiciary can only comment on the procedure of detention and not the substance. The review is instead by an advisory board. But the point is that international law, human rights law and the practice of many countries accepts that there need to be emergency powers for the state to genuinely intervene when there is a problem. Even the USA and UK, two western democracies, have clear war time cases in which courts have not ventured to second guess the Executive, even if they have technically the power of review. The US cases on Americans of Japanese origins who were interred during World War II for no crime other than the fact that they were of Japanese origin. The United Kingdom case of Liversidge v Anderson, which has been affirmed by our own legal system. Given this inheritance, we have to ask ourselves, "Is preventive detention now outmoded?" I think that clearly in the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, which is used against suspected criminals, mainly gangs, we have to recognise that with a largely Chinese population, many cities in the world have faced a problem in tackling crime. Next, in the Misuse of Drugs Act, where it is used for suspected addicts to search, subject them to test and then to treatment. I think our Government is correct in not making apologies for this, because drugs remain a problem, and we are very close to one of the centres of the drug trade. As for the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, where religious leaders mix with politics in an explosive element, I think again there is a real danger in a multi-religious society. That leaves me mainly with the Internal Security Act which, as correctly pointed out, was originally intended to deal with the communist threat. I want to point out that it is not in use at present except for Mr Chia Thye Poh, who is out of physical detention, still under supervision, even though allowed abroad today. Should it be revoked as outmoded today? Or should be it kept in reserve in case of emergency? For in recent events, the countries around us have shown, emergencies arise exactly as the word suggests, "emergency", urgently. That is also our history. We have all concerns and we are a young society. I think it is true that policemen have guns, even if they are trained that the first response is not to reach for that gun. I think that analogy can apply to the ISA so long as every use of the ISA is explained and checked by either the courts or by public opinion. I mention the word "public opinion" because it comes back to my point about trust. That if there is trust, as the polls have shown in the Government, then the ISA too can be subjected to the trust of public opinion and to the courts. But I want to question this more. Is the ISA a real obstacle to speech and participation? I want to point out that in comparison to many countries with similar laws, relatively few people have been detained in Singapore, and that the ISA, in my view, is often more an excuse for the tidak apa attitude, the indifference and inaction of citizens. But I also want to say that the ISA should not be a sacred cow in Singapore. I think an amendment to allow a judicial review or its abolition should be considered in the future. As our society knits more closely together, as dangers recede, as bad memories are confined to history and a history we are not doomed to repeat but have learnt to grow stronger from, when those conditions prevail, we must reconsider this law. How do we get to that point in the future? I believe we need to work on building trust and responsibility. This applies to both sides. Mr Zulkifli Baharudin has spoken about some of the concerns that people still have, not so much of the ISA, but of being scolded. People must trust that the Government will listen fairly and act fairly. The Government, on its part, must trust that citizens will exercise their rights to speech responsibly. This trust is not automatic. It is earned. There is no free licence. Government must respond and engage. If an argument is wrong, it must continue to tell us why it thinks so. An example was brought up by Mr Jeyaretnam about the reply recently by the Prime Minister to developers who have asked for various concessions. I am not convinced at all that this example is one of fear. I have no doubt that businesses will continue to speak up. They need not fear. If they are organised, they will speak up. They are not incarcerated, they are not "blackbooked" in some way. I think that it is right for the Government to point out to the national interest, rather than to sectoral interest. These people will not be intimidated easily. But for the ordinary citizens, not the organised business groups, I encourage the Government to exercise a greater kindness, a greater caution, a greater restraint, to reply with the aim of persuasion and to remember that the Government can intimidate even if it does not intend to. If the citizen is sincere and on the issue, I hope the Government will respond likewise. In that sense, I hope for the evolution of certain rules of engagement, not just among Government leaders, but also with the civil service, to take ideas seriously and respond to them seriously and with a sincerity equal to what they are given. Let me give two quick examples from my own experience. The first is of the Roundtable, a non-governmental organisation of which I am a member, and Mr Zulkifli Baharudin is the President. The Roundtable offered its post-election analysis that one of the reasons the PAP had succeeded so much in this election was because of something we called "package politics". Of course, the PAP is free to disagree with our analysis. Many Singaporeans have disagreed with our analysis. The point I want to bring up today is not about whether we were right or wrong in our analysis, but the reply of government. The Government in its reply, or the Minister or a member of the PAP in his personal capacity replied. Mr Lim Boon Heng responded to us substantively on the points we raised. Only, I would say, on three words, there was a sense of what people might think of as intimidation. The first, he called us "PAP critics" rather than simply a commentator or critic of politics as a whole. Second, there was a very vague promise to take us on, and I do not think at that point he meant to take us on in Parliament. The third was that he question marked our non-partisanship, that somehow we were coloured as being predominantly against the PAP. Except for those three points, the right to reply was certainly fair. Just as I had a right to speak, the Minister certainly had a right to reply. Let me give a second example, something which I think is a very promising example. I do not know whether anyone remembers the Budget debate we were engaged in, for even longer days than this. I spoke briefly on the cut on the Ministry of Home Affairs about the Registry of Societies, and I encouraged the Registry of Societies to expedite registration of organisations in order that we might have a more active and able civil society. In my comments, as an example of that, I brought up the Roundtable and I mistakenly said that the Roundtable had taken more than a year to register. The comment was reported in the papers and the mistake was pointed out by the Registrar of Societies. It was also admitted by the founding President of the Roundtable, Mr Raymond Lim, in a reply. In the reply, he said, "Yes, we made a mistake, but please remember our main point, that to enable civil society, we must have quicker registration." The Minister of State for Home Affairs, Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee, replied to me fairly in Parliament promising that that would be done, the main point would be addressed, that we were all of one mind, that this process needed to be speeded up. When I learnt of my mistake, because I had been misinformed, I wrote to Assoc. Prof. Ho. I have asked him before this whether I can make reference to the letter, and he has agreed. I wrote to admit my mistake and to apologise, and explained that I had not intended the mistake. I also encourage him to focus on the main issue on which we concurred. I think today he does not bear me a grudge and I hope I have not lost his respect. In fact, I hope in a sense that this small example is something we can learn, that people can speak up for good motive, even if they make mistakes, and then be accepted for the main point and to move on from there. To widen this trust and such a responsibility will take time. I think I am not alone in this. I believe that Prime Minister Goh's Government is sincere in wanting consultation and participation, civil society and the people sector. And I believe that the people's wish on their part is growing for consultation, participation and democracy. For these reasons, I cannot, with respect, support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I did not intend to speak, but in view of certain allegations which have been made in this House against lawyers, I think I owe it to the House and to my profession to speak up. First of all, if I remember correctly, Mr Tang Liang Hong had lawyers to represent him. And if he chose to discharge them, then of course he has to blame himself. The fact that few lawyers refused to act for various reasons, whether it is a question of cost or that they do not want to act, it is their own choice. It does not mean that the legal profession is not prepared to act. Secondly, Sir, the ISA, as he has rightly pointed out, has a history. It originated from the British. Mr David Marshall, who was a great champion of civil liberty, moved an extension of the law which allowed detention without trial in this House. We know Mr Lee Kuan Yew was against it. But when he attained power, he realised the importance of this legislation. He must have been professionally advised to carry on. I can sympathise with ISA being used against political detainees, but have we used it for the last three years? I would urge the Government to consider amending the law so that there will be more judicial discretion. But that is for the House to decide. As to the allegation that there is no right of review in the High Court, the law is clear. Parliament has passed the law. The job of the High Court is to interpret it. Parliament is the supreme body, as Mr Jeyaretnam time and again said, and this supreme body has passed a law; High Court cannot change it. I come to a more fundamental issue, Sir, which I think my fellow colleague, Mr Simon Tay has touched on. This motion is flawed from the very beginning. You cannot have all persons freed of detention without trial for the simple reason that secret societies' men are still active even today. I am a member of SINDA. When I visit schools, I am told that school children are being recruited by secret societies. Can we afford to allow these thugs roaming in the streets? Surely not.

Shoot them.

Well, if you want to shoot, please.

That is what you want.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall not engage with him, because time is running out. My position is, detain the anti-social elements and rehabilitate them. Some of them have come out and have changed. In fact, the secret societies are active in other parts of the world. It is increasing. Do you want it? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, both Mr Zulkifli and Mr Simon Tay have quite extensively put the case - there is no element of fear, it is the individual who decides. I think we, the Nominated MPs, have come into this House not to toe the line of the Government. We have come here to state our views, and this view is being stated by a Nominated Member, that we have this danger of communalists and religious bigots who are prepared to stir trouble. In fact, this morning I will not mention name, from a religious group, one individual came and said, "The Government is after us." He came unappointed, and I want to be courteous to him and I do not want to besmirch the name of this organisation, and he said, "My organisation is delisted." I said I could speak to the Minister. But to say that every individual has the right to practise as he likes cannot be so. So I urge this House, Sir, to reject this motion. I did not want to speak, but because of certain allegations, certain misconceptions will be conveyed outside this House, I have decided to speak. I am asking this House to be careful not to do away with the ISA altogether. But I urge the Minister to reconsider the position. We have moved further. We are an enlightened society, and responsible groups, Roundtable and other groups, will blossom up. Give them the opportunity. In fact, I hope the Minister will give the figure to this House on how many political detainees we have for the last three years. With that, I say, in Tamil, romba nandri.

Sir, it has been a long day. It is a long debate. I will not tax Members' patience very much. But let me make a response. First, this has also become a standard line of mine, but it is the truth, because Mr Jeyaretnam once again raises old issues. Together with old issues, he will bring up old cases and even old rules - the HDB sterilisation rule that no longer applies. For example, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA). He was in the House in the 1980s, and if you look at the Hansard, he debated it fully. Government gave a response, more recently in this House, I think last year in the debate on the President's Address. He also mentioned then the point about fear, about the ISA and other preventive detention laws. I also gave him a reply. Indeed, I think the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng, gave a written reply to Mdm Claire Chiang as to whether the ISA should be abolished. So these are in the record. But Mr Jeyaretnam, I think maybe wanting to retain his record of lodging motions in the House regularly, moves this motion. Next year 1999, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act will be up for extension. Well, at that time we can have a full debate. Sir, before talking about preventive detention laws, let me address the other point about fear. I think it is very clear that even though the same word is used here, Mr Jeyaretnam's use of the word "fear" is vastly different from Mr Zulkifli's and Mr Simon Tay's. Mr Jeyaretnam would want us to believe that Singaporeans are gripped by fear, an oppressive fear. And this indeed is a recurrent theme of his, if you look at all his old speeches in the House and political rallies. His tune never changes, even though Singapore has changed so much, and these are highlighted in the speeches of the other Members. But it is a constant refrain, down to the very `t' and `i', the knock at the door at 2.00 am. So this phrase is used all the time. He also says some of the fears are brought about by coercion by the Government and mentioned instances where people do not want to have anything to do with the Workers' Party, whether it is businesses who do not want to serve them, or people who do not want to join them in elections, and he blames it on the Government. That it is because they fear the Government. But I think Mr Jeyaretnam and the Workers' Party should examine themselves. Could it be that there is something in them that puts these people off, not wanting to have any dealings with the Workers' Party?

They do not want to have business contracts.

Well, it is still a relationship, right? So they may not want to have any dealing with him. But why blame it on the Government? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the truth of the matter is really Singapore has prospered and progressed. As has been mentioned in this House, we have become a more open society. Mr Jeyaretnam wants us to believe that Singaporeans are living in the dark ages. He used the term "unthinking". That the fear is so gripping that we are "unthinking". So what does that mean? All robots? He is in fact insulting the intelligence of all Singaporeans, that we have all become robots under this big brother, this machine - the Government. If you look around Singapore, all the achievements which we have made all these years, are all these the result of an unthinking, robotic people? We have become a role model for many societies. I think if he is objective, if Mr Jeyaretnam reads the papers, talks to people, he will know that many delegations visit Singapore to learn about many aspects of life in Singapore which incidentally have also done very well in international polls, whether it is town planning, whether it is the judicial system, whether it is amenities and health care, whether it is educational achievements. All these are not the result of a people who are unthinking and robotic but a creative people. Of course, we can improve and we are moving towards that - to create and foster an even more creative people. Look at our young people. I think if Mr Jeyaretnam looks at the achievements of our young people, talks to the Dean of the Law Faculty, our young lawyers or law students who go abroad to do mooting, they win top honours. Our young people go overseas, take part in choral competition, they do very well. All these are the result of a people gripped by fear? I will ask Mr Jeyaretnam, please, to be realistic and not to be closed in his mind. The other point, of course, is that Singaporeans' expectations have risen. Every one of us who has dealings with the average Singaporean will know that Singaporeans have become more sophisticated; Singaporeans have become more demanding. I think Members of Parliament will know that. Are these people who can just be led by the nose? I think the answer is obvious. I am glad that Mr Tay, Mr Zulkifli and Mr Rai take a different tack. They are not talking about an oppressive fear gripping Singaporeans. They are calling for a lighter touch to government, more bonding with the government, perhaps a government more tolerant of different views. I am sure they will agree that this indeed is happening. This will not happen overnight but surely the signs are there. Civil society is alive and well in Singapore. The people sector is growing. It will not be an overnight process but will take time. But I think the point is we are coming along. And as our society matures, Singaporeans will have a greater say as to the form and shape it will take. More and more their views and inputs will count. Mr Tay has shared about his involvement in the Singapore 21 Committee. Mr Zulkifli, I think, is part of the Feedback Unit. They know from the ground, people who come in, give different and critical views. They are all looked at and examined to see whether there are any merits. Indeed, even in terms of the rules and regulations, we are opening up. A few years ago, PM asked to look at the rules and see which can be lifted. And if you look around you, there are many areas in which our rules and regulations have become lighter, a lighter touch, be it in the area of censorship, be it in the area of entertainment such as jam sessions in jazz bars. It may be a small thing but those people who are involved, I think they appreciate it. It took some time to come along but we have. Or in the area of busking where, of course, it is not an ideal scheme, it can be improved, but there are now provisions in the scheme in place where people can busk on the streets or local government through CDCs I think Mr Tay made that point where CDCs now involve more people living in HDB areas, private estates, all having a say as to how local government is to be run. The list really goes on. Sir, I would say that there is no climate of fear in Singapore. Is there a fear of speaking up? First of all, I would say that there are people who speak up critically of the Government in this House. Opposition members speak up very freely. Does Mr Chiam fear or Mr Low Thia Khiang fear? Or indeed does Mr Jeyaretnam fear speaking up? People speak up in various fora, out of this House, in seminars, in conferences, letters to the press, you will see people speaking up, sometimes critically of the Government. Indeed, at the recent IPS conference, views were expressed critical of the Government, and they were widely reported. Is there fear? Perhaps, if I may postulate, maybe people who argue that there is such a pervasive fear want to see a situation where there is unbridled criticism of the government and its leaders which happens in some countries where government leaders are then put on the defensive all the time. But I think that is not the way to go because then good governance will be eroded. We need a strong government, we need a responsible government, we need a responsive government. But it must be a strong government. Mr Zulkifli talked about this respect and authority which is in our culture. Yes, it is there. And if that respect and authority reposed in the Government is rightly earned, I think we should not be ashamed of it. So that is a key point - we must have a government that must earn the respect and trust of the people by good personal conduct, by bonding with the people, by good policies that work. And again, if Mr Jeyaretnam is objective, he must admit that over so many years of PAP rule, since 1959, almost 40 years, we have made tremendous progress in many fields, despite many difficult situations that had to be overcome. The other point is that this Government takes the position that if you express a view in public critical of the Government or a view that is wrong in terms of policies, we will have to reply. We have to point out where you are wrong. Otherwise you may mislead other people and then the wrong thinking sets in. So this rebuttal is something that Singaporeans who want to speak up in public will have to learn to take. It is part of debate. Just as you can criticise the Government, the Government must have the prerogative to point out where you are wrong. As Mr Simon Tay said, the business people gave a point of view which we felt is not correct. So we came out and pointed it out. So it is not so much the fear of the Government or preventive detention laws that put people off. It could very well be a desire not to be shown up in public which is something where as a society progresses, I guess, will come along. Mr Jeyaretnam's main point relates to our laws and detention without trial. First of all, I must say that the rule of law prevails in Singapore. Our detentions without trial are not a negation of the rule of law. They reinforce and support law and order in Singapore. It is absurd to say that our laws and detention without trial put fear in the preponderant majority of law-abiding Singaporeans, as has been pointed out by the other speakers. On the contrary, they put fear in criminals, drug addicts, drug traffickers, terrorists and such like, deterring them from their destructive conduct. So our tough laws, including laws on detention without trial, are one reason why Singapore is one of the safest cities in the world with a relatively low incidence of drug abuse or crime. In fact, if we do what Mr Jeyaretnam argues for and abolish these laws, then Singaporeans would indeed live in great fear. That we must not allow. I will not fully repeat the arguments for retaining our laws on detention without trial. These have been fully ventilated. Suffice it for me to say that these laws have been in our books for a long time and they are serving their purposes well. The CLTPA and Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) are still relevant in countering secret society elements and drug traffickers. As a result, our streets are free from secret society elements. They are there, but we have to keep them down. Our drug situation is under control. Other countries without such laws face problems, especially in apprehending syndicate heads or masterminds. So please do not let Mr Jeyaretnam lull us into complacency. As for the ISA, it is still relevant in countering security threats, such as racial and religious extremism, international terrorism, espionage and subversion. Because of our laws, the above problems have not come upon us. But does it therefore mean that we let our guard down? It cannot be so, because if we do, we will pay a heavy price. One example will be foreign triads and crime syndicates may be emboldened to penetrate and operate here. Do we want that? Surely, no. Mr Jeyaretnam quite naively asked for evidence of terrorism and other such like activities. Surely these people who engage in such activities will not readily show their face.

They are in mask.

So let us not be lulled into complacency by Mr Jeyaretnam's seductive and ill-conceived call. As Mr Tay has mentioned, other countries too have the equivalent of the ISA and they have remained in their arsenal. Why? Because the safeguarding of national security is paramount in all societies. This is all the more so in a small, relatively new multiracial country like Singapore. I think Mr Jeyaretnam should go and see the National Education Exhibition, if he has not, to see how we have come to where we are today and how things can really go awry if we let our guard down. What is important is that these laws should not be abused or misused and that there are adequate safeguards. And indeed, the Government will be accountable to the people of Singapore if we abuse and misuse these laws. So, again, here, we must not think that Singaporeans are so unthinking, that they are not discerning enough if the Government misuses or abuses these preventive detention laws. Sir, let me assure this House that these laws are not laws to bypass the criminal law processes. Mr Jeyaretnam says, "Oh, there are other laws that can be used.". But preventive detention laws are used in situations where reprisals may be the order of the day if you go through the normal criminal law process because we are dealing with terrorists, we are dealing with drug syndicates, we are dealing with secret society elements. So we must have this regime that takes care of the problem. I will now address this point about judicial review. I think Mr Zulkifli and Mr Simon Tay have asked whether this process could be examined. As they are aware, following the Court of Appeal decision in 1989, an amendment was made to restore the status quo ante, which is a subjective test, which was a position long established by case law, and which reflected Government's position all along.

Is that right?

The question of judicial review was thoroughly debated on that occasion. In moving the amendment, the Minister for Law gave reasons why there should not be judicial review of the substantive grounds of detention under the ISA. The general point is that, for national security, the Executive must have the final say. Sir, we must retain the right to decide what is and what is not a security threat. Also, as I mentioned just now, preventive detention is by its nature a precautionary measure. Therefore, what is involved are covert operations, which have to be covert to get evidence as to some of these threats. Such operations and sources will be compromised if a court hearing were to be conducted. Again, let me emphasise what is really important is the integrity of the people who run the system, who are of course accountable to the people, and the safeguards. Recently, a new safeguard in the Elected President's veto powers was added. So it shows that we are improving the system all the time. Mr Zulkifli made this point about whether we should have a tribunal of three judges rather than the present position where there is an advisory board. The present position is preferable because the board comprises a sitting Supreme Court judge and two prominent citizens appointed by the President. In other words, we are involving the people. So I think there is better accountability and transparency. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have taken some time. But I think today's motion surely cannot stand. It is drafted in such wide terms. It makes such sweeping statements. It does not take into account the progress that has taken place in Singapore the fact that there is more consultation between the Government and people, the fact that some of the rules which are not needful have already been abolished, the fact that there is a lighter touch to Government. Really, we must not leave this Chamber with the picture that Mr Jeyaretnam paints, that Singaporeans are gripped by fear, unthinking, robotic. Is that the real situation, Singaporeans who are like that, who have made Singapore what it is today? The answer must surely be no.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Minister of State whether he is prepared to tell this House how many political detainees we have for the last three years.

I think we all know the answer. The ISA is not used against political detainees.

May I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, what I have said in my earlier motion, and I will repeat it, is that no serious attempt is made to understand the issue. Instead of that, the Minister of State says things which are repeated again and again, that the PAP has taken good care of Singapore, Singapore is what it is today because of the past, we do not need to change anything. We have heard all this. But no attempt is made to answer the points. But as I said in my speech, I will let Mr Lee Kuan Yew make the answer to what we have heard from the junior Minister. Mr Lee Kuan Yew was speaking in April 1955 when there was a real threat, there were the communists fighting in the jungle in Malaysia, there was threat of subversion in Singapore and he was opposing the extension of the Emergency Regulations after Mr Marshall's government took over. They wanted to extend it for three months, promising to study and review it and this is what the great architect of our society today said in 1955, and I quote: "But we either believe in democracy or we do not. If we do, then we must say categorically without qualification that no restraint from any democratic process other than by the ordinary law of the land should be allowed." This, at the time, as I said, when there was a real threat, and that was Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the great champion of freedom of speech, of liberty, of freedom of association, holding forth in this House which was then an Assembly. And the same man, great champion of freedom, speaking in September 1955 when Mr Marshall was introducing the Public Peace and Security Ordinance (PPSO), Mr Marshall was introducing into that law a proper appeal tribunal with power to release anyone detained by the government, not an advisory board but giving this appeal tribunal full powers to order release if they were not satisfied. There you have an adequate safeguard. But Mr Lee did not want any detention even in September 1955 when the threat was still there and this is what he said: `What he [referring to the Chief Minister] is seeking to do in the name of democracy is to curtail a fundamental liberty, and the most fundamental of them all, freedom from arrest and punishment, without having violated a specific provision of the law and being convicted for it.' So, I would like the Minister of State to think about what Mr Lee was saying. This is not me speaking today. It is Mr Lee, his own leader, speaking in 1955. And I am surprised that this great architect of our society is not in this House this afternoon to answer my motion. Why is he not here? After all, he was the man who is responsible for the continuation of the Internal Security Act. He was the man who repealed this adequate safeguard that Mr Marshall had introduced. Should he not be here to explain why? What was wrong in 1955, when there was a real threat, why is it now absolutely necessary when there is no threat? I do sympathise, if I may say, with the Minister of State, because he was not responsible for these laws. I am sorry, I hope he does not feel offended, he does not have the depth to be able to examine these issues and to answer the criticisms of it. May I also tell him what his leader in 1955 said, when Mr Marshall told him, "You are always bringing up the same thing", Mr Lee Kuan Yew's answer was, "I shall go on repeating it ad nauseam until you change the law." So that is my answer to the junior Minister and to others when they accuse me of bringing up old issues. If something is wrong and remains a wrong, someone who feels that it should be changed should go on bringing it up until it is changed. So I intend to do that and this is not the last time that this House will hear on this. Apart from the architect, why is the Prime Minister not here to reply to this? An hon. Member: He has better things to do!

He wants a gracious society. How can we have a gracious society unless we have a civil society first? And a civil society is a society of people, men and women, who are conscious of their rights and who are not afraid to speak up, who know that the law protects them, and they can speak up and participate in the decision making. That is a civil society. You must have that first before you can talk about a gracious society. So why is the Prime Minister not here? I am also disappointed that the Minister for Law is not here. I would have asked him whether he had always held the view that detention without trial did not offend the Rule of Law. Members would have been surprised at his answer. The question is: do we, in present day Singapore, need to arm ourselves with powers to throw people into prison without first bringing them up before a court of law, laying charges against them and the court hearing the charges and convicting them and then sending them to prison? That is the Rule of Law, I am afraid, not anything else. I am surprised to hear from the Minister of State that detentions without trial do not negate the Rule of Law. What does he understand by the rule of law? The Rule of Law, as explained by the Privy Council in the Ong Ah Chuan's case, is not just the written laws but incorporates into it what is called natural justice or what the Americans would call the due process of law, ie, no one may be punished in any way, deprived of his life or liberty until he has been found guilty by a court of law and ordered to suffer the punishment. Our own Constitution says that no man may be deprived of his life or liberty, save in accordance with the law. And what does it mean? When Parliament passes any law, you can just pick up people and put them in prison? If that is the interpretation, then the Constitution becomes a laughing stock. Before I come to deal with the reply from the Minister of State, let me deal with the speeches of the others. As I understood the speakers, the general trend appears to be that we do not really have to do away with the ISA, but we can perhaps be a bit more tolerant. We must get the message across to the people that they have nothing to fear. But what good does it do to tell people that they have nothing to fear when you retain in the statute books the power to throw them into prison? No amount of saying, "you don't have to worry, my chap, we won't throw you into prison," is going to convince them. The only way you can convince them that they have nothing to fear is to remove the power so that they can see it. That the Government no longer has the power to detain them without first bringing them before the court. That is the only answer, nothing else. Nothing short of it will help. The speakers also made the point that there is a perception. Of course, it is a perception. And they say that people perhaps fear when they need not fear. That is true. I have told the people a number of times that there is nothing to be afraid of. But do they take me seriously? When I tell them there is nothing to be afraid of, they say, "Can you guarantee it?" There is this perception. So, what does the Government do about it? Keep telling them there is nothing to fear, nothing to worry, or does the Government take active steps to eliminate that fear? That is what I am asking the Government to do, to take active steps to eliminate that fear, however irrational that fear may be, however unfounded. But the fear exists. I think it has been acknowledged by the other speakers that there is that fear. So the Government has to take active steps to remove that fear. No amount of "there is nothing to fear, my good people, you speak up," will convince them. Many a taxi driver when they see me say, "In Singapore, we can't speak." And I said, "Why not?" They say, "We might lose our licence. We might be put into prison." You might say that these are unfounded fears. But how do we reassure them? And the only way you can reassure them is to remove that power in your grasp. Then the speakers also seem to say that we do need emergency powers in times of emergency. I have said in my speech that the Constitution does provide for times of emergency. They are Articles 149 to 151 of the Constitution which say that when there is a real threat to the country, when there is a danger of any subversion and Parliament is satisfied of this danger and threat to the country, then Parliament may pass laws curtailing the freedom of the people and, as I said, requiring that that be reviewed and should no longer remain on the statute books once the emergency is over. So we have got it. It is not as though we do not have the power to invoke these powers of detention without trial if there is an emergency, if there is a threat. But we do not need it as a permanent feature in our statute books. I would like to know which country in the world has this as a permanent feature. They, of course, retain the right in times of emergency to invoke these powers. I think the Indian Parliament has this provision. But which country has it as a permanent feature in the ordinary laws of the land? I asked the Minister of State a number of questions. He thinks I am being naive in asking the questions. Of course, every question that I ask is naive because the Government does not really want to answer those questions. So the easiest way is to say, "It is a naive question, a silly question." I am surprised that the Minister of State should say that there is no climate of fear. Even the two Nominated MPs mentioned about this fear. But they did not think it was as bad as I made it out to be. But have they encountered the fear as I have encountered it in people? I gave you the examples where I encountered this fear in our people. Have they encountered the fear as I have encountered it? Have they gone round asking people to stand for elections to Parliament? Have they gone round asking them to donate any monies to the opposition parties? Have they gone round asking the printers to print for the opposition parties? Then they will know whether there is this fear or not. The Minister of State says that we cannot have unbridled criticisms. I can again, for his reading, recommend him to what his great leader said in the Malaysian Parliament in 1964. I hope that every PAP Member of Parliament has been given all these speeches of the leader made when he was in the opposition from 1954 to 1959. It should be compulsory reading, and then they could perhaps ask the leader why is it not right now when he said it was right in 1954 to have these freedoms. I hope it is also compulsory reading for PAP MPs of Mr Francis Seow's book "To Catch a Tartar". There, they will see an account of how they deal with opposition politicians or people aspiring to be opposition politicians once they are taken in. The Minister of State refers to the amendment that was made after the Court of Appeal decision in 1989. With respect to the Minister, I think he has got it all wrong. The case of Liversidge and Anderson that Mr Simon Tay mentioned was a case when England was facing across the Channel the German forces. There was a real danger there, and Lord Atkin stood out against all the other judges and said, that even in such a state, it would be wholly wrong to deprive a man of his liberty unless he had been found guilty by a court of law. But the other judges thought that in time of such grave danger, the Executive should be the judges. That was 1942, a time of great danger to England. Some years later, the House of Lords said, Lord Atkin's classic statement was the right principle in law. Every imprisonment is prima facie unlawful unless it is justified. That was the law in many other countries, but we continued with the law of Liversidge and Anderson, when all the other countries said that that was wrong. But in 1989 the Court of Appeal felt constrained because of all the authorities that were put before it, authorities from other Commonwealth countries. They felt constrained to change, and said, "The time has come now for us to change. The courts should have the right to look into the merits." That was what led to the amendment of the law, amendments made by Parliament excluding any review of the merits by a court. I have two other points. The Minister of State says, tongue in cheek, that the Government must be accountable to the people. That is the real test. Government can only be made accountable to the people, if the people are given an unfettered right to question the Government and to demand an answer. In other countries, they have the Freedom of Information Act. We do not have it in Singapore. It is only then that the Government can be made accountable. It is no good repeating over and over again that we are accountable. People must see the right in themselves to make the Government accountable, that they can demand answers and explanations, and the Government has to reply to those criticisms. My party has asked a number of questions to which we never get a reply. Is that accountability of the Government? Finally, the Minister says the advisory boards that we have at the moment, which Mr David Marshall abolished and replaced with a proper Appeal Court, are adequate. How could they be? They do not have any power except to make recommendations which the Government may accept or may not accept. The decision still lies with the Government. So what good is it having an advisory board if it has no teeth? I am saying to this Government, quite seriously, and speaking as someone who has the welfare of this country at heart, who feels for our citizens, that it is time that the Government set them free, free from this fear and the only way you can do that is to show them that they no longer have any fear of being detained except under due process of law. Whether they speak against the Government or whether they join opposition parties or help opposition parties, they need have no fear whatsoever. The Government cannot detain them because they are going to do away with that power. The other way the Government can remove the fear is to abolish the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Because that is also used to strike fear into people's hearts. I have mentioned about persons picked up by the police who are reminded, "We have the power, you know, to detain you under section 30 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. So what are you going to do?" So I hope that something will be done to assure the people, not just lip service, but some concrete steps taken to show the people that they need not live under fear any longer, but they can breathe the air more freely in Singapore and live as men and women of dignity, holding their heads high and proud of themselves as a people.

Question put, and negatived. Motion accordingly negatived.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

Adjourned accordingly at Nine o'clock pm.

asked the Minister for Manpower, in view of the current worsening economic situation, whether he foresees the possibility of prolonged unemployment of up to a year or more for older and unskilled workers.

asked the Minister for Manpower whether Singapore will face structural unemployment in the next two to three years and, if so, whether the current policy on training of workers is sufficient to cope with the situation.

Older and unskilled workers are the most vulnerable group in an economic slowdown. Whether they will face prolonged unemployment for up to a year or more, depends on several factors. Firstly, are there still jobs for these workers? Yes, there are still many jobs, especially in the services sector, which can be done by older and unskilled workers. Secondly, can this group of workers make the necessary adjustments in terms of nature of work and wages in order to stay employed? They may have to accept lower wages, or work which is different from what they have been used to during this economic slowdown. Thirdly, how quickly can they acquire some useful skills which will help them to find alternative jobs? This is a critical factor. Apart from the economic slowdown, we are also undergoing restructuring towards higher technology and higher value-added industries. New jobs being created will need higher skills. Older workers, who are unskilled or lower-skilled, must upgrade themselves if they want to take on these new jobs.

The problem faced by older and unskilled workers will result in structural unemployment. This is essentially a mismatch between supply and demand of labour in terms of skills, occupation or industries.

Our strategy to deal with structural unemployment is focused on skills upgrading and re-training of older workers to meet the needs of the jobs being created by new investments. Hence, the Minister for Finance has allocated $50 million to the Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP). This will complement the Skills Development Fund's allocation of $50 million for the SRP.

In addition, the Minister for Finance has allocated $20 million to establish a Skills Development Centre. The total budget for the SRP is hence $120 million and is expected to meet the skills upgrading needs for up to 40,000 lower-skilled workers over the next 2 years. We will monitor closely the level of usage of the SRP and ensure that funds are sufficient to provide the training places needed and the scope of training to enhance employability for older workers. This will help us to minimise the impact of structural unemployment.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government will consider measures to attract foreigners to invest in Singapore properties, in particular, by suspending the restrictions on foreigners borrowing in Singapore dollars to finance their property purchases.

There is no restriction on foreigners buying private properties in Singapore, other than the long-standing restriction on landed properties and flats in buildings below 6 storeys.

Whether foreigners buy properties in Singapore is a matter of supply and demand. The Government should not introduce special measures to favour foreigners who do so, just as it has in the past resisted calls to make it harder for foreigners to buy Singapore properties.

The restriction the Member refers to is on financing of property purchases by foreigners using Singapore dollars. It was introduced to ensure that such foreigner buyers were serious investors with their own sources of funds, and were not borrowing Singapore dollars from banks here to speculate in the Singapore property market. Permanent residents are allowed to borrow in Singapore dollars to purchase one property, for owner occupation.

As the objective of the restriction still remains valid, the Government has no plans to lift the restriction.

asked the Minister for Manpower whether there are statistics captured on jobs saved as a result of implementing the off-Budget measures and, if so, approximately how many jobs have been saved to date.

The off-Budget measures were meant to help companies during this period of economic slowdown. They were implemented with effect from 1st July 1998. The measures would cost the Government $2 billion. Some of these will translate into cost savings for employers, while others will stimulate demand thus helping employers to save jobs. At this stage, it is too early to assess the full impact of these measures.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, in view of the current economic slowdown, whether he will allow Jurong Town Corporation/Housing and Development Board lessees to let out up to 75% of their leased properties instead of the present 50% under the `Lease-Let-Scheme'.

JTC and HDB properties are meant for the lessees to carry out their industrial activities. However, as business activities do fluctuate over time, JTC and HDB allow some degree of subletting by the lessees. Current policy limits the extent of subletting to 50% of available space. For subletting to related companies, the limit is raised to 70%. These are reasonable caps since leasing properties is not the primary activity of these lessees.

Nevertheless, in view of the current economic slowdown, JTC and HDB will be flexible in applying their subletting policy, taking into account any special circumstances faced by the companies on a case-by-case basis.

asked the Minister for Communications whether a time frame has been established to implement Expressway Monitoring and Advisory Services (EMAS) on other expressways, in view of the evident benefits of the system on the Central Expressway.

EMAS was implemented on the Central Expressway (CTE) on 21st March this year. Since its installation along the CTE, it has yielded significant benefits for motorists. It has enabled the LTA to provide assistance to distressed motorists and to clear obstructions to traffic flow more quickly. It is estimated that for the CTE, EMAS yields a time saving worth about $6.8 million per year for motorists because of quicker removal of disabled vehicles by LTA's vehicle retrieval service.

In view of the evident benefits of the system, the LTA has decided to extend EMAS to the other expressways. EMAS is scheduled to be extended to the Pan-Island Expressway, East Coast Parkway, Ayer Rajah Expressway, Bukit Timah Expressway and Kranji Expressway by 2000 and to the Tampines Expressway and Seletar Expressway by 2001.

asked the Minister for Finance (a) how many objections have been received since January 1998 concerning the assessment of annual value of property; and (b) what are the measures taken by his Ministry to expedite the handling of such objections.

Since January 1998, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) has received about 1900 objections. The number of objections received is not higher than that for the corresponding period last year. This is despite the fact that IRAS has reviewed the annual values of more properties and raised more new assessments this year. Taken together, this indicates that the rate of objection has fallen. IRAS' efforts to review the annual values to reflect the prevailing rental level as quickly as possible also explains why the rate of objections is not high despite the weakening rental market.

Objections to annual values are always dealt with expeditiously. In cases where the owners provide sufficient information or grounds of objection, IRAS will ensure that these are dealt with within a month. Where more information is needed from the owners, IRAS will contact the owners to obtain more information or discuss their cases as quickly as possible.

asked the Minister for Health if there is any plan for a polyclinic to be built in Pasir Ris and, if so, where it will be located and when it will be completed.

The Ministry of Health plans to build a polyclinic in Pasir Ris. We have just been allocated a site at the junction of Pasir Ris Drive 1 and Pasir Ris Street 51. The polyclinic is scheduled to be completed by year 2002.

asked the Minister for Finance whether his Ministry can grant a tax exemption for income repatriated by Singaporeans formerly working overseas after their return to Singapore, since this may otherwise deter Singaporeans from accepting overseas assignments.

There is already an administrative concession in place since 1992 to allow Singaporeans working overseas to repatriate their foreign income to Singapore without attracting any Singapore tax. Under this concession, Singaporeans and permanent residents can elect to be treated as non-residents where they have been employed abroad for a period of at least 6 months in any year. As non-residents, the foreign income which they remit to Singapore during any year in which they are treated as non-residents would not be taxed. Even if they choose to remit their overseas employment income after their return to Singapore when they have become residents and be taxed on the income remitted, they will be given a tax credit for any foreign tax suffered on it. Unless the foreign tax is lower than the Singapore tax payable, which is rare given Singapore's generally low tax rates, there should be no further Singapore tax on the remittance with the tax credit given. With the administrative concession and the credits for foreign tax, Singaporeans should not be deterred from accepting overseas assignments.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, with retail sales now in negative growth for eight consecutive months and showing no sign of reversal due to slowdown in visitor arrivals and declining purchasing power all round, what plans his Ministry has to help revitalise this sector.

The Government is in regular consultation with retailers, and is mindful that, apart from the structural problem of over-capacity facing the retail sector, retailers have been particularly affected during this economic slowdown. In the recent off-Budget package, several measures were targeted at providing relief to retailers: - A 40% property tax rebate on commercial properties for the year commencing 1st July 1998. This is on top of the 15% rebate announced during the FY98 Budget Statement. Landlords should pass on such tax savings to their tenants. - Suspension of the Carpark Surcharge Scheme with effect from 1st September 1998. Currently, a surcharge of $60 per month is levied on each lot in non-residential car parks with at least 5 parking lots in and around the Restricted Zone (RZ). - From 1st September 1998, when Electronic Road Pricing is extended to the RZ, the Area Licensing Scheme (ALS) operational hours will be shortened on Saturdays. The Singapore Tourism Board has also intensified its tourist promotion efforts in markets such as Australia, China, Europe, India and USA to make up for the declining number of tourists from ASEAN and Japan. These efforts should have spin-off benefits for our retailers. Retailers themselves have to act to weather the present downturn and overcome the structural problems. The Government has in place several schemes to promote their long-term upgrading and development. Further details are provided at Annex I (Cols. 743 - 744) . ANNEX 1 - PROGRAMMES/SCHEMES TO HELP RETAILERS (Cols. 743-744)

asked the Minister for Information and the Arts, in such times when just about anything on the Internet can be accessed, whether private individuals could be given licence to access by satellite dishes.

The Government has disallowed the installation of satellite dishes for households in order to keep out undesirable satellite broadcasts which can undermine our multi-racial and multi-religious society. Commercial establishments, financial institutions, and media organisations are, however, free to apply for such licences. The ban on satellite dishes for households will continue for as long as it is effective and useful. The Government is committed to providing an alternative to satellite television, through a national cable network linking every office, school and home. The cable system will be completed by the end of 1999. For the Internet, SBA is working with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide web-filtering software as standard items in their starter kits. In addition, at the national level, our ISPs are offering a separate Family Access Network (FAN) which allows more-sanitised Internet access as an option for parents who are concerned for their children. Existing subscribers can opt to switch to FAN if they wish. SingNet has already launched its Family Online service on 1st July 1998, and the other two ISPs will follow soon.

asked the Minister for Manpower why the hotline number 1822-5358047, which is meant for assisting retrenched workers in securing alternative employment, is a recorded mail voice which only gives website access code and general employment information and not a personalised service to identify job needs and vacancies of callers, especially callers who speak limited English or Chinese.

The hotline number 1822-5358047 is for enquiries on Employment Act. It has 3 hunting telephone lines, manned by 3 duty officers of the Labour Relations Department of the Ministry of Manpower, to answer enquiries on terms and conditions of employment, retrenchment and other Employment Act provisions. When the 3 lines are engaged, callers are channelled to the Integrated Voice Response System which provides pre-recorded frequently asked questions and answers on the Employment Act. The information is available both in English and Chinese. The hotline number for job seekers requiring assistance to find employment or prospective employers looking for job seekers to fill vacancies is 1800-5395389. It is manned by officers of the Ministry's Employment Service Department.

asked the Minister for Manpower what percentage of applicants have found a job through his Ministry's Employment Assistance Scheme since its implementation; what sort of jobs they were matched to; and if there are clearer indications now on the sectors or types of jobs for which there is a demand but no supply.

The Employment Service Department (ESD) helps to place job-seekers with employers who posted job vacancies with the Department. Since the beginning of this year, the ESD has been providing employment assistance to between 900 and 1,600 job-seekers per month. In recent months, the proportion of the job-seekers who were retrenched from their previous jobs has increased to about 25% to 30% each month, as compared to a monthly average of 5% in 1997. The ESD has been able to provide job referrals to more than 80% of the job registrants. The majority of job-seekers were looking for clerical, production and general worker positions. Our experience to date shows that about 50% subsequently declined our job assistance as they were able to find employment on their own, or they rejected the job offers by the prospective employers. The reasons cited for rejection include the unsuitable nature of work, working hours, location of workplace, or salary. Based on companies' feedback, about 10% of the total job registrants were successfully placed. MOM is in the process of identifying the sectors for which demand for skilled manpower is still strong despite the economic downturn. This study is necessary as the manpower requirements in the economy have changed considerably since the onset of the regional economic crisis. Our preliminary assessment is that there are still job opportunities in new growth sectors such as the wafer fabrication, precision engineering, medical instrumentation and process chemical industries.

asked the Minister for Communications whether motor repair and service workshops could be licensed to maintain a minimum standard of equipment and trained personnel so that work on vehicles could be properly attended and road safety enhanced.

The roadworthiness of motor vehicles using Singapore roads is ensured through regular inspection of the motor vehicles by authorised inspection centres. This practice in the motor vehicle repair services has served us adequately. Other countries operate differently. The UK Institute of Motor Industry practises self-regulation. It has a code of conduct to guide its members in their performance standards and in dealing with the public and the industry. The UK Retail Motor Industry Federation does likewise. The American Automobile Association (AAA) and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in the USA also adopt similar practices. At home, a similar scheme has been adopted by the home renovation industry and is working well. The Renovation and Decoration Advisory Council (REDAC) was set up in 1986 by the Consumers' Association of Singapore (CASE), Renovation Contractors' Association of Singapore, Singapore Building Materials Suppliers' Association and Singapore Institute of Material Management to promote and regulate the highest standard of conduct and good practice by industry members. It gives advice and assistance to contractors and consumers in the observance and enforcement of the Singapore Renovation and Decoration Code of Practice. This model of an industry regulated code of practice is worth considering for the motor vehicle industry. The Automobile Association of Singapore together with the relevant motor and motor repair industry associations could consider setting up an industry council to set the standards or code of practice to regulate the quality of service provided by motor repair workshops.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will review its subletting fee structure on its leased premises in view of the deteriorating economic conditions.

HDB allows subletting of its leased commercial and industrial premises. In the case of commercial premises, no subletting fee is charged. Instead, lessees have to pay an administrative fee of $200 for the processing of the application to sublet the premises. In the case of subletting of HDB leased industrial premises, which are mainly industrial land leases, HDB charges a subletting consent fee, except in cases where the subtenants are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the lessees. This is because HDB's industrial land is not tendered out to the highest bidder, but is allocated to deserving industries, with the support of the EDB. The industrial land is intended for the industrialists' own manufacturing activities. Thus, it is reasonable to impose a subletting consent fee to ensure that the premises is essentially owner-occupied. HDB's subletting fee structure is similar to that used by JTC. Under this structure, the minimum subletting fee is $1,000 per annum. So far, about 37% or 200 of HDB's industrial lessees have sublet their excess space to unrelated companies. JTC has recently reviewed its subletting fee structure which will benefit new subletting cases as well as renewals. Essentially, the subletting fee will be moderated depending on the plot ratio of factory development (ie. the higher the plot ratio, the lower will be the new subletting fee compared to the current fee). The minimum subletting fee will also be reduced from $1,000 per annum to $500 per annum. HDB will, similarly, be reviewing its fee structure to be consistent with JTC.

asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry will consider increasing the number of parking spaces for heavy vehicles in the Punggol area.

To cater to the demand for heavy vehicle lots in Punggol South, URA will be expanding the existing heavy vehicle park (HVP) at the junction of Hougang Avenue 7 and Tampines Road (Site 1 in Annex II (Cols. 745-746)) . This will add another 288 lots to the HVP, bringing the total to 453 lots. The expansion works will be completed by the end of this year. Annex II - HEAVY VEHICLE PARKS (HVPS) (Cols. 745 - 746) While Sengkang and Punggol Towns are still under development, sites have been safeguarded in Sengkang DGP to provide for HVPs to cater for future demand.

asked the Minister for National Development if the Urban Redevelopment Authority will consider relocating the Heavy Vehicle Park at Pasir Ris N4 to another suitable site, away from the residential blocks along Pasir Ris Drive 4, in order to enhance safety when the new Pasir Ris Community Club is built.

The Urban Redevelopment Authority is looking into the relocation of the Heavy Vehicle Park at Pasir Ris N4 and the possible replacement sites. The MP for Pasir Ris GRC will be informed once a replacement site is found.

asked the Minister for National Development how many people were in arrears of rent or mortgage instalment payments for at least three months as of May 1997, by types of flats.

For rental flats, a total of 2,169 tenants were in arrears for three months and more as at May 1997: 732 tenants were from the 1-room flat; 1,169 tenants were from the 2-room flat; 247 tenants were from the 3-room flat and 21 tenants were from the 4-room flat. This is 3.7% of the total 58,342 rental units under management. For sold flats, as at May 1997, a total of 6,412 lessees were in arrears of three months and more: 2,340 cases were from the 3-room or smaller flat lessees; 2,567 cases were from the 4-room flat lessees; and 1,505 cases were from the 5-room and Executive flat lessees. This is 1.5% of the total 414,983 units with outstanding loans.

asked the Minister for Community Development what plans are in the pipeline to broaden the criteria for obtaining funding in our social security system to strengthen the capacity of disadvantaged families and individuals to cope with the economic downturn as well as the needs of Singaporeans in the 21st century.

The Government has a wide range of schemes to help disadvantaged families and individuals in times of distress. A list is annexed (see Annex III (Cols. 747-752)). The criteria for eligibility to qualify for the various schemes are reviewed as the need arises. Families or individuals who face financial hardship because of the current economic downturn can approach MCD or the various organisations administering these schemes for assistance. MCD will ensure that genuine cases will receive financial assistance to help them tied over this difficult period. ANNEX III - ASSISTANCE TO PEOPLE WITH FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES (Cols. 747-752) The CDC launched a National Helpline in January 1998 to enable residents to call for assistance. Residents need only remember one number to gain access to various services. The Helpline is published through a brochure issued by the CDC. Those who need help can also approach the nearest CDC counter for assistance.

asked the Minister for Education whether there is a growing problem with discipline in schools and to what extent can the school discipline the children.

State of Discipline in Schools As SMS Dr Aline Wong explained in Parliament during the Committee of Supply debate on Education in March this year, the state of discipline in schools is generally good. The great majority of students are hardworking, well-behaved and responsible. Serious cases of breach of discipline are infrequent occurrences. Since 1995, MOE has implemented the Behaviour Tracking and Analysis (BETA) system in schools. The system represents a methodical way of collecting data on the state of discipline in schools. The implementation of the BETA system has allowed MOE to collect data on disciplinary cases very quickly and to respond to changing trends in disciplinary problems. The records made by schools using the BETA system showed no significant statistical change in the offence rates (offence rates refer to the number of offences per 1000 pupils) from 1995 to 1997. There is, however, a significantly higher proportion of offences in the secondary schools than in the primary schools. For primary schools, less serious offences such as not doing assignments and disruptive behaviour and attendance-related offences constitute 84% of the total number of offences. Offences such as theft/damage to property, assault and fighting, constitute the bulk of the more serious offences (16%). In the secondary schools, top offences were attendance-related (74%), namely late-coming and truancy. Misconduct offences dropped by 1% to 3% each year over the 3-year period. On the whole, the stabilising of the offence rate can be attributed to the concerted and co-ordinated efforts taken by schools and agencies such as the Police, the Ministry of Community Development, the juvenile court, Voluntary Welfare Organisations and self-help groups in managing discipline. Schools are continuing in their efforts to improve the state of discipline. MOE is also alert to the possible changes in trends in discipline problems and juvenile delinquencies and are taking measures to address potential problems. An area of concern is the increase in the number of cases of substance abuse from 33 cases in 1995 to 272 cases in 1997. MOE and MHA are working very closely together to try to contain this problem. Another area of concern is the growing offence rate amongst female pupils in the secondary schools. The female offence rates, though lower than the male offence rates, have increased by 6% to 9% per year compared to the rate for boys which has remained fairly constant. A committee chaired by the Senior Minister of State for Education, Dr Aline Wong, was set up in May this year to look into the discipline situation among girls in schools. The report by this committee should be ready by the end of this year. Extent School Can Discipline Its Pupils The Ministry has adopted the philosophy that to care is to discipline. The extent to which schools care for the pupils under their charge is the extent to which schools can discipline its pupils. In general, schools have adopted a whole-person approach to discipline. Thus, in the discipline of pupils, schools are mindful of the needs of the pupils. While schools do mete out consequences for misbehaviour, counselling is often used together with these measures to help the child correct his behaviour. Schools also work in partnership with parents in disciplining their children so that they can provide the necessary home support to sustain the changes in behaviour. While principals are allowed to administer corporal punishment on male pupils, many schools restrict its use only to very serious offences such as assaults, extortion and vandalism. Schools have to abide by the guidelines on corporal punishment provided by MOE.

asked the Minister for Education what is being done to ensure that all children leaving the school system at the primary level can read and write in basic English.

English is a core subject in the curriculum. The first 4 years of primary school make up the Foundation Stage in which the teaching of English takes up one third of total curriculum time. At the end of the Foundation Stage at Primary 4, pupils are assessed on their attainment in listening, speaking, reading and writing in English. Their performance in English, together with their attainment in Mathematics and Mother Tongue, decides the educational programme that pupils will undergo at Primary 5 and 6, the Orientation Stage. Pupils who are academically weak and deemed to be best taught at a slower pace are placed in the EM3 stream at Primary 5 and 6 where they are taught Foundation English. In Foundation English, the minimum targets for reading and writing at the end of P6 may be summarised thus: - Pupils can read simple stories, newspaper articles and magazine articles for enjoyment or information;

- Pupils can understand the main ideas and details of what they read and demonstrate their understanding by correctly answering the comprehension and vocabulary questions;

- Pupils can generate enough ideas to write a narrative or descriptive composition on a familiar topic.

- Pupils can present ideas in a logical way to complete functional types of writing, such as notes, messages, postcards and instructions. In addition, the Ministry provides schools with support in the following ways: - Teachers are provided with in-service training so that they have a range of strategies and approaches to teach weak pupils reading and writing.

- School libraries are given funds to purchase a variety of reading materials to meet a range of reading abilities;

- Many schools have specialised personnel such as the Learning Support Coordinator who assists teachers to plan and teach remedial programmes. These measures ensure that even the weakest pupils attain at least the basic literacy skills of reading and writing by the time they complete 6 years of primary school.

asked the Minister for Education whether schools should be asked to collect less supplementary fees during the current difficult economic conditions instead of increasing such levies.

Parents pay supplementary fees as a contribution towards the cost of materials used by pupils in the schools. In recent years, there had been much change to our curriculum which require more innovative materials and programmes. For schools which wish to expose pupils to the myriad of innovative materials available in the market, they have been making ad hoc cash collections from pupils. This makes it difficult for parents to budget for such expenditures, and places an extra administrative burden on teachers and schools. To give schools the flexibility to reduce the ad hoc cash collections from the pupils, we decided to allow them to raise the supplementary fees. Children's Edusave Accounts can be used to pay for the increase in fees. There will therefore be no increase in cash outlay for the great majority of parents. Tables - SUMMARY OF YEAR-ON-YEAR COMPARISON: APR-JUN 97 AND 98 FOR NUMBER LEFS LOAN APPROVALS AND LOAN AMOUNT and LEFS APPLICATIONS APPROVED AND AMOUNT DISBURSED (JAN 96 - JUN 98) (Cols. 739-742) ANNEX 1 - PROGRAMMES/SCHEMES TO HELP RETAILERS (Cols. 743-744) Annex II - HEAVY VEHICLE PARKS (HVPS) (Cols. 745 - 746) ANNEX III - ASSISTANCE TO PEOPLE WITH FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES (Cols. 747-752)