Hansard, 1999-07-06

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 (1999)(1999) Mr Tan Soo Khoon13 May14 May 25 May28 May 16 Jun18 Jun 25 Jun3 Jul 8 Jul9 Jul Mr Othman Haron Eusofe13 May16 May 8 Jun28 Jun Mr Chew Heng Ching13 May17 May 10 Jun12 Jun 15 Jun16 Jun NameFromTo (1999)(1999) Mr K Shanmugam13 May17 May 7 Jun9 Jun 21 Jun24 Jun 5 Jul9 Jul Mr Goh Chee Wee14 May16 May 29 May1 Jun 8 Jun21 Jun Dr Hu Tsu Tau, Richard14 May16 May 26 Jun10 Jul Mr Shriniwas Rai17 May28 May Mr Sin Boon Ann18 May21 May 1 Jun10 Jun Assoc Prof Toh See Kiat 19 May19 May 23 Jun25 Jun 1 Jul3 Jul 12 Jul17 Jul Mr S Iswaran19 May22 May 30 Jun2 Jul BG Lee Hsien Loong20 May25 May 15 Jun17 Jun 19 Jun26 Jun Dr Aline Wong20 May25 May Mr Ong Kian Min21 May23 May 8 Jun23 Jun Assoc Prof Chin Tet Yung21 May30 May 10 Jun19 Jun Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam22 May27 May 3 Jun6 Jun 12 Jun25 Jun Dr Tan Cheng Bock22 May30 May 24 Jun12 Jul Mr Lim Swee Say23 May25 May 2 Jul4 Jul Mr Heng Chiang Meng25 May27 May 18 Jun20 Jun Assoc Prof Koo Tsai Kee25 May3 Jun 14 Jun17 Jun 27 Jun28 Jun Mr Leong Horn Kee25 May12 Jun Mr Goh Chok Tong26 May4 Jun 14 Jun17 Jun Dr Wang Kai Yuen27 May30 May 17 Jun25 Jun Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap27 May31 May 22 Jun26 Jun Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed28 May30 May 28 Jun11 Jul Prof S Jayakumar29 May5 Jun 17 Jun28 Jun Mr Charles Chong29 May4 Jun 12 Jun15 Jun NameFromTo (1999)(1999) Mr Lim Boon Heng30 May3 Jun 12 Jun17 Jun BG George Yong-Boon Yeo31 May4 Jun 21 Jun25 Jun 27 Jun3 Jul Dr Ong Chit Chung1 Jun4 Jun 24 Jun25 Jun Mr Ong Ah Heng3 Jun7 Jun Mr R Sinnakaruppan3 Jun9 Jun 22 Jun23 Jun Mr Low Thia Khiang4 Jun9 Jun Mr Matthias Yao Chih5 Jun6 Jun 14 Jul16 Jul Mr Goh Choon Kang5 Jun12 Jun Encik Sidek bin Saniff6 Jun30 Jun Mr Lew Syn Pau7 Jun8 Jun 11 Jun23 Jun Mr Tay Beng Chuan7 Jun9 Jun Dr Ow Chin Hock8 Jun28 Jun Mr Hawazi Daipi9 Jul11 Jul Mr Zulkifli Baharudin9 Jun14 Jun 22 Jun29 Jun 7 Jul7 Jul Mr Tang Guan Seng10 Jun19 Jun Mr Ibrahim Bin Othman10 Jun23 Jun 7 Jul11 Jul Mr Bernard Chen11 Jun16 Jun Mr Mohamad Maidin B P M11 Jun24 Jun RAdm Teo Chee Hean12 Jun26 Jun 4 Jul12 Jul 13 Aug16 Aug Mr Yeo Guat Kwang14 Jun20 Jun Mrs Lim Hwee Hua14 Jun27 Jun Mr Mah Bow Tan15 Jun18 Jun Mr Peh Chin Hua15 Jun19 Jun 23 Jun26 Jun 7 Jul17 Jul 24 Jul31 Jul Mr Chan Soo Sen15 Jun23 Jun 19 Jul23 Jul Mr Cyrille Tan15 Jun28 Jun Dr Tan Boon Wan16 Jun19 Jun Mr Ahmad Md Magad16 Jun20 Jun 30 Jun7 Jul Dr Lily Neo17 Jun20 Jun Mr Abdullah Tarmugi21 Jun23 Jun 28 Jun5 Jul Mr David T E Lim21 Jun23 Jun NameFromTo (1999)(1999) Mr Simon S C Tay21 Jun23 Jun 28 Jun1 Jul 19 Jul20 Jul Dr John Chen Seow Phun21 Jun24 Jun Mr Inderjit Singh21 Jun24 Jun Mr Ang Mong Seng21 Jun28 Jun Mr Wong Kan Seng22 Jun24 Jun Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 23 Jun23 Jun Dr Lee Boon Yang25 Jun26 Jun Mr Seng Han Thong1 Jul5 Jul Mr Lee Yock Suan5 Jul6 Jul 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: 17 May 1999 (1) Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill; and (2) Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order. On 2nd June 1999, I informed hon. Members that at 8.45 am on the said date I received a letter from Mr Choo Wee Khiang resigning his seat in Parliament. Therefore, in accordance with Articles 46(2)(c) and 2(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, his seat in Parliament became vacant with effect from the aforementioned time.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister (a) what is his assessment of the current economic recovery and whether this is sustainable in the long run; and (b) how will the recovery affect the Government's plans and commitment for the full implementation of the recommendations of the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister what is the Government's time frame to restore the employer's Central Provident Fund contribution rate back to the 1998 level.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I will take Questions 1 and 2 together.

Yes.

The economy has been recovering well this year, faster than we had expected. This is because of favourable external developments in the region and an improvement in the global electronics industry. It is also due to the decisive measures we took to reduce business costs, which have helped to boost our competitiveness. In May, MTI upgraded its 1999 GDP growth forecast from the original -1% to 1%, to between 0% and 2%. Recent data suggest that the economy might outperform this range. MTI will revise the growth forecast again in August, when the full economic results for the second quarter become available. The manufacturing sector leads our economic recovery. It grew by 8.2% in the first five months of 1999, on the back of robust expansion in the electronics and chemicals clusters. Indicators from the other sectors of the economy show that the recovery is becoming more broad-based, although not every sector is doing well. The commerce sector will benefit from a pick up in tourism. Visitor arrivals grew by 7.2% between January and May, compared to the double-digit declines last year. The financial services sector has been boosted by the buoyant stock market. Shares transacted grew by 270% in value terms and 390% in volume terms in April-May 1999. But offshore and domestic lending activities are still lagging behind. The construction sector remains weak, despite the improved property market sentiment. Prospects for continued growth in the second half of 1999 are favourable. But whether the current recovery is sustained in the longer term will depend on both external and internal factors. Externally, we are heavily dependent on overseas markets. So we need the OECD economies to stay robust and to keep their markets open. In the region, a sustained recovery will depend on countries persevering with their restructuring efforts. The risk is that the current signs of recovery will cause countries to put off painful restructuring measures. Restructuring by our neighbours will mean keener competition for Singapore, but it is better for us to have strong and healthy neighbours, contributing to the stability and prosperity of the region. Internally, we must persevere with the strategies mapped out by the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness (CSC). We must not become complacent just because the economy has started to pick up. We must upgrade our capabilities and strengthen our competitive position. The CSC has emphasised the importance of building up our physical infrastructure, technology, market networks and manpower. We should make full use of the current window of opportunity to do this. This is vital to maintain our competitiveness in the long run, as the region recovers. In the short term, we must continue to watch our business costs carefully. We need to nurse the present economic recovery, and not choke it off by allowing costs to rise prematurely. The $10.5 billion cost reduction package announced by the Government last November covered taxes, industrial land rentals, utilities and transport charges, and other Government fees and charges. Some of these were outright rate reductions; others were one-off rebates to be reviewed after one to two years. Many of the reductions came into effect only this January. The Government will see through these cost reductions as promised. A major part of the cost-cutting package was the reduction in labour costs, to be achieved by reducing bonuses and variable wages, plus a 10%-point reduction in the employer's CPF contribution rate, from 20% to 10%. The CPF cut was to be for two years from 1st January 1999, after which we would review the situation. We intended to progressively restore the CPF contribution rate as the economy recovered. Competitive labour costs remain a critical factor to sustain investments and jobs in Singapore. Hence, continued wage restraint is essential. This is why the NWC Recommendations this year emphasised caution and wage flexibility. Of all the measures we took, the CPF cut had the most impact on our business costs, and contributed significantly to the current recovery. It is total wage costs - both take-home pay and CPF - that matter to our competitiveness. If we allow wage settlements to go up too quickly now, we will be negating the effect of the CPF cuts, and making it more difficult to restore CPF contribution rates later on. However, we recognise that in a strong recovery, wage pressures are unavoidable. Therefore, if the recovery continues to gain momentum, it will be better for us to manage these pressures, by beginning to restore the employer's CPF contribution earlier, while continuing to exercise restraint in wage settlements. We will review the position towards the end of this year. By then we will know this year's economic performance and the outlook for next year. We can then decide whether to make a first adjustment to CPF rates in 2000, instead of 2001 as we had originally planned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions. The first question is whether the Ministry would have the revised forecast for the GDP growth for 1999 in view of the strong recovery of the economy in the first half. The second question is, in view of the strong recovery of the economy, would the Deputy Prime Minister consider advancing the reinstatement of the CPF cut to an earlier date than two years so as to enable depositors to use their CPF money to help finance existing housing loans and make new investments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I explained, we will review the forecast when we have the full second quarter figures. We expect to make a revised forecast come National Day, which is our usual timing. As for advancing the CPF restoration, I had explained also that we have to look at CPF and wage take-home pay as one package because it is the total wage cost which makes the difference to the competitiveness of the economy. If we hold down CPF but allow wage costs to rise, then we are actually negating the effect of the CPF cut and, in effect, making it more difficult for us to increase the CPF later on because the wages would already have risen. If there is wage pressure because the economy is doing well and exports are strong, then it may be better for us to restore CPF earlier and maintain wage restraint longer, so that we can restore the CPF cut sooner, not in full, but progressively, and manage our total wage cost as the economy recovers. It is too early for us to commit now. We have said two years but, as I said, if the economy grows strongly, at the end of the year we will revise this and consider whether we will begin to restore the CPF come the year 2000, a year ahead of schedule. As to whether this will make a contribution to housing loans, we will have to consider which components of the CPF we restore first. When we cut the CPF we cut 6% from the Ordinary account and 4% from the Special account. The Special account is the first priority for CPF members to build up, because that is put aside for old age and as the absolute crucial nest-egg, as opposed to something a little bit more than that which you can use for housing or other investments. When we restore it, my preference would be to restore the Special account first. But we will decide that later on. I think it is premature to count our chickens now.

Two supplementary questions, Sir. First, in view of some present fundamental challenges, both internally and externally, as mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister, whether there is a likelihood that our economy may be poised for a w-shape recovery instead of a v-shape recovery, as most people think. The second question is: what about the Government department charges and statutory board charges? Are we committed to lowering these charges despite the economic recovery because they do form the bulk of expenses for companies?

It is possible that we have a w-shape rather than v-shape pattern. "W-shape" means you go down again before you recover. I hope not, but you cannot be sure because the risks are there. The American economy looks strong but you cannot say how the present boom will eventually be managed - whether they will contrive a soft-landing or not. If you look at the situation in Japan, it also looks improving but not yet out of the woods. China is slowing down and has less impact on the region now, but potentially it has a psychological effect on the rest of Asia. Of course, we have got to look at our neighbours. Thailand and Malaysia are economically picking up. Indonesia is still dependent on political circumstances. That is why we are not making any premature celebration now. We are going to watch carefully and take it very soberly, step by step. As for the other Government rates and charges, there are many items which we announced - rentals, rebates on property tax, utilities and so on. They will remain for the periods which we have stated. At the end of those periods, we will review them.

I welcome the Government's decision to review the restoration of CPF earlier if the economy is good. Would the Deputy Prime Minister give us more details such as the time frame for the restoration, the percentage and the components, instead of just saying it is the Special account that would be restored first?

If the Member could tell me what our growth rate will be this year and what the position will be next year and where the Americans next year, I will give him a good answer.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what is his assessment on the prospects of economic recovery for Singapore this year and his advice on the strategies the business community should adopt in response to the fast changing economic circumstances. The Minister for Trade and Industry (BG George Yong-Boon Yeo): Mr Speaker, Sir, DPM Lee has already given the Government's assessment of the current economic recovery. I will not repeat it here. The pace of economic recovery has exceeded our expectations. With better business prospects, more companies should do better this year. However, our companies should not relent in their efforts to upgrade their operations, acquire new capabilities and penetrate new markets. We have to stay globally competitive in the modern economy. During recession, it is easier to get companies to upgrade their capabilities as it is a matter of survival. In good times, companies may become complacent. The region is slowly recovering and our regional competitors will emerge stronger, especially if they follow through with serious reforms. Our companies must prepare for tougher competition ahead. They should press on with upgrading their manpower and technology capabilities and expand their market networks. The Government has various enterprise support schemes and market development efforts to help our companies. Our SMEs, in particular, should take advantage of some of these programmes.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether there was any improvement in trade between Singapore and the ASEAN countries from June 1998 to May 1999.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's total trade with the ASEAN countries has turned around since March this year. It expanded by 8.8% for the period March to May 1999, after declining by 12% between June last year and February this year. The rebound was due to the bottoming out of the ASEAN economies as well as the improvement in global electronics demand. Both exports to and imports from the ASEAN countries expanded for the period March to May 1999. Exports rose by 8.1% due mainly to higher exports of intermediate inputs, in particular, electronics and related products, mostly used to manufacture products where the final demand is in the US and the European Union. There were also higher exports of consumer goods to ASEAN, reflecting improved consumer sentiments in these countries. Imports, on the other hand, grew by 9.6% fuelled by higher imports of intermediate goods to support manufacturing operations in Singapore. The Trade Development Board (TDB) is cautiously optimistic that the expansion in trade with ASEAN would continue for the rest of the year, provided that global electronic demand stays healthy and the recovery of the ASEAN economies remains on course.

Is the Minister confident that the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement will assist the increase in intra-ASEAN trade and that in the preparations for the WTO meeting, ASEAN will play a strong role?

Despite the economic crisis, there has been a continuing determination by the ASEAN countries to stay the course. I have just come back from the Trade Ministers' Meeting of the APEC economies in Auckland last week and the results were much more than we could have hoped for, given the fact that in many countries in East Asia, the economic crisis has caused political leaders to turn inwards. Partly because the crisis seems to have bottomed out, there has been a renewed determination by these countries to stay the course and to prepare for a good Leaders' Summit in Auckland in September this year, and to help shape the launch of a new round during the WTO Ministerial meeting in Seattle in November.

Will the Minister please inform the House whether the trend he mentioned for exports is the same for both direct exports and re-exports and whether the figures include trade with Indonesia?

The trends are quite broad-based. They cover both domestic exports and re-exports and for all the ASEAN countries. The numbers I gave did not include Indonesia as it is not our practice to do so, but the general trends for Indonesia are the same.

asked the Minister for Education, pending the results of the investigation in relation to the Compassvale Primary School accident, what measures his Ministry has taken to ensure that all other schools with similar structures are being re-evaluated as to their structural integrity and potential danger to lives.

Wong) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Sir, hitherto all development of Government schools undertaken by MOE has been implemented through PWD (now known as PWD Consultants (PWDC)) after the PWD was corporatised with effect from 1st April 1999. The handling of these projects comes under one of the following three arrangements: (a) The entire project from design to construction is fully taken charge of by PWDC's in-house professionals; (b) Private sector consultants and contractors are engaged for the project under the Design and Build (D&B) procurement method which requires the private sector consultants to do design development based on PWDC's concept design, and the contractors to execute the works under the supervision of the private consultants; and (c) The Government farms out the entire project from design to construction including construction supervision to private sector consultants. For the projects designed and supervised by PWDC, the PWDC is fully responsible professionally for the proper completion of the projects. Similarly, private sector consultants are responsible professionally for the Design and Build and farmed out projects. They must ensure that the design and the works executed by the contractors are in compliance with all building regulations and standards set by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and other relevant Authorities. Compassvale Primary school is a farmed out project, hence the design of the school and supervision of the construction are under the responsibilities of the private sector consultants. In all cases, PWDC also serves as the project manager. Besides being responsible for the budget and time schedule of the projects and that the user's requirements are met, PWDC must ensure that PWDC's in-house professionals or private sector consultants, as the case may be, obtain clearances from the relevant Authorities before handing over completed school premises to MOE for occupation. All school buildings, like other public buildings, are required by BCA to undergo 5-yearly checks on structures. This BCA requirement has been duly complied with by MOE. MOE has taken the precaution to ask both PWDC and HDB to check independently for the structural safety of all completed schools that have the involvement of the Professional Engineers and Accredited Checker engaged in the Compassvale project. The schools have been found to be safe. BCA engineers have also checked these schools to ensure that there is no danger from any design fault or physical defect.

From what I read in the newspapers, it is not an architectural problem but a structural one. Could the Minister consider releasing the name of the structural consultant so that other owners of buildings, and not of school buildings, can also check on the safety of their buildings.

Sir, since the case of Compassvale is still under investigation, it is not advisable to disclose the names of the consultants or the engineers who are the checkers at this point.

May I then have the assurance that once all the information is in, and the report is done, the names will be released to the public so that private owners of buildings can carry out their private investigations and evaluation of the safety of their buildings?

The question should best be answered by the Minister for National Development because it is under the purview of the BCA.

asked the Minister for National Development if he will consider setting up a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the Compassvale Primary School accident. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, since the collapse of the roof of the uncompleted school hall on 15th June this year, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has conducted an investigation, and many other investigations. Their preliminary findings show that the collapse of the roof was most likely the result of a design error. BCA has conducted precautionary checks on buildings designed or checked by the same individuals responsible for the Compassvale Primary School. These checks include physical inspection of the buildings for signs of defects. The BCA is satisfied that all existing schools designed or checked by the same individuals are safe for occupation. In other words, the individuals responsible for designing Compassvale Primary School did not commit the same error elsewhere. I am also pleased to report that as of today the BCA has visually inspected all the 362 schools in Singapore, both Government-aided and Government schools, and has found them to be structurally sound. We are confident that the present system of building control and checks has created and will continue to ensure a safe built environment. The record speaks for itself. In fact, the feedback in the past, and even today, has been that our system has been overly cautious and stringent. Nonetheless, the BCA was asked to carry out precautionary checks on other similar structures in schools to make sure that they are absolutely safe. The BCA will continue to review the current system to further minimise the possibility of accidents like Compassvale occurring ever again. The BCA will also work with the various professional bodies and other parties in the construction industry to safeguard the integrity of our system. This being the case, the Ministry does not see the need to convene a Commission of Inquiry.

Will the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also inform the House whether similar checks are made with all buildings, rather than just schools, that this particular designer has contributed to the design?

Sir, because of time constraint, the BCA enlisted the assistance of the other agencies like HDB and the corporatised PWDC to check in the first instance all Government and Government-aided schools. It will then extend this surveillance to public buildings. As for private buildings, it is actually not the BCA's on-going activities to check for their structural integrity. The Senior Minister of State for Education has already reported that within our system all buildings need to be audited structurally every five or 10 years. Residential buildings are audited every 10 years, and the others every five years. Completed buildings do not just collapse overnight. There will be degradation in structures resulting in cracks, subsidence, leakages and things like that. These will usually be reported by the residents or the Town Councils, the principals or whoever is in charge of the building. It is not necessary to inspect all buildings in Singapore. In any case, there are no resources. We have to depend on the integrity of the professional engineers who design the buildings in the first place and the accedited checkers who check the buildings. Having said that, I am very sure that all the buildings in Singapore are safe.

Sir, may I follow up on the question asked by Mdm Claire Chiang about releasing the names of the structural consultants? We were told that it cannot be released. May I know why not? What is the reason for not releasing the names? The second question is this. We were told that there will be no Commission of Inquiry but there is an investigation underfoot. Has the investigation been completed and will it be made public? When they are completed, will we have a full report?

Sir, while a Commission of Inquiry is not necessary, the BCA has done preliminary investigations and they would likely prefer charges against the engineers or parties involved in the faulty design. The Senior Minister of State for Education did not release the names of the engineers involved because this is already obvious. If he goes to the school that was under construction, he will see the names of the developer, the consultants and the M&E plastered on the board. Because we are taking legal advice from the Attorney-General's Chambers, and there are likely to be some charges preferred against the parties concerned, we would not release their names in this Parliament. But if he wants to know their names, he could just go to the school and he would see their names plastered on the board there.

Give the name of the company.

The names of the developer, the contractor, the M&E engineers, the structural engineers and the quantity surveyors are all there.

I want to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what sort of compensation would be given to the foreign workers who have been hurt in the accident because it seems that some of them were very seriously injured and could actually have been impaired for life.

Sir, that is a matter for the Ministry of Manpower to answer. She may want to file a Question for the Minister for Manpower to answer.

May I ask whether the Senior Parliamentary Secretary will answer my question about releasing the investigation report when it is all completed.

Yes, of course. Once the charges are preferred the Professional Engineers' Board would take action, and at the same time the Building and Construction Authority is likely to prefer charges. Once these charges are made, the due process of appeal must be allowed, and these would obviously be made public.

Since the problem is most likely due to design, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary tell the House whether the person responsible has carried enough insurance policy to cover the losses and damages? If not, would the Ministry ensure in future that all consultants should carry the appropriate insurance policy?

The Professional Engineer must carry his own professional liability insurance and it is for him to ensure that he is covered himself.

I understand from the industry that a good number of professionals do not carry insurance at all. If such an accident occurs again when one of the houses, condominiums or schools collapses and the contractor is not insured, the residents will get nothing out of it because the person can just declare himself to be a bankrupt. Nowadays, with the new Bankruptcy Act, after three years, he is all right again.

I think your question is hypothetical.

Let this be a lesson for the professional engineer.

Sir, I am not satisfied with the answer that we do not need a Commission of Inquiry. Just by pure chance, we had averted this disaster, it could have been a tragedy. Therefore, in the interest of the public, should we not carry out this commission? Because it has far-reaching implication as well on the building guidelines and public safety. If not, could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also clarify what level of disaster must we reach to justify a Commission of Inquiry?

Mr Speaker, Sir, while I said that a Commission of Inquiry was not necessary, there was an internal committee of inquiry within the BCA and within the Ministry. So we will find out what is the problem. We are satisfied at this point that the problem is an isolated one as opposed to the Hotel New World disaster where a Commission of Inquiry was convened. In that incident, of course, deaths were involved, but the nature was different. In that instance, there was a combination of problems - design, maintenance, construction - resulting in a necessity for a Commission of Inquiry. In this case, we have isolated the problem. It is, to our mind, based on our preliminary findings, a clear case of design error. So it is an isolated one-off accident. The fault lies mainly in the designer and probably the checker. So it is not a comprehensive problem that we cannot isolate.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) if his Ministry has plans to improve the dissemination of essential information round the clock to the public in an emergency situation like the sudden ban on imports of all meat and egg products from Europe; and (b) if there are any economic defence strategies in place to ensure adequate supply of food items to the public in the event of a prolonged ban on imported food from major food supply sources.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is committed to act rapidly to prevent contaminated food from reaching our consumers. We cannot afford to take chances when it comes to the health and safety of our people. Arising from the recent dioxin scare, the Primary Production Department (PPD) will work with the Ministry of the Environment to review our system of disseminating essential information to the public. The experience of the recent incident will be taken into account. To ensure a stable and adequate supply of safe primary foods such as meat and vegetables, PPD has an on-going programme to diversify our external sources of supply of primary food. Imports are encouraged from as many countries as possible, as long as they are able to meet our stringent food safety requirements. This diversification of supply sources provides resilience to our primary food supply. Any shortfall from any one source can be quickly replaced by supply from other approved sources.

asked the Minister for National Development what are the safe levels of pesticides in vegetables and whether, in setting guidelines for farms and suppliers of vegetables, he will also consider allowing and promoting the alternative of organic farming without artificial and potentially harmful pesticides.

Sir, the Primary Production Department (PPD) closely monitors both imported as well as locally produced vegetables to ensure that they are safe for consumption. In deciding what levels of pesticide residues are safe, PPD adopts the Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which is internationally recognised as the authority on food safety matters. Vegetables found to contain pesticide residues in excess of these MRLs are destroyed. As for organic farming, PPD has recently tendered out land which could be used for organic vegetable farming. PPD will continue to support and render technical assistance to farms that are interested in organic farming, hydroponics as well as conventional soil cultivation of vegetables. I would like to inform the House that our local farms are able to produce both pesticide-safe as well as pesticide-free vegetables for consumption. This is because PPD encourages our local farms to adopt good agricultural practices such as regulating the use of pesticides and growing the vegetables under protective netting to reduce pest infestations in vegetables. Contrary to perception, vegetables which are grown with the use of pesticides are safe if the farmer adheres to sound agricultural practices.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Malaysian authority claims that the PPD bans the use of seven types of pesticides which are actually allowed in Malaysia. They claim that this is a form of non-tariff barrier. Is there any truth in the allegation?

All I can say is that there is no basis whatsoever for such an allegation. PPD's move to impose strict controls and conditions is to protect our consumers from exposure to excessive pesticide levels in vegetables that are imported from Malaysia. Our local vegetable production accounts for something like 6% of total consumption in Singapore. So that is why we have to import vegetables from almost 40 countries. In the last count, it was 39 countries. So really it is not in our interest and neither is it our policy to erect non-tariff barriers for vegetables or for any other product for that matter.

Sir, the reports from the media are that the Government's practice is to allow a certain percentage above the limit set. I think a figure of 20% has been suggested. If this is so, why is this so? Why do we allow a variance of 20% above the limit we set?

Order. Can I remind the Member that the question should not be based on reports in the media? Could you ask your question again?

Sir, if I may simplify then. Is there a variance allowed on the limits that we set? The second supplementary question is: is the Minister convinced that our standards are consistent with the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement under the WTO?

Sir, in so far as the limits are concerned, as I explained earlier, there are certain limits which are set by internationally recognised bodies such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission. They specify different limits for different types of pesticides. For example, there were reports that we do not allow certain pesticides to be used in Singapore whereas they are allowed in other countries. In those cases, what happened was that these pesticides have zero MRLs, perhaps because the Commission feels that these are much more dangerous than the other pesticides. So whichever MRL is specified by the international commission, that is the level we adopt. The next step is to do sampling or random tests on consignments that come in. All the consignments that come in, that are imported into Singapore from whichever country (Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, and so on), are subject to quality control tests. And the rule of thumb by the PPD is that not more than 5% of the samples that are tested should exceed these limits. So there is a margin of error built in. Obviously, it is not possible to completely eliminate all the contaminated batches, so there is a sampling error allowed. The finding so far has been that the batches from Malaysia have exceeded this 5% guideline. In fact, it has gone as high as 30%, 40% for some species of vegetables. This is the reason why with effect from 1st July, the PPD has implemented a much more stringent checking and testing procedure to try and focus on some of these more, should I say, "dangerous" vegetables. There are about 22 of them, out of 100 vegetables that are imported into Singapore that are subject now to these new regulations. In fact, the result shows that as a result of these very stringent checks, we have been seeing much cleaner batches of vegetables coming in over the last two weeks or so. It is a little bit too early to tell. But I think we should persevere with these more stringent checks. As to the other question about whether they violate any WTO regulations, the answer obviously is no. These are checks which are necessary in order to protect the health and safety of our consumers, and I think every country practises this to a greater or lesser degree.

asked the Minister for National Development whether he is willing to exclude the three Housing and Development Board point block flats, namely Blocks 12, 13 and 14 of Hillview Estate, from the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) is a "win-win" situation for both the nation as a whole and the affected residents. With SERS, the Government can renew and rejuvenate older HDB estates. More flats of improved design can be built to make better use of our limited land. This will also encourage and allow younger families to move into these older estates. The affected residents enjoy many benefits under SERS. They can move to newer and better HDB flats, with a fresh 99-year lease, at subsidised selling prices. They are also given market compensation for their existing flats as at the time of announcement of SERS. Those who are eligible to buy a flat directly from HDB can enjoy a further 20% discount, subject to a maximum of $30,000, off the selling prices of the replacement flats. In addition, SERS lessees need not move out of their existing flats until their replacement flats are ready. In most instances, the replacement flats are built in close proximity to their existing flats so they do not have to move out of the neighbourhood. Since the announcement of SERS in 1995, 31 sites involving some 12,500 HDB sold flats have been identified for the Scheme. They are located in the older HDB estates such as Queenstown, Bukit Merah, Bedok, Jurong, Toa Payoh, Kallang/Whampoa and the Central Area. SERS has been well received by the affected lessees in these precincts. For all the SERS sites announced so far, the average support level from affected lessees is above 90%. The SERS for Hillview Estate was announced on 21st March 1999. It involves the entire Hillview Estate, comprising 12 sold apartment blocks, one rental apartment block, the neighbourhood centre and the Bukit Gombak Community Centre. HDB conducted a survey among the affected flat lessees after the announcement. As at 28th June 1999, 86% of them have responded to the survey. Of these, 86% are in support of SERS. Among the five-roomers at Blocks 12 to 14, 70% supported SERS. The scheme has clear support from the majority of residents. Nevertheless, I understand that a small group of residents are unhappy with the scheme for various reasons. The Government will do whatever it can to ensure that they are treated fairly and will try to help them resolve their problems. Meanwhile, the Government will proceed with the original plan to include the three 5-room blocks at Blocks 12 to 14 in the redevelopment.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I wish to thank the Minister for a positive answer. I believe that this answer will satisfy the wishes of the residents of Hillview Estate. I would like to raise a few questions with the Minister. Firstly, for the replacement flats, can the Minister consider building bigger flats, such as the 4-room or 5-room flats, to satisfy the needs of the residents? Secondly, can the resale levies be packaged in some way to lighten the burden of the residents? Thirdly, can the single residents also enjoy the discount in the purchase of the replacement flats? Fourthly, can some coffeeshops and shophouses be built in the replacement flat precinct to provide better services to the residents?

Sir, since the announcement of the SERS programme at Hillview Estate in March and also the announcement of the Tronoh Road redevelopment, both the MPs, Mr Ang Mong Seng as well as Dr Lee Boon Yang, have met with the residents and given very valuable feedback to HDB on the concerns and requests of the residents. In view of the MPs' feedback, my Ministry has decided to fine-tune the SERS programme for these two sites. The changes are as follows. First of all, on the question of flat sizes. HDB will be providing some 4-room and 5-room new replacement flats which will have slightly bigger floor areas to match the current flat sizes in these two areas. On the question of the premium and levy, to help the residents affected by the HDB's revised resale levy policy, my Ministry has decided to give them the option to pay the standard 20% premium on the selling price of the replacement flats in view of the revised resale levy. This would help some of the residents pay a lower amount. The resale premium will also be incorporated as part of the selling price of the replacement flat. In this way, it can be paid either through the Members' CPF accounts or they can get a mortgage loan from HDB to pay this amount. Those who opt to pay the resale levy can also contra the payment from the compensation that they will receive for the sale of their existing flats. So this is in lieu of paying cash. To further help their cashflow, my Ministry will also allow affected residents who are liable for resale premium or deferred levy to pay only $30,000 of the premium or levy upfront. The rest of the amount will be deferred. This will be held as a contingent liability by the HDB which will only need to be paid if and when they sell or transfer the replacement flat allocated under SERS. As a goodwill gesture, HDB will not charge interest on the deferred amount. These concessions are also extended to affected lessees in other SERS sites announced earlier if they are in the same situation. Finally, on the question of mortgage loan, HDB will also be considering on a case-by-case basis to provide up to 100% mortgage loan for the purchase of replacement flats. HDB will give fuller details of these changes later on. As for SERS lessees who are singles, HDB has decided that it will not extend the full rehousing benefits to them because as it is, under SERS, singles are already enjoying some very major concessions. For example, they are now able to get a new replacement flat as a single lessee and this new replacement flat will of course be at subsidised prices. They are also allowed to buy a new 4-room flat and, as the Member may be aware, under normal circumstances, singles are not eligible to buy a new flat directly from HDB and even then, they can only buy up to a 3-room resale flat. The Member has also asked about shops in the area. The assessment of HDB is that in the new redeveloped area, there are sufficient shops and eating houses in the vicinity of the replacement site. So HDB has not planned to build any commercial facilities there. But in view of the Member's appeal, I will ask HDB to look into the feasibility of providing a few shops in the area.

Sir, these three blocks of flats are point block flats. They have 25 levels each and are densely occupied. Also, Sir, there are precedents in other places, which have been compulsorily acquired, where the point block flats are left alone. For example, at Depot Road and Teochew Street, the point block flats which are densely occupied are not demolished.

Mr Chiam, can you proceed with your question?

My question is, in view of the fact that HDB is going to use the land at Hillview Estate intensively and that these point block flats are already an intensive use of the land, why can they not be left alone?

Sir, the first point that Mr Chiam made was that these flats are already densely built and therefore they should be left alone. That is not the only consideration in so far as the redevelopment of the Hillview Estate is concerned. If Mr Chiam is familiar with Hillview Estate, he will realise that that estate is quite separate from the rest of the estate. So one of the considerations has been that if the three point block flats are left remaining behind as HDB flats, the maintenance and redevelopment of the area will not be as optimal as they should be. There are also complaints about the flats in the area in so far as the condition of the flats is concerned. Many residents have given feedback to the Member of Parliament that there are problems with maintenance, public transport facilities in the area, and so on. So this is the other consideration that was taken into account in the overall redevelopment of the estate. It is of course not a hard and fast rule because it depends very much on different estates in different areas. Indeed, Mr Chiam mentioned two other places where point block flats were not involved in SERS. So it really depends on what the plans are for the overall redevelopment of the estate and whether the existence of these point block flats would hinder the redevelopment plans. It is for these reasons that consideration was given to the inclusion of the three point block flats as well. Having said all that, of course, ultimately, when the residents were polled for their response to the SERS programme, the response in these point block flats also indicated that the clear majority of the residents do support the SERS programme. There are some residents I know in the point block flats who are against the redevelopment of their blocks. However, we have to bear in mind that the whole SERS programme is a public redevelopment programme that is intended to generate benefits to the majority of the residents as well as to the nation. Yes, there are some people who are against the SERS scheme. As I have indicated earlier, we will try our best to mitigate some of their concerns. But it is not possible for us to stop the SERS programme for these three blocks just because of a few residents who are against the scheme.

Sir, I do not know how the Minister arrived at this 70% approval. But from our own research, we found that almost everyone we approached was not happy about moving out from these point block flats. They stand to lose an average ---

Mr Chiam, can I ask you to proceed to your supplementary question. You appear to be making a speech.

I am coming to my question, Sir.

Can you please proceed right away to your question?

Sir, as far as we know, most of these residents at the point block flats are unhappy because their compensation is only $300,000 and many of them bought at the resale value of $360,000 for a start. They already lose $60,000.

Mr Chiam, if you have no question, I will ask you to resume your seat.

I have a question, Sir. I would like to ask when would these buildings be demolished. I just want another clarification. He said that the floor area would be bigger. Is this in respect of the new flats that they are moving to or the ones that are going to be rebuilt? If they are going to be for the rebuilt flats, it does not benefit the residents there now.

Let me try and answer Mr Chiam's questions. The first one is on the support level. What HDB does is to send out a survey form to each of the residents and the residents are asked to indicate, among other things, whether they support the SERS scheme and also what kind of flat types they want in the replacement site. This is to facilitate the planning for flats in the replacement site. The returns are collected and collated by HDB and that is how we get the 70%. It is not a figment of my imagination. It is part of a survey done by HDB. It is in writing and all the residents actually signed the returns and indicated in writing whether they support or otherwise. So it is, I believe, a fairly reliable indicator of the support level. The other point that he made is that residents who had bought at $360,000 will now get compensation of $300,000. I think that is only half the story. If he goes into it in greater detail, he will find that the majority of the residents will come out very much ahead. They will get a new flat. They will get a flat which has got a brand new lease. They will get a new subsidised flat in a better area. They will get a discount of 20% over and above all that, plus all the other benefits. It is a deal which is simply too good to refuse for many people. But there are a few, as I have indicated earlier, who may still not be happy with the total package. We will try and help them. But, by and large, the majority of the residents do benefit from the SERS scheme and that is indicated very clearly by the kind of written support level that we have been getting over the last 30-over sites. As far as floor areas are concerned, it is for the new replacement flats because there were some concerns that the replacement flats in some cases may be too small for the residents in Hillview Estate. Mr Ang Mong Seng did make a representation and HDB has found it possible to build a few of these larger flats. Not everybody would be interested in these flats, but for a few of them who are interested, HDB has found a way to cater to their interest. So these are for replacement flats, not for the existing flats.

Sir, would HDB consider building larger flats in new estates if there is such a demand?

Very good question. I have asked HDB that myself. The design of the new estates will take into account the demands for the new flat types that are being requested by residents, not just the size of the flat but also the pricing of the flat. So in this regard, the sizes that are being built in the new estates are just right, not only in terms of household family size, but also in terms of pricing. We can build flats which are much larger than what they are today. But at the end of the day, there are so many types of flats and so many number of flats that we can build of that particular size. We can build all 5-room flats of 150 sq metres. But there will be fewer 5-room flats for us to build. Then what? After that, the MP will come back and make a representation on behalf of his residents who cannot get flats. Our policy is very simple. We will try and house as many Singaporeans as possible in flats which are comfortable, which meet their requirements and, at the same time, are affordable. These are the key criteria.

Three more supplementary questions, Sir. First, when will these residents have to move out? Second, for the point block flats, will HDB review their compensation rate? And third, I believe in the last general elections, the residents there were promised upgrading. Did HDB inform the PAP candidate there that there would be upgrading? 1.30 pm

Order. End of Question time. [Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 14, 16-21, 23-25 and 28-31 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the section, "Oral Answers to Questions Not Reached" (Cols. 1789 - 1802).]

"to regulate insurance intermediaries carrying on business in Singapore", presented by the Deputy Prime Minister (BG Lee Hsien Loong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Insurance Act (Chapter 142 of the 1994 Revised Edition)",

presented by BG Lee Hsien Loong; 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 demutualisation and merger of the Stock Exchange of Singapore Limited, the Singapore International Monetary Exchange Limited and the Securities Clearing and Computer Services (Pte) Limited by making these companies wholly-owned subsidiaries of a transferee holding company, to amend the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act (Chapter 186 of the 1985 Revised Edition) to provide for the establishment of a Financial Sector Development Fund and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws", recommendation of President signified; presented by BG Lee Hsien Loong; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Land Surveyors Act (Chapter 156 of the 1992 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to provide for making final provision to meet additional expenditure for the financial year 1st April 1998 to 31st March 1999", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lim Hng Kiang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Goods and Services Tax Act (Chapter 117A of the 1997 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Lim Hng Kiang; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 1996 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Lim Hng Kiang; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Public Transport Council Act (Chapter 259B of the 1988 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Communcations and Information Technology (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day].

Final Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1998 to 31st March, 1999 contained in Paper Cmd. 4 of 1999. No notice of amendment has been received. Question, "That the sum stated for the Head of Expenditure as shown in Paper Cmd. 4 of 1999 stand part of the Final Supplementary Main Estimates", put and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $1,760,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the Head of Expenditure for the Public Services shown in the Final Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1998/1999", put and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolution. Resolution reported. "That the sum of $1,760,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the Head of Expenditure for the Public Services shown in the Final Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1998 to 31st March, 1999, contained in Paper Cmd. 4 of 1999."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution."

Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Members will recall that the former Minister for Information and the Arts had announced in this House on 12th March 1999 that the Government planned to develop a Malay Heritage Centre which would involve conserving and redeveloping the Istana Kampong Glam and the adjoining Lot 53. Members will also recall that on 15th April 1999, I informed the House of the Government's proposed new payment scheme under the Sultan Hussain Ordinance. This Bill is to give effect to that proposed new scheme. As I explained in this House on 15th April 1999, there are some 79 beneficiaries who are receiving payments under the Ordinance, many of whom are not residing in Singapore. Of those who are residents in Singapore, only a handful (14) are actually living in the former Istana Kampong Glam. The former Minister for National Development, Mr S Dhanabalan, had explained to this House on 12th March 1991 that the Kampong Glam Estate including the former Istana had reverted to the State as confirmed by the Court of Appeal in 1897. The Sultan Hussain Ordinance was enacted to take care of the financial needs of the late Sultan Hussain's family at that time. Since then, the number of beneficiaries has steadily increased and the payments have been diminishing as the income from which the payments were made declined. The individual payments would become even smaller over time if the number of beneficiaries increases. The Government had therefore decided to implement a new scheme that would work to the advantage of the beneficiaries. Under this scheme, the Government will increase the amount of payment from the current level of $29,231 per annum to $350,000 per annum, which is more than 10 times the current annual payment. This revised sum will be maintained for a fixed period of 30 years, starting from this year. In addition, the Government will offer any beneficiary the option of receiving a lump sum payment up-front instead. The lump sum would be equivalent to the present value of the 30-year payment stream. From the beneficiaries' point of view, this would work out to be more advantageous than the current system of receiving a dwindling annual sum indefinitely. The Land Office has informed all the beneficiaries of the proposed new scheme. So far, an overwhelming majority of 64 beneficiaries or 81% have informed the Land Office that they wish to opt for lump sum payment. When the amendments to the Ordinance come into force, payments can be made to the beneficiaries who have opted for a lump sum payment under the new scheme. Sir, turning to the actual provisions of the Bill, new section 4A enables the establishment of the proposed new payment scheme. The proposed scheme will apply to members of the family of the late Sultan Hussain who, before 4th May 1999, were receiving an annuity under the Ordinance. New section 4A provides that sections 3 and 4 of the main Ordinance shall cease to have effect on the day the new scheme is established. What this means, Sir, is that the existing scheme of payments will cease upon the establishment of the new improved scheme. The existing section 4 of the main Ordinance also contains the declaration that the lands in Kampong Glam were Crown lands. The amending Bill does not in any way derogate from the legislative effect of that declaration. That declaration had come into effect when the Ordinance was enacted in 1904. The lands remain as State lands. The new section 4A also provides for regulations to be made for the detailed implementation of the new scheme. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Yatiman Yusof) (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to join in the debate. I support the proposed Sultan Hussain (Amendment) Bill 1999 tabled by the Minister for Law and wish to give my opinion on the Malay Heritage Centre project. The Minister for Law, in his speech in Parliament on 15th April, mentioned about the new payment scheme under the Sultan Hussain Ordinance. Today's debate is held to pass the Ordinance. I support that this scheme be enforced for the benefit of its recipients. I am happy when I heard the Minister's statement that the majority (64 people or 81%) of the descendants had informed the Land Office that they had opted to receive lump sum payments. I believe they have made careful consideration on the advantage of the option over annual payments. The increasing number of descendants and inflation have caused the annual payments to decrease to an insignificant sum. They must have definitely considered this point. Mr Speaker, in my opinion, the offer under the new scheme is very attractive, especially on the lump sum payment option. At a rough estimate, the payment under the new scheme, if paid annually, will total about $10.5 million. (This is based on an annuity of $350,000 annually for 30 years.) If shared among 79 people, it means every person will receive about $133,000 each. We are also told that a majority of them do not even live in Singapore. (If some of them live in Malaysia, this means that they will receive about RM$295,000). The amount is not small. I am confident that such a hefty sum is offered based on the Government's spirit of goodwill towards the descendants. This is in accordance with the original spirit of the formulation of the Sultan Hussain Ordinance, which is to meet the financial needs of the late Sultan Hussain and his descendants. Mr Speaker, the main issue that emerges from this proposed amendment is actually connected to new section 4 which retains the declaration that lands, as mentioned in one part of the old section 4, in the Kampong Glam area remain as lands belonging to the British government (Crown lands). The Minister has said that the Bill that was tabled does not in any way derogate from the legislative effect of that part of section 4 which states that these lands are Crown lands. This section took effect when the Ordinance was drawn up a long time ago and hence, these lands now remain as State land. In my opinion, the legal position, whether of the original law or the amended one, is clear, that these lands are no longer the property of any descendants of Sultan Hussain. This was decided by the Court of Appeal in 1897 and remains effective today. As far as I am aware, the legitimacy has never been challenged in court in the last 100 years. Although the issue is very clear, I am disappointed to find that there are certain quarters in Malaysia who have taken the opportunity to try to confuse public opinion in their own interest and for their own benefit. I refer to Malaysian TV and print media that distort facts, coming up with what is not there and burying the truth. After the Government announced the Kampong Glam Malay Heritage Centre project, it seems that the media in that country is very enthusiastic in having coverage of the issue. What disappoints me is that most of the news reported are not true. Among those reported are, first, and I quote: 'Residents also reject the government's offer to pay US$350,000 (RM782,340) to them in the period of 30 years.' - Utusan Malaysia, 3rd May 1999, page 19. This is totally incorrect. The actual amount is S$350,000 per year for 30 years, and the total amount is estimated at S$10.5 million. Second, that the Istana Kampong Glam, "Singapore's last Malay bastion will be destroyed" - front page of Utusan Malaysia, 13th May 1999. We, in Singapore, know that the Government will spend millions of dollars to conserve and restore Istana Kampong Glam as a Malay Heritage Centre. Third, Mingguan Malaysia dated 9th May 1999, pages 24 and 25, published a two-page article entitled "The disappearance of Singapore's Malay bastion" and "300 descendants of Sultan Hussain refuse to move out to preserve the historical heritage of the Malay sultanate." It quoted someone saying that the Istana Kampong Glam project would end and erase the historical heritage of the Singapore Malay sultanate. Fourth, Utusan Malaysia, 14th May 1999, published a letter from a reader named Zia-Ul-Arief with a sensational news headline, "Singapore wants the history of Malay supremacy to vanish" on page 7. Let me quote some of the fiery words used: 'The Istana Kampong Glam episode in Singapore is a tragic incident about the fate of the Malay race. It is not about an old building being demolished for development purposes but a final episode to eliminate the history of Malay supremacy in Singapore." I further quote: 'Singapore's intention to build the Singapore Malay Heritage Centre is merely an excuse. To it, the Malays have no right to step in Singapore.' I further quote: 'Finally, the Malays in Temasek will disappear with time.' Another quote: 'The Malay community must realise and understand. If the Malay race is destroyed, our supremacy in this country will vanish. Perhaps the words of Hang Tuah that 'the Malays will not disappear from the world' will not be a reality in Temasek and our homeland.' Mr Speaker, I find such words are highly inflammatory. Fifth, Awang Sulung in his column Bisik-bisik or Whispers in Utusan Malaysia and Utusan Melayu dated 4th June, made these comments: 'As expected, the descendants of Sultan Hussain Shah who live in Istana Kampong Glam in Singapore will not be able to bear up for long in their struggle to defend their istana. Instead, they will have to be content with some compensation that does not match their position as descendants of the sultan. Therefore, they have to move from a "palace" to ordinary people's flat. Thus, that is the end of the last symbol of Malay supremacy in the republic once known as Temasek. Nothing can change the situation. The glory of the past will only remain a sad memory. What could be useful to ponder now at this sad moment is why the Singapore Malays become like that.' Sixth, the word "seize" was used repeatedly in several of their reports. A commentator of the Analisis programme by TV3 which was telecast on Wednesday, 30th June at 7.30 pm, which could be viewed by Singaporeans, made the same allegation. The TV programme commentator accused the development of the Malay Heritage Centre as "a subtle move to abolish the only symbol of Malay glory in Singapore." Mr Speaker, these allegations and statements are untruths. Seventh, the TV3 commentator also claimed that, "the Singapore Government suddenly seized the Istana and evicted the approximately 300 residents around the Istana." She added by saying, "the now powerless descendants of Sultan Hussain are being trapped by the PAP's urbanisation and resettlement policies. It is made an excuse to acquire the Malay sultanate land or clearly, Malay rights." Sir, this is gross mispresentation of facts. The fact is that the former Minister for Information and the Arts, BG George Yeo, had announced the formation of a committee to study the development of the Istana Kampong Glam as a Malay Heritage Centre as early as seven years ago. As far as I can remember, the number of residents of Istana Kampong Glam that are affected by the resettlement is 170 persons, not 300, as claimed. Why do they have to lie? Mr Speaker, we know what is going on by the look of things. Eighth, is it appropriate for Zain Mahmud, an ex-senior officer in the former Radio and Television Singapore who is now a Malaysian citizen, to write in MASSA (issue of 26th June 1999) saying, "Singapore forces the heirs of the former Sultan of Singapore to break up and move to flats to enable the inherited Istana to be made into a Malay Heritage Centre. Could this be seen as a move to put the Malays into the museum?" Are these words not mischievous, to say the least? Mr Speaker, the list of media reports which I quoted earlier shows that they have an axe to grind. The setting up of the Malay Heritage Centre at Istana Kampong Glam is part of Singapore's national project. The problem arising from the resettlement of Istana Kampong Glam's residents is an internal affair of Singapore. Such false and distorted articles on sensitive matters, on our internal matters are trying to sow the seed of discord and stir up ill feelings between races in a multi-racial Singapore. Singaporeans have to be vigilant against such attempts. We in Singapore must not be trapped by their remarks because we in Singapore know the facts, and are aware of the truth. Mr Speaker, let me add that these acts of interference in our internal affairs were made at a time when their leaders and their media took exception and strongly criticised the Business Times editorial recently, while at the same time they were doing what they were condemning. Is this not sheer hypocrisy or double standards? The setting up of the Malay Heritage Centre has actually received wide support of the Malay community. Allow me to quote the words of Haji Ridzwan Dzafir, the Chairman of the Malay Heritage Foundation, last Friday in Berita Harian: 'The Malay community accepts the proposal well. This is a major opportunity for us to develop a Malay Heritage Centre based on our own knowledge, and we will also invite Malay experts in all areas of history. We will surely be able to manage it well.' I have not actually heard the Malay population in Singapore expressing their displeasure on the Malay Heritage Centre project in Istana Kampong Glam. The willingness of distinguished, highly qualified and independent-minded professionals to sit on the Board of Directors of the Malay Heritage Centre is proof of the strong support of the Malay community for the project. Mr Speaker, we should not lose sight of the underlying reasons for the setting up of the Malay Heritage Centre and why the Istana Kampong Glam was chosen as the site. The Malay Heritage Centre is intended to complement the museums of the National Heritage Board. It will capture the history and cultural heritage of the Malays in Singapore and trace its linkages with kinsmen in this region and beyond. Personally, I see it as our way of showing respect for the past, including the history of the Malay sultanate, just as we appreciate our past by not changing the names of our roads and streets, because they are part of our heritage. It is also our way of preserving our culture and heritage and to share it with fellow Singaporeans, people in this region and the world. We should not forget that Istana Kampong Glam is located in the midst of a historic area bordered by Rochore Road, Beach Road, Jalan Sultan and Victoria Street. Its choice as the Malay Heritage Centre itself is an opportunity to turn it into a major landmark. For it was an area that had located the Malay Sultanate. It was also a place, the vicinity of which had witnessed the birth of Malay/Muslim entrepreneurs, businessmen, writers, printers, haj agencies, together with the rise of Muslim education centres, publishing houses, a place where songkoks were made, Malay leather slipper-making, polishing of diamonds, sailing and accommodation of travellers. It is the heartbeat of the Malays of the olden days. This is the spirit we wish to revive as we face the new millennium. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. I support the Sultan Hussain (Amendment) Bill proposed by the Minister for Law based on the explanation and clarification made by him when he brought forward the proposed Bill in Parliament. After the proposal was read in Parliament, I went down to various coffeeshops, hawker centres and places of worship. I found out that not even one member of the Malay community in Singapore questioned the status of the Istana Kampong Glam. Only a handful of individuals wanted to know the type of compensation to be given to the rightful descendants of Sultan Hussain. The majority of them welcomed the proposal by the Minister for Law because the Malay community had long thought that the Government has to do something about Istana Kampong Glam. They also wanted to know whether the cost for refurbishing and preserving the Istana is sufficient and how the Malay community could raise funds for the Malay Heritage Centre. In the meantime, I wish to pose several questions to the Minister for Law. Even though we have heard about the new payment scheme mentioned by Mr Yatiman Yusof, I believe that it would be much better if the Minister for Law himself could explain further. (1) Am I right that the proposal made by the Minister is in accordance with the law and not based on the whims and fancies without taking any consideration of the interest of the descendants of Sultan Hussain? (2) Is it true that the descendants of Sultan Hussain are forced to move out without being fairly compensated? (3) Is it true that they have been poorly compensated? Perhaps the Minister can give us some information on the resettlement progress. Sir, slanted and distorted reports in the newspapers and television in Malaysia, particularly a TV3 programme which was telecast on 30th June 1999, appear to have the objective of bringing about uncomfortable feelings among the Malay community. Also, there will be bad elements from those outside Singapore wanting to shake our racial harmony through their atrocious articles and statements. Those who wish to do such a thing should realise that Singapore Malays value the importance of education and tertiary learning. Do not make the Malays as pawns in their game of chess. We have learnt a lot from past experience where the words "race" and "religion" had been used by certain quarters for their interest. The Singapore Malays are now open-minded and rational in their thinking. The foreign media, whether in print or electronic, should not interfere with the internal affairs of Singapore. When Singapore newspapers made inadvertent mistakes in reporting about their country, not only their media were angry but also their leaders will condemn Singapore and insinuate about our leaders. It is best that the media of the said country find ways to overcome their problems pertaining to housing, drugs or the education of the Malay community as voiced out by their leaders. The Singapore Malay community is aware of the game played by the media of our neighbour. Remember, the Singapore Malays are not the pawns in the game of chess of the said country. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment to the Sultan Hussain Ordinance. Sir, as the Member of Parliament for Kampong Glam, obviously I have a very keen interest in the issue of this very sensitive and delicate nature. In introducing the new scheme for the payment of annuity or commuted gratuity to the family of the late Sultan Hussain, the Government has increased the quantum from $250,000, last revised in 1991, to $350,000 this year. This amount is fixed for a period of 30 years. The eligible persons are also given the option of receiving a lump sum payment upfront. The next-of-kin or estate is assured of the annuity even on the death of the person eligible for payment. It is well known from the long established records that the intention of the Sultan Hussain Ordinance enacted in 1904 was to take care of the financial needs of the family of the late Sultan Hussain at that time. I think the emphasis is "at that time". The then British Governor described them as "very improvident people". These payments were not intended to be in perpetuity but made only to the family of the late Sultan Hussain at the time the Ordinance was enacted. The Government has been generous in continuing with the practice of paying the allowance even to the subsequent generations of the late Sultan Hussain's family. This payment of allowance should have stopped with the original family members at the time of 1904. Many descendants could have been better off over the years and are no longer improvident. Yet the Government continues to pay them the allowance irrespective of their wealth and status. A number of beneficiaries also no longer reside in Singapore, yet the Government gives them the allowance regardless of where they are. In fact, our Government has done more than meeting its basic legal obligations to the family of the late Sultan Hussain. The gesture and goodwill demonstrated by our Government reflects its care and concern for the well being of the late Sultan Hussain's family. Sir, as my two colleagues have alluded to earlier about the Malaysian media, the Malaysian TV3 Malay programme, Viewpoint, did the interview with the Chairman of the Singapore Malay Heritage Foundation, Mr Ridzwan Dzafir on 10th June 1999. The topic discussed was the redevelopment of the former Istana Kampong Glam as the Malay Heritage Centre. I have the opportunity to read the full transcript of Mr Ridzwan's interview. It is amazing how TV3 has distorted a very candid and honest expression of the vision of the Malay Heritage Centre in Singapore. Through selective quotation, TV3 has done a great disservice to their Malay viewers both in Malaysia and Singapore. Clearly, the Malaysian TV channel has been mischievous, misleading and provocative. As we are aware, the Malaysian political leaders took umbrage at the Business Times' editorial on the subject of political succession in Malaysia when commenting on the forthcoming Malaysian general elections. Singapore leaders must also express our disgust at TV3 for incorrectly and improperly depicting the redevelopment of Istana Kampong Glam to a Malay Heritage Centre as an issue of Malay rights. Perhaps, the Malaysian Malays are fearful that Singaporeans would do a better job in promoting Malay culture, history and tradition with our Malay Heritage Centre. We in Singapore do not wish to interfere with the domestic politics in Malaysia. This is in line with what the Malaysian political leaders had asked our media not to interfere with theirs. The Chinese community in Singapore has been careful not to champion or speak out against the Malaysian authorities on Malaysian Chinese issues, whether on Kampong Cina or Chinese ancestral places in Malacca, Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh or Penang. It is important that the media on both sides be considerate not to interfere in the domestic politics in each neighbouring country. I find it instructive to learn from the interview that many in the Malay community in Singapore are made up of Arab, Indian and even Chinese origins. Even as the Singapore Malay leaders express concern over the trend of young Malays knowing very little about Malay culture and history in Singapore, we also have a new generation of young non-Malay Singaporeans who do not speak and understand even simple Malay. The Malay Heritage Centre will not only serve to educate young Malays but will also promote better knowledge and understanding in the Malay heritage among Chinese, Indian and other Singaporeans. We must continue to work hard to promote and sustain the inter-racial harmony into the psyche of the future generations of Singaporeans. Recently, a number of residents of Istana Kampong Glam have received resettlement notices. I wish to find out from the Minister the progress of the resettlement exercise of my Kampong Glam residents. Are all residents in Istana Kampong Glam eligible for their resettlement benefits? Will they be able to afford the HDB flats with the resettlement benefits given? I hope the Minister can give us an update of the resettlement of the Istana Kampong Glam residents. 2.15 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Sir, there have been many discussions, both in Singapore and quite surprisingly and cheekily across the Causeway, about the many implications of this Bill. But I would like to touch on a few issues that were not covered by perhaps the previous three speakers. I agree with the overall intention of the Bill, that is, to support the overall conservation and preservation of the area, and specifically Istana Kampong Glam. But here I would like to give four points. First, I think this is not about the interest of the descendants of the late Sultan Hussain. This is also not about the interest of the Malay community. I think this is about the interest of Singaporeans as a whole. All Singaporeans have an interest in that area, in Istana Kampong Glam, because it is our shared heritage of past history which we want to preserve, to reflect and share not only to record the historical developments of this country but also as preservation for our future generations. So this is about Singapore as a whole. The development of Singapore is not just the role played by Singaporeans. It has been played by many people in the region, including the Sultanate of Johor, who are still in Johor Baru, in Malaysia, including other people from India, from countries as far as Arabia, China, Myanmar, including the British interest. And here I want to make it clear that in the best interest of these people who are no longer Singaporeans, whether British interest or state of Johor and their descendants, the best is in keeping this interest alive, by making sure that the historical improvements, the redevelopment of the Malay Heritage Centre, are done well, that will reflect their role in the development of Singapore. To do otherwise, to sabotage and cast all types of allegations is not serving their best interest, let alone our own collective interest. And this is where I appeal to all parties who have made statements, including Singaporeans, to see this in a larger perspective. The second point is that this project represents an opportunity. Some people have forgotten that, and that is, the whole purpose of the Heritage Centre cannot be achieved without the cooperation of the people I have mentioned, who have taken part in this historical development of Singapore. In order to make it more than just a museum, but a living archive of our past, we need the cooperation of the Sultanate of Johor and the many descendants all around to be part of this project. I think it represents a wonderful opportunity for all of us. That spirit of opportunity and cooperation has been lost because each of them has got his own specific interest. The third point I want to stress is that there is also a role for the descendants themselves. I think there is fear that by the time they are compensated, and relocated, they do not have a role. Today, many of them are staying there. They actually, I understand, do still continue to practise some of their very unique court customs and traditions. And, really, I think they have a very large role to play in making sure that some of these customs and traditions are documented, and perhaps even at this stage, they can provide a consultative role in the process. But my sense is that if you really want to share with Singaporeans or with others who have an interest in Singapore about our past, what better way than to have people who are familiar with the customs and traditions, people who have linkages, either historical relations or family linkage, to really be part of the process, because they are the best persons to really share with Singaporeans what really took place, what are the customs and traditions. In the process, I think we can have a more effective way of teaching future generations about this. Finally, my fourth point is that we cannot afford not to succeed. We must succeed. Some of the reservations expressed by the people and community is that, I must say quite frankly, the past project of the Malay Village has raised quite a lot of expectations. People wanted the Malay Village to serve exactly the same purpose that the Malay Heritage Centre is supposed to serve. But quite unfortunately, things did not quite work out the way it should be. To a lot of people in the community, they feel this is a last chance as there is no other parcel of land, no other location, where we could preserve this and do a very good exercise. Therefore, there is a lot of concern to make sure that it will succeed this time. I think to succeed, we must make sure that every available relevant person is involved, the resources of the state are also given, in the sense of expertise and funding, to make sure that we succeed in this exercise. So I would just like to end by appealing to the Minister, in view of the four points I have mentioned, that perhaps he could help to get resources from the other neighbours that we have in Johor, and how we can borrow some of their historical annals and archives to preserve that. I understand that some are also in Riau. But, more importantly, are the other financial resources and the expertise that are currently available in Singapore. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M): Mr Speaker, Sir, I see two main impact of the proposed amendment: First, to establish a new scheme of payment of up to $350,000 to be paid annually to the descendants of the late Sultan Hussain for up to 30 years, and allowing individual beneficiary to ask for a one-time commuted gratuity. Second, to pave the way for the Istana Kampong Glam premises to be conserved and turned into a Malay Heritage Centre, a project, I am sure, Malays in Singapore and other Singaporeans happily welcome. Sir, firstly, I would like to ask if the Minister could inform the House how much the proposed amendment is likely to cost the Government, aside from the $350,000 gratuity. There are resettlement benefits involved and resettling those who are still staying in the Istana compound. How soon are they likely to vacate the place and thus make way for the Malay Heritage Centre project? Sir, I am asking these questions partly because I was informed that not all of them have agreed to accept the offer made by the Land Office. Some are even thinking of challenging the Government's right to conserve the place and turn it into a Heritage Centre. In fact, they believe that the Istana and the entire Kampong Glam estate should rightfully belong to the Sultan's descendants indefinitely. They maintain that it is not state land. As far as I know, and to some extent explained by the Minister earlier, it has been over a century long now that the land in Kampong Glam, including the Istana compound, had reverted to the country - first as Crown land when we were under the British, and later as State land of independent Singapore. Sir, I would like to ask again whether this is an accurate explanation of the status of the land, and whether there are any disputes or grey areas involved here. I recall that sometime ago the Minister had stated the legal position of the land. Perhaps he should re-state it again so that the descendants and other Singaporeans could have a clearer picture on this issue. Sir, I can say confidently that the Malay community in Singapore look forward to see an upgraded and improved Istana Kampong Glam. They are also waiting for the day that it becomes a heritage centre and hopefully play a major role in preserving and propagating the heritage of the community. Geylang Serai may be regarded by many as an emotional umbilical cord of the Malays in Singapore. This is due to its recent history and the existence of a certain "Malay flavour" in the area. However, the real and actual important history of the Malays and Singapore emanated more from the Kampong Glam district. On that account alone, I think the Government makes the right decision by choosing to conserve and upgrade this historical district. Generally, Singaporeans, including our Malay community leaders, accept the decision. Kampong Glam deserves to be awarded that position and status. We should also find more ways to bring life and add colour to the district. However, Sir, the media in Malaysia, as mentioned by my esteemed colleague earlier, seem to see it differently, and I suspect with some dubious intention. The most recent example I could recall was a TV3 programme aired on 30th June 1999. I notice that TV3 and the other media in Malaysia were quite consistent in reporting that the whole exercise of setting up a heritage centre at the old Istana was intended to close permanently an important chapter of Singapore's history linked to the Malay kingdom which once ruled this island. I do not know how such a thing could possibly be done. As far as I know, history cannot be changed. It is a well-known fact that Singapore was once part of the Johor-Riau sultanate, that we used to be administered from Kota Tinggi (the old capital of Johor) and from Riau. We also know that the powers of the last surviving sultan ended abruptly the day he transferred the administrative power of Singapura at that time to the hands of the British, I was told, for a meagre sum of $5,000. On the contrary, if the core ideas of the plan outlined by the Malay Heritage Centre committee are implemented, I say it would only heighten our awareness about that part of Singapore's history and not closing it as a chapter of our history. The history of the Malay sultanate here and its linkage to the Malay kings in the region, form part of that history. In fact, all these could be brought back to life by way of exhibitions as well as through dance and drama performances. I was told there was even a plan to do further research into the different sub-ethnic or ethnic groups of the Malay community in Singapore and how they link up to the whole region. The centre would provide Singaporeans from every racial group, including the younger generation of Malays, and even tourists from every nation, including Malaysians, a greater opportunity to have a better understanding of our history. When it is ready, I believe, a visitor could practically walk into our past and get a feel of it. Sir, I think it is most unfair and misleading on the part of the media in Malaysia to portray the project in the most negative light. What they are saying is that because Singapore is not a Malay-majority state, it is only natural that the Government here will erase any trace or symbol of history linking this island to the Malay rulers of the past. Sir, if at all it is true that the Government is race-biased and has ill-intentions against the Malays and their historical position in our country, I can assure you that I, and most likely all my Malay MP colleagues, would not be here in this House as a member of the Government. The question is: is the Malaysian media trying to provoke the Malays in Singapore to be angry against our Government over this issue? Why are they against the fact that a Chinese-majority Singapore is making the effort and is willing to spend millions of dollars to set up a Malay Heritage Centre? If a similar effort is regarded as unthinkable in Malaysia, why should they say it is bad for us? Why are they saying we want to eradicate Malay history and culture in Singapore when we are actually taking a step further to conserve Kampong Glam into a heritage centre and giving it the pulse it deserves? If a similar effort is regarded as not do-able in Malaysia, why should they say we should not venture into this? Sir, the fact that almost all the media in Malaysia were saying about the same thing in this matter seems to suggest a planned salvo against Singapore. While such a wayang may be useful for a certain party to regain its lost ground, it is most unkind that in the same breath it tries to undermine that of another. It is strange and absurd to me, Sir, that while some Malaysian leaders are angry against a certain newspaper in Singapore, namely, the Business Times, and accusing it of interfering in Malaysian domestic affairs, the media in Malaysia have almost simultaneously and blatantly interfered in the internal affairs of Singapore. Sir, we have our heritage and we have every right to preserve it. And just as the various communities in Malaysia, I am sure, can look after themselves, we can look after ourselves and protect our interest. Outsiders should not interfere. And worse still, Sir, if they employ misleading reports to create an air of distrust and suspicion of the Malays here towards our Government. From what I know, following our separation from Malaysia, there was tacit agreement that we do not try to influence each other's domestic ground. And for that reason, our respective newspapers do not circulate in each other's country. It may be necessary to say that greater care should be applied to television which can transcend borders. It is also a more powerful medium in influencing and affecting the emotions of its viewers. That is why the recent TV3 programme is a gross interference in our domestic affairs. I thought the tacit agreement between the two countries in 1965 was a sensible one and should be adhered to closely, especially as it concerns matters of race in two closely linked independent states. I hope that the media in both countries will bear this in mind. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Sultan Hussain (Amendment) Bill. I also share the sentiments and views of my hon. colleagues. Sir, unfortunately, the Malaysian media, especially TV3, have chosen to join in this debate. TV3 is a private and politically connected television station in Malaysia. In its Malay broadcast, which my colleagues have mentioned in Viewpoint on 30th June 1999, the programme and the presenter deliberately and selectively slanted the report on this issue. It has gone to the extent of accusing the Singapore Government of taking away Malay rights. The interview of Mr Ridzwan Dzafir was edited to fit in with their slant reporting. Facts which Mr Ridzwan Dzafir took great pains to state in the full transcript, which I read, were ignored. Sir, had this been a Singapore media report on Malaysia, it would have caused no less than an uproar. When the Business Times penned an editorial on 18th June 1999 on the subject of the Malaysian election and its leadership, the event caused a storm. Malaysia's Foreign Minister, Syed Hamid Albar, was reported to have told Asiaweek that "it is appalling that a paper from a friendly country should take upon itself to meddle in our internal politics." Sir, if the TV3 broadcast is not more than meddling in our internal affairs, then what is? We do not tell the Malaysians how to run their country. They should do likewise. Unfortunately, Malaysian politicians and their media indulge in double standards. They act as if they have a monopoly and a right to criticise and make comments about Singapore as it suits them. Just this very morning, there is a report in the Straits Times and the headline reads "Singapore rapped for looking down on Malaysia". The commentary in Sunday's Mingguan Malaysia by the former Chief Editor of the Utusan Malaysian group criticised the so-called media, our media, of course, and SM's negative views on Malaysia. Sir, the short response is that this is sheer paranoia. There is nothing further from the truth. It is in Singapore's interest to see a prosperous Malaysia, and we have stated in no uncertain terms and on many occasions that we believe and act no less on the "prosper thy neighbour" philosophy. Nothing hurts Singapore socially and economically more than a troubled Malaysia. When Malaysia sneezes, Singapore catches the flu. Implying that Singaporeans can be easily manipulated by western powers, the commentary goes on to play the "foreign" card, which is very popularly used in Malaysia these days, especially in the last two years. To say that the west is more comfortable with SM Lee and not so with the "anti-western Dr Mahathir" is in my view laughable. Everyone knows that SM Lee has more than his share of detractors in the west and in the western media with the likes of William Safire. It is only SM's intellect that has earned him and Singapore grudging respect. Sir, negative reports on Singapore in the Malaysian media are often received with stoic silence in Singapore. Singapore leaders and Singaporeans who are riled often take it quietly in our stride. We cannot choose our neighbours, but we can choose the way we respond to intimidation and bullying tactics. But the report on TV3 on the Sultan Hussain (Amendment) Bill takes a dangerous and provocative line, and this has to be debunked. This my colleagues have done so. Sir, Singapore's response to the Business Times' editorial, which I mentioned earlier, is a criticism of the Business Times by our Prime Minister. Will a Malaysian leader do likewise with the TV3 report?

Mr Speaker, Sir, like my colleagues, I wish to seek clarification from the Minister in regard to the legal status of the land at Istana Kampong Glam. Just now, in his speech, the Minister has confirmed that it is State land since 1897. The question is: if it is State land, why is it that the Government is providing annual payments of monies to the beneficiaries of the late Sultan Hussain? Are there avenues for these beneficiaries to claim that the land belongs to them and not to the Government? Are there any attempts by them, through legal channels, to stake their claims? Sir, I ask all these questions because there have been some statements made by some beneficiaries, as reported in the foreign media, that the land still belongs to them and that the Singapore Government suddenly confiscated Istana Kampong Glam and chased out about 300 residents. Next, Sir, I wish to ask the Government's stand with regard to the distorted reports from the foreign media, as mentioned by my colleagues just now. There have been many mischievous reports from the foreign media accusing the Government of trying to erase the last symbol of the Malay Sultanate in Singapore and also to erase the history of the Malays in Singapore. This statement is very mischievous. My question is: what is the Government going to do to correct this distorted picture? Personally, I strongly object to the interference from the foreign media with regard to our local matters, especially pertaining to the Malays in Singapore. The examples given by Mr Yatiman in his speech is a clear move by some foreign media to meddle in our internal affairs. Finally, Sir, I wish to ask the Minister about the progress on the resettlement process of the tenants of Istana Kampong Glam. Are the Government agencies giving them assistance to facilitate their move to their new homes? Sir, the very generous offer by the Government to the 79 beneficiaries of the late Sultan Hussain is much appreciated. Apart from receiving monetary payments, tenants of Istana Kampong Glam who are eligible would be getting their own flats and be able to live in a better environment as compared to their living environment now. But above all, the most important aspect is the noble intention of the Government to establish a Malay Heritage Centre at Istana Kampong Glam. This Heritage Centre will portray the Malay culture, arts, history, traditions and everything that is related to the Malays in Singapore. I am sure the future generation will be able to gather more information with regard to the Malays, including the Malay Sultanate, before the arrival of Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819. Sir, the Malays are proud of the history of the Malay Sultanate in Singapore. However, that era is now part of our history. The Malays now look towards the future with confidence in a meritocratic Singapore. While some hearts still hold for the golden past, the Malays are now more realistic and want to move along with the mainstream to face the challenges of the new millennium. Sir, I support this Bill as it will benefit not only the Malays but, most importantly, all races in Singapore because the Malay Heritage Centre shall be a part of the heritage of a multi-racial Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Members who have spoken - Mr Yatiman Yusof, Mr Harun Ghani, Mr Loh Meng See, Mr Zulkifli Baharudin, Mr Mohamad Maidin, Mr Chng Hee Kok and Encik Ibrahim Othman. Let me touch on the points that they have raised. First, the matter of clarifying the legal aspects which some of my colleagues, Mr Yatiman Yusof, Mr Mohamad Maidin and Encik Ibrahim Othman, referred to. I have already outlined the legal position at a previous sitting but in response to the questions raised by Members, let me reiterate that the legal position is very clear. In fact, the former Minister for National Development, Mr Dhanabalan, said in this House on 15th April 1989, and I quote: "In 1896 towards the end of the last century, there was a dispute among the family of Sultan Hussain as to who was the successor to the Sultanate and to the estate, ie, the Kampong Glam Estate. This matter went to court and in December 1897, the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no one who could claim to be successor. The estate therefore reverted to the Crown. It became State Land and it was no longer subject to the treaties which previously affected it." Since then, Sir, that is for more than 100 years, the Kampong Glam Estate, including the former Istana, has been State Land. Furthermore, this legal position has been made very clear in the Sultan Hussain Ordinance, which was enacted in 1904. The Ordinance, Sir, (and I am referring to the main Ordinance, not to the amendment Bill) has several provisions which reiterate this position. For example, section 2, and I quote, "The said land situate in Kampong Glam having reverted to the Crown shall be administered by the Collector of Land Revenue in the same manner as other Crown lands." And section 4 reads, "If the said lands in Kampong Glam which are hereby declared to have reverted to the Crown as decided by the Court of Appeal of the Colony." The legal position is very clear that these have been and are State lands. In answer to the specific questions by Encik Ibrahim Othman on why we have the annual payment, as I have stated in my main speech today as well as in the previous sitting, it was especially provided for in the Ordinance as an obligation of the Government to pay. But as I also said in this House the rationale was to take care of the then family of the late Sultan Hussain who was described by the Government at that time as being financially improvident. So, that was the background to that. I was asked by some who spoke about the progress on resettlement of occupants. I would say, Sir, that the resettlement exercise is proceeding well. Of course, this process takes time because the Land Office has to identify and ascertain who were the occupants and who are eligible for resettlement benefits. For example, I was told that a few who were staying there were foreign workers. Some are eligible for certain kinds of benefits and some are eligible for lesser benefits. Some were occupants of HDB flats or were actually in ownership of HDB flats. Under the normal rules for resettlement, we have to assess their different eligibility. As to whether the resettlement payments and benefits will enable them to pay the downpayment for HDB flats, in my discussion with my officials, I was assured that those who would qualify for HDB flats would have the ability to pay for whatever initial payments for the HDB flats. As to the progress of the resettlement exercise, as of today, the Land Office has processed the majority of cases and almost three-quarters, some 122 out of the 170 individuals, have already accepted the resettlement package and have moved out or are in the process of moving out. I was asked about the cost and expenses to the Government. The final cost of the annual improved payments will actually depend on how many finally opt for annual payment and how many opt for the lump sum payments. Taking into account the number of people who have opted for lump sum payment, the new scheme may cost the Government close to $6 million at today's value. But the Government also incurs cost as regards the resettlement benefits but I am unable now, in this House, to state exactly what the cost will be as the exercise is still in progress and individual claims are not identical. But we expect it to be around $1.5 million. Mr Zulkifli Baharudin made some comments about the Malay Heritage Centre which will be taken into account, I am sure, by both MITA as well as the Malay Heritage Foundation. He made some specific points on the need for involving other descendants, the need for being open to cooperation from different quarters and different sources. I have had a discussion with Mr Ridzwan Dzafir and from these discussions I have a clear impression that he is a man receptive to ideas and suggestions from all quarters and I have no doubt that, with that kind of willingness, he will be prepared to consider cooperation and ideas from all sources, whether within Singapore or outside, as to how to make the Malay Heritage Centre a truly, lively and effective heritage centre. Let me turn to the other main points raised by colleagues concerning the comments, false reports, distorted reports and even mischievous reports which have appeared in the Malaysian media, including the more recent TV3 programme. Let me recount some of these false allegations and distortions. Firstly, it had been erroneously reported that the Istana building will be demolished. This is of course untrue. Not only it is not to be demolished, but the building will be conserved and used for purposes of the Malay Heritage Centre. This has been made clear right from the beginning. Secondly, it was erroneously reported that the beneficiaries would receive a total of only $350,000. This again is not true. The truth is that they would get $350,000 per annum over 30 years, if it is on an annual payment scheme. Thirdly, some reports also stated the Government had "suddenly seized the land and evicted the 300 residents". As Mr Yatiman Yusof pointed out, it is not 300, but 170. But the main sting of this mischief is that we suddenly seized the land. This is also untrue. The Government had, on several occasions, as far back as 1993, announced in this House, the Government's plan to develop the Istana Kampong Glam into a Malay Heritage Centre. In May 1993, the then Minister for Information and the Arts, my colleague, BG George Yeo, informed the House that Mr Ridzwan Dzafir was chairing a working group to look into this project. So, it is untrue to say it was "sudden". Furthermore, no one has been suddenly evicted because normal resettlement procedures have been followed, giving everyone ample time to make arrangements. Also, as I have mentioned, the Kampong Glam Estate has been State land for more than 100 years. The question of the Government "seizing" the land therefore does not arise. I spoke about the resettlement exercise. Some of these Malaysian media reports had distorted the facts about the resettlement scheme and gave the impression that they were being evicted without any resettlement benefit. Mr Harun Ghani asked me about this. Sir, the truth is that the occupants have been offered attractive resettlement benefits which include alternative HDB housing, removal allowances, payment for individual structures in the vicinity of the Istana from which they are vacating and also ex-gratia payments. The media reports in Malaysia have also conveniently ignored or omitted the fact that the project was to establish the Malay Heritage Centre which would benefit not only the Malay community but also preserve Singapore's multi-cultural heritage. Several MPs, Mr Zulkifli, Mr Loh Meng See and others, have emphasised the important point that this is not an issue of just preserving the Malay heritage, but the heritage centre is a project which is going to benefit the entire Singapore community. It is a symbol of our shared heritage. Members have also referred to the recent TV3 programme which is a good example of suppression of facts. TV3 interviewed Mr Ridzwan Dzafir, Chairman of the Malay Heritage Foundation. However, it suppressed the important points made by Mr Ridzwan. For example, Mr Ridzwan had said, "the Malay community greatly welcomes the Malay Heritage Centre." This was not carried by TV3. He also said, "Regarding the land or Istana Kampong Glam and the Bendadara House, they have become State land for almost 100 years so it is not a problem for the Government here.". This was also not carried. TV3 had also mischievously portrayed the development of the Malay Heritage Centre "as an excuse to acquire the Malay sultanate land", deny Malay rights and "erase the history of the Malays". How can the intention be to erase the history of the Malays when so much efforts and so much money have been expended by the Government to preserve and project the heritage of the Malays, which is part and parcel of the Singapore heritage? Sir, I therefore share the views of Members that such irresponsible and mischievous media reports amount to interference in our internal affairs. These media reports have deliberately distorted and played up the facts of a sensitive racial internal issue, without regard to the possible damage to the racial harmony and social stability in Singapore. They could have easily worked up our Malay ground, caused ill feelings between the different communities and soured race relations. Fortunately, Sir, the facts were well publicised and known to all Singaporeans so that these slanted reports failed to provoke a response from Singaporeans or to damage our racial harmony. Sir, recently Malaysian media and others had accused the Singapore Business Times (BT) of interfering in Malaysia's internal affairs by commenting on political developments there. Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's Press Secretary wrote to the BT to put on record the Government's disapproval of the BT editorial in question. As the Members who have spoken have pointed out, non-interference cannot be a one-sided matter. The Malaysian media should not practise double standards. They should heed their own advice and refrain from interfering in Singapore's internal affairs.

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

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.25 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.00 pm until 3.25 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.25 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, since the Drug Trafficking (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, or the DTA in short, was enacted in 1993, global efforts to curb money laundering have intensified substantially. As trade and capital flows become increasingly international and as Singapore expands its role as a financial centre, there is increased scope not only for cross-border crimes but also international money laundering to occur here. Hence, further amendments to the DTA are necessary to enable us to deter and combat money laundering more effectively as well as to deprive criminals of the enjoyment of the benefits of their crime. The amended legislation will give our enforcement agencies and financial regulators sharper tools in their work to help maintain Singapore's reputation as a well-regulated financial centre and a city largely free of crime. Serious Crimes - Money Laundering The DTA was enacted to criminalise the laundering of benefits derived from drug trafficking, as well as to allow for the investigation and the confiscation of such benefits. Money laundering, as is commonly known, consists of concealing the origin of moneys derived from illicit activities and passing them off as the legitimate proceeds of lawful activities. When the DTA was enacted, drug trafficking was viewed internationally, and in Singapore, as the primary source of funds for money laundering. However, since then, there has been overwhelming evidence that transnational crime, which is a growing problem for the world community, is not restricted to drugs or proceeds of drug trafficking. Criminal organisations are multi-faceted and other serious offences constitute an important and growing source of illegal wealth entering legitimate financial channels. This has led to an international trend of criminalising the laundering of not only drug money but also the proceeds of other serious crimes as well. For example, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), or an inter-Governmental body formed in 1989 by the G-7 to combat money laundering globally, started first by requiring its members to take measures to combat drug money laundering. Then in June 1996, it required its members to extend money laundering predicate offences to beyond drug trafficking. All Financial Action Task Force members, which include most of the Western developed countries and Hong Kong among others, have already extended or taken measures to extend the scope of their anti-money laundering regime to include the proceeds of serious crimes. Singapore, which joined the Financial Action Task Force in 1991, should do likewise, to demonstrate that we are committed to being a responsible partner in international initiatives to combat crime. Apart from international trends, it is also important for our local enforcement efforts to target the proceeds of a wide range of serious crimes. Firstly, drug trafficking is not the only crime that results in significant amounts of illegal proceeds. Crimes, such as fraud and criminal breach of trust, do too. We do not want criminals or their families to be able to enjoy the fruits of such crimes. Secondly, our enforcement efforts against money laundering have sometimes been hindered at the investigation stage. For example, to obtain an order to investigate into the accounts of a suspect, the authorities have to be able to satisfy the courts that, among others, there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the suspect has carried out or has benefited from drug trafficking. This may be difficult to do as criminals, nowadays, can be involved in several crimes, where the proceeds are mixed. Hence, this Bill seeks to amend the DTA to extend the asset confiscation and anti-money laundering provisions of the DTA beyond drug trafficking to cover other serious crimes. To give effect to this, clauses 23 and 25 of the Bill seek to provide for the money laundering offences arising from benefits of serious offences. These include the conspiracy, incitement, attempt and abetment of these offences. Clause 30 of the Bill inserts a Second Schedule to the DTA to specify the list of serious crimes to be included in the Act. The list includes crimes that are serious in nature but excludes serious crimes that cannot be linked to money laundering (for example, bigamy and incest). Many of the amendments in the Bill merely extend current provisions covering drug trafficking proceeds to serious crimes proceeds. For example, clause 7 of the Bill inserts a new section 4A. In extending our measures to deal with serious crimes, we are mindful that the Bill should not adversely affect the operations of the financial institutions in Singapore. Hence, the Bill provides similar safeguards, found in the existing DTA for investigations into drug offences, to prevent third parties from being able to pry into a person's financial accounts under frivolous pretext or under the guise of investigations into serious offences. These can be found in the new sections 26A, 26B and 34 and the amendments to section 31. In the case of foreign requests for financial information, some of the safeguards include the need for the existence of a bilateral agreement or treaty with the requesting country, the offence being a crime in both countries and the assistance not being contrary to public interest. The amended legislation is not more liberal than those of other financial centres in releasing information to foreign enforcement agencies. Sir, the Bill also introduces various amendments to fine-tune the provisions of the DTA to make it a more effective tool to combat money laundering and deprive criminals of their ill-gotten gains. Let me explain the more important ones. Firstly, clauses 22 to 25 amend the money laundering offences to clarify that the prosecution need not prove that the accused had actual knowledge of the relevant facts, that is, that the person is a drug trafficker, or that his proceeds are derived from drug trafficking or other serious crimes. Instead, the accused can be convicted based on evidence showing that he had "reasonable grounds to believe" that the person trafficked in drugs or the proceeds were derived from drug trafficking or other serious crimes. This would facilitate enforcement because in practice, proof of actual knowledge is difficult to produce. This is in line with the laws of many countries. We are also increasing the penalties for money laundering from seven years jail and/or $100,000 fine to seven years jail and/or $200,000. As money laundering is primarily a crime involving large amounts of money, the current maximum of $100,000 should be increased. Secondly, clause 20 inserts a new section to make the reporting of suspicious transactions mandatory for all persons, including financial institutions and non-financial institutions. This means that a person who, in the course of his professional duties, comes to know or suspect that any property represents the proceeds of drug trafficking or serious crimes is obliged to disclose the knowledge or suspicion to the authorities. The maximum penalty for non-disclosure is a $10,000 fine. Some permissible exceptions are mentioned in the new section. Suspicious transactions reporting is already mandatory for banks under current MAS Guidelines which have the force of law. This new section extends the obligation to non-financial institutions and centralises the provisions in the DTA. Many countries, especially those in the FATF, have already enacted similar provisions as there is worldwide recognition that the reporting of suspicious transactions is a key source of intelligence for law enforcement authorities tackling money laundering. Thirdly, the new sections 26B and 34 lower the standard required for foreign offences in respect of applying for court warrants or orders to obtain information from financial institutions from "prima facie case" to "reasonable grounds for suspecting". As I have mentioned, money laundering is often an international crime and hence international cooperation is vital. However, in our experience of forging international cooperation with foreign countries, "prima facie case" is too high a hurdle to meet in order to assist other countries in their investigations. "Reasonable grounds for suspecting" is also the test in many countries. Hence it is necessary to lower it. Fourthly, clause 25 inserts a new section 43B to make it an offence for a person who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a money laundering investigation is being or about to be conducted to tip-off another person with information which is likely to prejudice the investigation. Since the new offence of tipping off is merely an extension of the offence of prejudicing investigation, the penalty for this will be the same as that for prejudicing investigations under section 44, ie, a maximum of three years imprisonment and/or a $30,000 fine. Fifthly, as drug money laundering offences are already extraditable, clause 31(3) similarly amends the Extradition Act to make serious crimes money-laundering offences extraditable. Finally, the Bill also provides for repealing the Corruption (Confiscation of Benefits) Act in clause 31(2). This is because the amended DTA would apply to corruption offences and would have a scope wider than the Corruption (Confiscation of Benefits) Act as it also includes provisions relating to foreign corruption offences and criminalises the money laundering of corruption proceeds. In addition, the Bill provides for the amended Act to be renamed the "Corruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act" to reflect its wider scope. The word "Corruption" is placed in the title as we want to send the signal that corruption will continue to be tackled even more seriously in Singapore after the repeal of the Corruption (Confiscation of Benefits) Act. Sir, to conclude, the new laws, by confiscating the illegal proceeds of serious crimes and preventing criminals from enjoying the fruits of their crimes, would render many crimes unprofitable ventures. These will be additional weapons to fight against crime in Singapore. In addition, the proposed amendments would also allow my Ministry to keep ahead of the ever-changing transnational crime and global money laundering situation. In particular, although Singapore is one of the key financial centres in the world - it is open, efficient and sophisticated - we also want to ensure that she is not susceptible to money laundering. These proposed amendments would in fact enhance Singapore's growth and reputation as a modern international financial centre. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

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

Debate resumed.

(In Malay): Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to join in this debate. It is timely that the proposed amendment to the Drug Trafficking (Confiscation of Benefits) Act to include corruption practices and other serious crimes be introduced to safeguard the interest of our country. Singapore has come a long way to be what it is today and it is vital that we equip our law enforcement agencies with a more effective legislation to combat corrupt practices and other serious crimes. I believe that with the amendment Bill there will be a positive effect on the political, social and economic aspects of our country. Those who have the intention of committing drug trafficking, corrupt practices and other serious crimes at the expense of the interest of Singapore will have to think twice before committing such crimes. With the amendment Bill, the relevant authorities will have the powers to confiscate the proceeds acquired by the criminals through their criminal activities and hit them hard in their pockets. This will also deter others from committing such offences. Sir, I strongly support the Drug Trafficking (Confiscation of Benefits) (Amendment) Bill on the following grounds: (a) It is hard on the criminals and deters others from committing such crimes. (b) It helps to maintain low crime rate and enhance the confidence of foreign investors. (c) It helps to maintain political, social and economic stability of our country. In doing so, it could help to create more employment opportunities in Singapore. (d) It helps to achieve our vision in making Singapore a safe and best home for everyone. The amendment Bill not only benefits both Singaporeans and foreign investors alike, it also enhances Singapore's image at the international level. I believe that this amendment is necessary if we were to see stability in our country. Evidently, it is vital that the amendment to the Drug Trafficking (Confiscation of Benefits) Act be amended to include corrupt practices and other serious crimes for the interest of our country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity. Sir, the Minister has given the background why this legislation is necessary. I am generally in support of most of the provisions. I have some reservation on some of the clauses which I will come to later. First, let me address the basic philosophy why we need to have this legislation. We had for a long time in the early 70s taken seriously the question of drug and drug trafficking. It is important that our legislation takes care of drug trafficking and money laundering. In many parts of the world, drug trafficking is becoming an acute problem. We need to have legislation that will take care of this, and I am glad that the Government has taken the step. I am a little unhappy that under new section 43 the fine is only $30,000. $30,000 is a paltry sum for traffickers and those who are helping the traffickers. I hope that this will be reviewed in future. Sir, I am also concerned with clause 22. As a lawyer, knowledge is a very important factor in a crime. But I am prepared in this instance to support the proposed amendment because we have to seek from actual knowledge to one where there is a reasonable ground to believe, and I think the court will no doubt take a great deal of pain to see that this is observed. Initially, I have my doubt whether this piece of legislation should be worded this way. But after carefully considering the fact, I am prepared to support the provisions in the Bill. Sir, initially I have also reservation on increasing the penalty from $100,000 to $200,000. But I support again because I think it is timely to increase the fine from $100,000 to $200,000. In fact, I would have been happier if it was higher, but let us go stage by stage. Sir, generally, we have a balanced legislation here, and I hope that the whole House will join me in supporting the Bill.

Sir, I thank the speakers for supporting the Bill. I have explained why we have pegged the penalty of $30,000 for those who were convicted of tipping off information to the people concerned. This is actually consistent with section 44 of the current DTA. So we are not doing anything new. Similarly, for the other provisions, it is also consistent with the current DTA, and we have from experience no reason right now to increase that penalty. And on some subsequent occasion if we need to do that, we will consider the change. As to whether we should have imposed "actual knowledge" instead of "reasonable ground to believe", the latter is a standard set in many other countries, and I do not believe that we should be more stringent than the other countries. Since we are part of the international community in this area, we should therefore be in line with what the other countries are doing. We are not doing more; we are not doing less than what others are doing. We are in keeping with the international mood and climate and the trend as required of the other countries.

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to provide for the registration of dentists and for matters connected therewith, and to repeal the Dentists Act (Chapter 76 of the 1985 Revised Edition). It will enhance the role of the Dental Council so that it can perform its functions more effectively and raise the standards of professional conduct and practice. Singapore enjoys a high standard of dental care. Today there are almost 1,000 graduate dentists and 67 Division II dentists. And amongst our graduate dentists, more than a quarter have postgraduate qualifications, providing a wide range of specialist dental care. To maintain this high standard of dental care, we need to ensure that dental students are trained effectively and registered practitioners are kept abreast of advances in dental sciences to meet the needs and expectations of Singaporeans. Let me now highlight the major new provisions that are being introduced in this Bill. The Dental Council The current Act provides for a Dental Board of eight appointed members and two ex-officio members. There is no provision for the election of members to the Dental Board. To bring it in line with the corporate governance of the medical and other professions, the Bill proposes a Council of six appointed and five elected members. The appointed members will represent the cross-section of dentists, with one member from the academia, one member from the non-graduate dentists and the rest from the public and private sectors. The election of five council members will provide the mechanism for representatives to be elected by their peers. In the current Act, the Director of Dental Service is designated as the President of the Dental Board. In future, members of the Council shall themselves elect one of its members to be the President. This will give the Council greater autonomy and self-regulation. To ensure that Council members take their appointments seriously, clause 8 provides for the removal from office of any member of the Council who is absent without leave for three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Council or its Committees. The Bill will make it compulsory to vote for the elected members to the Council. This is similar to the provisions in the Medical Registration Act and the Legal Profession Act, which also provide for compulsory voting of members to the Medical Council and the Law Society respectively. Functions of the Dental Council In addition to the current functions of registering dentists, issuing practising licences, and regulating the professional conduct of dentists, the Bill seeks to broaden the functions of the Dental Council. Clause 4 enables the Dental Council to make recommendations to the appropriate authorities on: (i) the content and nature of courses of instruction and examinations leading to the dental degree at NUS; and (ii) the training and continuing education of registered dentists. This is to ensure that our dental students and practising dentists continue to receive appropriate training, and to keep abreast of advances and developments in order to maintain high professional standards. Register of Dental Specialists With the increasing number of graduate dentists and the trend towards specialisation, there is a need for us to establish a dental specialist register. Clause 31 provides for the establishment of a Dental Specialists Register through the publication of Regulations to be made under this Act as and when necessary. Disciplinary Procedures Sir, let me now move on to disciplinary procedures. To expedite the handling of complaints, and to allow for wider representation from dentists in general and from the lay public, the Bill allows for the setting up of Complaints Committees to include Dental Council Members, other dentists and lay persons. Presently, there are no provisions for lay persons in the disciplinary process. The concept of lay persons being involved in disciplinary procedures is in the Medical Registration Act, the Legal Profession Act and Accountants Act. It makes the disciplinary process more transparent and open. Today, dentists are disciplined only if they are convicted of any heinous offence, or are guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect. The proposed amendments will allow the Council to discipline dentists who have been guilty of any improper act or conduct which brings disrepute to his profession, or who have been guilty of professional misconduct. This is also in line with provisions in the Medical Registration Act. If a dentist is guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect, the existing Act prescribes only one penalty, that of striking his name off the register. This does not allow for a graded penalty according to the severity of the offence. The Bill addresses these shortcomings by enhancing the penalty options available to the Dental Council. It empowers the Council to: (i) remove the name of the dentist from the Dentists Register; (ii) suspend the dentist from practice for a maximum period of three years; (iii) impose a fine of not more than $5,000; or (iv) censure the dentist. The Council shall also be empowered to order the suspension or removal of name to take effect immediately, instead of after 30 days, if it is deemed necessary in the public interest or in the best interest of the dental practitioner concerned. Restoration to the Register If a dentist has his name removed from the Register pursuant to a disciplinary inquiry, it does not mean that he cannot practise his profession anymore. There is provision for the dentist to apply for his name to be restored after a minimum period of three years. Health Committee At present, a dentist who is unfit to practise because of psychiatric condition, drug or alcohol dependency or any other physical or mental condition, cannot be removed from the Register. Clauses 48 and 49 provide for the setting up of a Health Committee to review any dentist whose fitness to practise is impaired by reason of his physical or mental condition. It will be empowered to restrict or suspend the dentist's practice, or recommend that his name be removed from the Register. The Medical Registration Act and the Dentists Act of the United Kingdom also provide for the establishment of a Health Committee with similar functions. Proposed increase in penalty for unauthorised persons acting as dentists Another problem, which we face from time to time, is the illegal conduct of dental procedures by unqualified persons, eg, the making of dentures. Often these are done improperly or under non-hygienic conditions. Clause 28 increases the maximum penalty for a first offender from the present $2,000 to $25,000. For subsequent offences, the penalties will be increased to $50,000 or imprisonment of up to six months or both. These enhanced penalties very clearly signal that the Government is determined to stamp out such cases of illegal practice. Consequential and other minor amendments The Bill also proposes consequential changes as a result of the proposed amendments that I have just described, and other minor amendments to delete obsolete terminology and to update the existing provisions. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have come a long way in the provision of dental care. The general state of dental health in Singapore is good. It is that way because we have well trained and highly competent dentists. The challenges facing the dental profession and the entire healthcare sector will be greater in the years ahead. We will continue to see the development of new materials to treat dental decay, new techniques and new methods to replace missing teeth. The dental profession must ensure that its members are properly qualified before they are allowed to use the new materials and technology. At the same time, we must deter dentists from advising their patients to undergo unnecessary high-tech procedures for financial or other reasons. This Bill will help to achieve these objectives. It will enhance the role of the Dental Council, and empower it to safeguard the high professional and ethical standards of dental practice, and to uphold the integrity of the profession. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Dentists Bill. As it repeals and re-enacts, with amendments, the Dentists Act of 1985 that has become outdated and inadequate in many areas, its introduction is necessary and timely. Although there are several details that merit concern and comment, I feel that the setting up of a Dental Council to replace the Dental Board is significant and very welcome. Unlike previously, the registered dentists will now have their own representatives as spelt out in the amendments in clause 3, in this important "watchdog body" of the profession. Furthermore, the role of the Dental Board is not replaced by a 6-function regulatory role of the Dental Council, as defined in clause 4. All this should place the "watchdog body" of the dental profession in good stead in the eyes of both the dental practitioners as well as the general public. Sir, I would like to comment on other aspects of the Dentists Bill as follows: Clause 4. This clause defines the functions of the Dental Council and the function to determine and regulate the conduct and ethics of registered dentists is welcome indeed. This will provide the avenue for patients to bring complaints against their dentists. Furthermore, this will establish a means to protect patients from unscrupulous or unethical dentists as well as to ensure the high standards of the dental profession here. Many are concerned about the Dental Council having full control over the dentists in Singapore because the application for a Practising Certificate shall be made in such form and manner as the Dental Council may require. Sir, this can become one control too many for the dentists and be an extra "bitter pill to swallow" for all the dentists, especially if the "such form and manner" becomes too restrictive and expensive to comply with. I would like to urge the Council to practise restraint and not to use the issuing of the Practising Certificate as a tool to pressurise and to cause extra demands on the dental profession. Clause 15(5)(b). In this clause, the words "is not of good reputation and character" are undesirably vague and wide. This criterion, Sir, is also very subjective. Perhaps, it should be qualified by adding the words "such as to render the person unfit, in the interest of the public, to practise his or her profession." Clause 17(6) and (7). There are no guidelines as to what premises or conditions are deemed unsuitable for practising dentistry. There is also no avenue of appeal. This makes it draconian and unsatisfactory. Clause 21(1)(e). This appears to be targeted at "bond breakers". There is inevitably a penalty imposed where there is a breach of undertaking. It seems inequitable and unduly harsh to deregister a dentist merely on this ground. Clause 34(1). This clause requires the Dental Council to appoint not less than five and not more than 10 lay persons together with not less than 10 and not more than 20 registered dentists as part of its Complaints Panel. This means a ratio of two registered dentists to one lay person is possible in the Committee of Complaints. Some people may argue that this will result in a bias in the assessment of a patient's complaint since there is an easy majority of dentists. The public would probably prefer a more balanced representation in the committee for assessments to be open and fair. An unbalanced representation may cause the Committee of Complaints to be perceived as a "peer review or internal audit panel". Clause 36(7) and (10). These subclauses state that the dentist concerned shall not have the right to be heard by the Complaints Committee and shall not have access to all information used by the Complaints Committee. Sir, this is a denial of natural justice since it is only fair and logical for the dentist to be allowed an opportunity to defend himself. This is especially when the findings on each case of the Complaints Committee has such important repercussions as stated in clause 38. Furthermore, I am concerned whether the findings and recommendations of the Complaints Committee are admissible as evidence in any legal proceedings. Clause 39(2) and (3). There is no obligation on the part of the Committee to give its grounds of decision. How then is it possible for the aggrieved dentist to appeal with any substance? Clause 44(1). The appointment of a Disciplinary Committee as in this Dental Act has been long overdue and is urgently required to deal with the area of misconduct and the appropriate disciplinary actions to be meted out. Clause 44(1) has rightly categorised offences into either professional misconduct or improper act or conduct and five different ways to deal with an offence. This is superior to that in the old Act where a dentist could be deregistered for heinous offence or guilty of infamous or disgraceful conduct in a professional sense. There was only one penalty in the old Act, regardless of the severity of the misconduct - the wrongdoer had to be struck off the register of dentists. Clause 44(1)(i) to (v) of the new Act provides for different types of disciplinary actions from fine alone to temporary deregistration before removal of name from the register. Sir, to conclude, I would like to say that with this Dentists Bill, we could have avoided the awkward situation, where the judgement of the Dental Board last year, in the case of a dentist who was implicated in breach of the Advertising Guidelines, was reversed by the High Court. While I agree with the judgement of the High Court in this case, I am concerned about conflicting judgements that may arise in the future. Would that case set a precedent for future cases of disciplinary actions by the Dental Council to be freely brought to the Courts of Appeal? Would that lead to undermining of the authority and judgement of the Dental Council? If so, is there a question mark over the legitimacy of the Dental Council and since the Dental Council follows the guidelines of the Dentists Act, would this Act be redundant? Sir, I support the Bill.

Sir, I rise to support the Bill. My interest in this Bill arose after a judgement by Judicial Commissioner Amarjeet Singh which was referred to by my colleague earlier. In that case, he mentioned, in his judgement, that it is time the Dental Act be reviewed. I am glad that the Government has done that. In fact, I have never expected it to be done in such a fast speed and I congratulate the Ministry for doing it so quickly. Sir, it is important for this Parliament to review from time to time legislation which are out of time and to repeal and re-enact them in keeping with the needs of the society. Sir, Dr Lily Neo has mentioned some of the provisions but I would like to mention some other provisions. In particular, I am gratified that now, the Dental Council will be made up of both elected and appointed members. My regret is that the appointed members would be in the majority. I hope that, in keeping with the other professional bodies like the Law Society, where only two representatives from the Ministry sit in the Council, we should have more elected persons. Sir, the other point that I would also like to commend and applaud is the compulsory voting. It is very important for professionals to take an interest in their professional body, just like every Singaporean is required to vote in a parliamentary election. I think this is a healthy trend. We should require that if every professional wants to practise, he must vote unless he has got exceptional reasons. Sir, the functions of the Council have been well laid down and it will help in the growth of the dental profession. My only concern is on clause 7 "disqualifications for membership of the Council". Why should a person who is an undischarged bankrupt not be allowed to sit on the Council? I can understand the position of an accountant or a lawyer who is handling money. But a dentist who is bankrupt can practise but could not serve on the Council. I find that this is a very contradictory position. I hope that this provision could be reviewed. Sir, the other clause that I am a little concerned is this. Clause 15(5)(b) refuses to register any applicant who is not of good reputation and character. These are very subjective tests. What happens if the dentist has a girlfriend? Does it mean that he is not of good conduct? I think we must have a definition, Sir. But I am just stating the worst scenario as an example. I am asking this House that when we have a legislation of this nature, which is going to be interpreted by the Dental Council, possibly by the court if it goes before the court, a definition ought to be put in. In fact, I do not think this clause should be in the Bill at all. But if we insist on it, then we should provide for it. The other worrying trend is that, with due respect to the Minister, the Minister's decision is going to be final in clause 15. This would affect the livelihood of a professional colleague. It would be very important for us to provide an avenue. If there is a refusal, he should have right of audience to the Court. I may be the only lone voice in this Chamber where I think it is very important for us to have a safeguard. I am quite sure that there would be no abuse but the question is the precedent that we are going to set in this House. I hope the Minister will consider this because it is going to affect the career and livelihood of the man. Sir, Dr Lily Neo has, more than a lawyer, argued the case so well that I cannot add anything further other than those two comments and I ask the Minister to consider the proposal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the two Members for their support of the Bill and their comments. Let me take the detailed comments in turn. Dr Lily Neo made the comment that in clause 4, applications may be made in such form or manner and that she hopes that in administering the practising certificates, the Dental Council would not be too restrictive. I assure the House that the purpose of the Dentists Bill is to register and make sure that all dentists have the qualifications, that they are physically and mentally fit to practise and that they are of sound character and reputation. Both Members questioned the need for clause 15 that practising dentists must be of good reputation and character. As I said, all dentists, and indeed all professions, must not only have the qualifications to practise. I think society requires that all professions have certain set standards and one of the standards is that they be of good reputation and character. I think that is quite well defined. The Bill allows for any person who is not registered because of that clause to have an avenue of appeal. This requirement incidentally appears in many professional Acts. Dr Lee tells me it also applies to veterinarians. An hon. Member: Lawyers.

I do not know about lawyers. Maybe lawyers do not need to be of good reputation and character to be registered.

I object to that remark.

My apologies. So it is also in the Legal Profession Act. In that case, there should not be any objection to having this clause of good reputation and character. Clause 17(6) and (7) talks about the premises for a dentist to practise. The requirement is for practising in the premises. It is not laid out in the Dentists Bill. In fact, it is laid out in the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act. In that Act, the criteria for premises to be registered for such practices are quite clearly laid out and also if the premises are not registered, the licensing authority is required to give reasons why the criteria are not met. So the applicant can make good the shortfalls and allow their premises to be registered. Clause 21(1) talks about bond breaking. We have gone through this debate the last time when we discussed the Medical Registration Act. Basically, the number of applicants to both the medical and dentistry faculties in Singapore is very large. We have to restrict the numbers. The courses are conducted at great expense to the public. The courses are very heavily subsidised and therefore we require students entering these two faculties to give an undertaking that they serve the community after their graduation. If they break the bond, we will require them to pay up the liquidated damages for breaking the bond. If they do not pay the liquidated damages, of course they run the risk of being de-registered as a dentist. I think that is fair because they are educated at great expense by the community and it is not unfair of the community to expect them to serve the community in return. Dr Lily Neo also asked about the way the Complaints Committee is conducted. Let me explain that the Complaints Committee is intended as a screening process before a complaint is taken up by the Disciplinary Committee. We want a process by which a complaint by the public or by other professionals is assessed to see whether that complaint is bona fide and, in fact, should be taken up by the Disciplinary Committee. There is no need for the dentist who is complained against to appear before the Complaints Committee. If he is required to show cause, he will have plenty of chances in front of the Disciplinary Committee. Both Mr Rai and Dr Lily Neo also referred to a recent case where a dentist who advertised his services was penalised by the Dental Board. He appealed to the High Court and the High Court felt that the penalty was too severe, and part of this Bill is in response to that case to give a different gradation of penalties. It also illustrates that the mechanism that we have set out in the current Bill is the right one and that there is a due process through the Complaints Committee and the Disciplinary Council, and if the dentist feels that he is aggrieved, he can still appeal to the High Court. And in the High Court, we get the chance to hear the appeal and the judgement can then be taken. I think the process works well and that is in fact proposed in the Bill.

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 signification of support by at least one Member. Does the motion have the support of any other Member?

I support, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House resolves that in all the circumstances it is only right and proper a Writ should be issued now to fill the vacancy in Parliament created by the resignation of Mr Choo Wee Khiang. By this motion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am asking for answers to questions which my Party has asked and which have not been answered. I hope to demonstrate in the time allotted to me the importance of the Government, the party, that is, in Singapore responsible for elections, unlike other countries where they have a National Elections Commission, giving proper and satisfactory reasons for not holding elections. We boast all the time of being accountable, transparent in all our actions. But we see very little of it in practice coming from the Government. As I said, we have asked questions which remain unanswered. We have asked for further clarification. All we get is silence. Sir, I am asking in this House today and hoping that we will get the answers here. Why is there no by-election for the constituency in Jalan Besar? This is a question that not only my Party has asked, but several Singaporeans have asked. I have been asked by many a person, "Jeyaretnam, do you think there will be a by-election for Jalan Besar?" And even before I could answer them, they say, "There never will, lah. The PAP will not hold a by-election. You know." So, I hope that we will have satisfactory answers if the decision is still not to hold a by-election.

4.28 pm The answer to the question on whether there should be or should not be a by-election depends, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on what we understand to be a Parliamentary system of government, and whether we believe in what we say. That when we proclaim ourselves to be practising a Parliamentary system of government, do we really mean it and do we believe in it or is it merely lip service? May I say that a parliamentary system of government does not consist of having a fine building for Parliament. I do not know how much will be spent on the erection of the new Parliament House. But fine buildings do not equate with a parliamentary system of government. A parliamentary system of government can only be found in countries where Parliament is encouraged and allowed to play its full role in the parliamentary system of government, and that, as I shall say later, is only possible if every opportunity is given for Parliament to play its role. And the central gem of Parliament is that it is an institution where every voter has a representative in the institution. The parliamentary system requires that in every Parliament there should be a representative, representing every single voter in the land, and if he is denied that right, then it is a mockery of the parliamentary system of government. So, it is essential that every voter be represented in the institution that we call Parliament. And this right, of course, was inherent when, in the 1950s, we chose, as a people, the parliamentary system through the All-Party Delegation to the United Kingdom. That we would prefer to have a parliamentary system of government in preference to any other system of government. We wanted Parliament with representatives elected by the people, every single voter represented in Parliament to be the supreme body. This right was recognised and enacted in the Constitution that was handed to us in 1954, and after that. It recognised that no single voter should remain without a representation in Parliament for any length of time. This right was secured by Articles in the Constitution which required the holding of by-elections to fill any vacancy. You will find that in Article 54 of the Constitution of Malaysia which became our Constitution when we broke away from British rule and went into Malaysia as part of an independent country. If I may read Article 54 of the Constitution which we, as I said, accepted for ourselves as part of Malaysia: 'Whenever there is a casual vacancy among the Members of either House of Parliament, it shall be filled within 60 days [I repeat, it shall be filled within 60 days] from the date on which it is established that there is a vacancy and an election shall be held.' Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I repeat from that Article, "it shall be filled within 60 days . and an election shall be held." That was the Article in the Constitution when we were part of Malaysia. When we came out of Malaysia, that Article was amended, and that was possible because there were not enough Opposition Members in Parliament, probably not a single Opposition Member in Parliament, and substituted by Article 49 of our present Constitution. If I may read the first part of the Article: 'Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.' That is all I wish to read from that Article. May I again point out that whilst this Article removes the requirement of 60 days within which the vacancy had to be filled, it still requires the vacancy to be filled, because the words are "the vacancy shall be filled by election". It is not "may be filled at the discretion of the government or of the ruling party", but "shall be filled". That was ignored by the ruling party after a by-election, which they have never forgotten, which took place in 1981. Previous to that, there were regular by-elections to fill vacancies. But after the by-election on 31st October 1981, suddenly the ruling party woke up to the fact that it would not be in the interest of the party to hold a by-election if it might mean an Opposition Member getting into Parliament. The voters in Anson were denied any representation in Parliament after the Member was forced out and they were told, "Oh, don't worry, we'll have caretaker MPs. We'll have caretakers for you." But you cannot fend off voters with nannies/caretakers. Their constitutional right is a representative in Parliament, chosen by them, not appointed by anyone, but chosen by them. So the Anson voters were denied any representation in Parliament for quite a while from 1986 until the 1988 elections, and that was for 2-2 1/2 years. It was a blatant denial of their rights and a total breach of the parliamentary democracy requirement that every voter should have a representative in Parliament. Now, it will, of course, be said, "but you have other MPs in Jalan Besar, have you not?" And so they are being represented in Parliament. But are they? And I am referring to the voters in Whampoa where Mr Choo Wee Khiang represented the voters. I know the Workers' Party has never had a GRC, but if I may explain, as I understand the anatomy of the GRC, it is that you merge three or four constituencies into a single group representation constituency. What happens is that the MPs in the previous single constituencies come together and continue to look after their particular constituencies. And so it was the case in Jalan Besar GRC. In 1988, when Jalan Besar GRC was formed, Dr Lee Boon Yang, who was already the MP for Jalan Besar, continued as one of the group MPs for Jalan Besar, and I have no doubt that he was looking after the constituency that he had been representing in Parliament in previous years. Similarly, Mr Sidek Saniff came over from Kampong Glam, when Kampong Glam became part of the group representation constituency. I see Dr Lee is shaking his head. Maybe I have not got it right. But the point is that you continue with the particular constituencies. In 1991, when Whampoa was added to Jalan Besar GRC, Mr Choo Wee Khiang took the place of Dr Augustine Tan who was the MP for Whampoa. Clearly, there was a delineation. I do not know whether it happens. Members are all shaking their heads, and I do not know how they do it. But, obviously, that must have been the practice. It has been confirmed by the fact that someone has been appointed to look after the voters in Whampoa. He is to go and advise them and take care of their affairs. They are to have a caretaker. They are to have a man appointed by the ruling party. So they are not to worry. The appointment confirms what I say. But it is not just the Whampoa voters that I am concerned with. Under the Constitution as introduced by the ruling party itself, Jalan Besar GRC voters are entitled to four MPs in Parliament. That is their constitutional right. But now they have not got four MPs in Parliament. They have only three MPs in Parliament, if you take the voters collectively in Jalan Besar GRC. Is that not a diminution of their constitutional right? I know that Singapore motorists going over the causeway have to have a three-quarter tank. Why should the voters of Jalan Besar be told: "Be content with the three-quarter tank in Parliament. You cannot have a full tank. We will give you a three-quarter tank." Why should they? Is that not a discrimination from the other GRCs which have a full complement of their representatives in Parliament? In failing to provide for a by-election, may I say that the ruling party and the remaining MPs are failing in their primary duty to the voters in Jalan Besar GRC. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Edmund Burke, the great parliamentarian, in his essay wrote about the primary duty of a Member of Parliament to constituents, and he said that must remain above all the primary concern. Should it not be the primary concern of the MPs in Jalan Besar that their constituents, their voters, have their full rights in Parliament, and not just be content with having a three-quarter representation in Parliament? I say that the remaining MPs have a duty to ensure this if they are to serve the voters in Jalan Besar GRC, let alone the voters in Whampoa. I say to them that if they want to discharge their duty, the only thing they can do is to allow another MP to be elected. If it needs for them to resign and to offer themselves for re-election, that should be done. Their own convenience and the administrative problems that they think may arise should not stand in the way of the rights of the voters. This refusal to hold a by-election is seen and perceived, not just by the Workers' Party, but by many a Singaporean, as a blatant refusal to give the opposition parties an opportunity to get into Parliament. That is again a total breach of the parliamentary system. Sir, one Mr Andre Mathiot, writing about the British political system in 1958, had this to say: "If asked to give a single criterion of the democratic Government, I should say that it depended on the status of opposition." An opposition in Parliament and an opposition of sufficient numbers, is essential to a proper working of parliamentary democracy. That is what he is emphasizing: "If I am asked to choose a single criterion, I would say it depended on the status of opposition." So the question that will be asked by visitors to Singapore is: what is the state of the opposition in Singapore today, if you are claiming to be a democratic Government? I am not saying that you should therefore lay out the red carpet for the opposition and just invite them in. What I am saying is that the ruling party should not go out of its way to deny the opposition party an opportunity to get its representatives into Parliament on behalf of citizens who want to see an opposition in Parliament. Sir, with no disrespect to Members, may I say that no amount of Government Backbenchers asking questions of Ministers or no amount of NMPs are a substitute for opposition. So this denial of the opportunity to opposition parties to further the cause of democracy in Singapore by giving them an opportunity to have further representation in Parliament is a blatant denial of the Government's often claim that we are a parliamentary democracy. It is the same as the denial to the opposition parties outside Parliament, the refusal to let them have their meetings, the refusal for them to publicly address the people, the refusal for them to undertake any political activity without getting a licence first. They are all deliberate hindrances to the advancement of the parliamentary democracy system in Singapore. But the worst of it, of course, is to deny through extra-parliamentary means the opposition parties obtaining representation in Parliament. I say that is "extra-parliamentary" because the Constitution speaks quite clearly that they should be allowed. You have to have a by-election to fill any vacancy and that means an opportunity for the opposition parties to take part in it. So it is for two reasons. One, for the rights of the voters in Jalan Besar GRC in their interest, and second in the national interest of the country that the Government should consider very seriously whether it is right to continue denying the voters and the people in Singapore the right to have representation in Parliament. I will deal briefly with the answers given by the Prime Minister. I am sorry that he is not here to answer these questions. After all, it is his Ministry which is responsible for holding elections. That is another thing. It breaches the system of parliamentary democracy if the holding of elections is left entirely in the hands of the Ministry, and that is the Prime Minister's Ministry. One reason given by the Prime Minister appears to be that a by-election would distract the nation from the task of economic recovery. We could not understand what he was saying. That it would distract the nation from its task of economic recovery seems to us a no answer to our question. So we asked: would you please explain what you are saying? Are you saying that if you held a by-election, all economic activity would come to an end? That people will no longer do any business? People would not go to work? The Stock Exchange would be closed? And Singapore would be at a standstill? It has only got to be stated to be dismissed. So that cannot be a valid reason. It does not stand up. So we asked: could you explain? We have never heard from him. I hope we will hear today, from whoever is replying, the true reason for this refusal to hold a by-election for Jalan Besar GRC. Is it because - and I am asking this seriously, could we have an answer to it - the ruling Party fears defeat? If that is so, then may I say it does not do the ruling Party any credit. It will be dismissed by the electorate as being a totally irresponsible party, putting its party's interest above the country's interest. In 1992, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister, partly in answer to the questions that were asked as to why the general election held in 1991 was brought forward, and whether it was to keep me out, because I was still disqualified, only waiting for another two months for the period to run out, decided that he would hold a by-election in 1992. Unfortunately, we were unable to go into it for reasons which had been explained. And we were taunted by remarks that we chickened out. May I ask: is the PAP chickening out this time? If the PAP is not chickening out, then why are we not having a by-election? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just as in the case of Anson, the general elections, if this Government decides to go its full term under the Constitution, elections will not take place for another two-and-a-half years. So for two-and-a-half years the voters in Whampoa will not have their man chosen by them. May I return to that? I have no doubt that when they canvassed in Jalan Besar GRC, it must have been Mr Choo Wee Khiang who went round the homes in Whampoa district asking the voters to vote for him, albeit as a member of a team, unless, I am told, "No, we all four went round." But I would have thought that the arrangement would have been for Mr Choo Wee Khiang to go around in Whampoa. I see Dr Lee shake his head. He is going to tell us that all four went round each house in Jalan Besar. Let us know. But Mr Choo has been popularly referred to all the time as the Member from Whampoa. Perhaps may I also say that we suggested to the Prime Minister that if he is worried about economic activity coming to a standstill and the by-election a waste of time, he could combine the by-election with the Presidential Election which is due under the Constitution by the end of August this year. Or are we going to be told, "No, we're not going to have the Presidential Election, because that will also distract the nation from its economic activity."? Is that going to be given as a reason and the Presidential Election put off? I suppose that will be more difficult because the ruling Party will have to bring an amendment to the Constitution. I am, of course, aware - I do not want to be told that I did not mention this - that section 24(2A) of the Parliamentary Elections Act which spells out what should happen in the case of a vacancy - that a writ shall be issued, but goes on in a subsection to say that no writ shall be issued in a GRC unless all members of that GRC have vacated their seats. May I say this. It seems to me, in the first place, to conflict with Article 49 of the Constitution which says "shall be filled", and there is a vacancy. The Speaker announced at the beginning of this sitting today that there is a vacancy in Parliament. You cannot pretend that there is no vacancy. And the Article says that the "vacancy shall be filled". So the question is, does section 24(2A) of the Parliamentary Elections Act conflict with Article 49 of the Constitution? Of course, the Constitution is supreme. It takes precedence over all other laws. But, quite apart from that, section 24 (2A) is purely a procedural section. The substantive section is still Article 49. And if the only way to satisfy Article 49 is for the other members to resign, it should be done. They should resign their seats so that the by-election may be held to comply with Article 49. If that is not thought desirable, because the ruling Party fears that it may lose a Minister in Parliament, and that would be terrible, then the other alternative is to take Whampoa out of the Jalan Besar GRC and arrange for a by-election for that particular constituency. It is not good enough to say, "Well, that's going to create problems. You got to have a committee to re-draw the boundary again." In Singapore, that is no problem, as we say, because the committee is appointed by the Prime Minister. Election is all controlled by the Prime Minister. It may be a problem when you have a national elections commission. They might say, "Well, we don't think we are going to do this for you." But in Singapore it should present no problem. May I say that there is a precedent for it. Before the last general elections, MacPherson was taken out of Marine Parade GRC and made into a single constituency. So you have a precedent there. So I ask in this House: what are your reasons then for not holding any by-election in Jalan Besar GRC? And I do appeal in this House to the Prime Minister, to the Government, and the remaining Members in Jalan Besar GRC, that they should rise above party interest, and not decide the question whether there should be a by-election purely on whether it suits the party or not, whether it may result in losing a Minister, but whether in the national interest, the Constitution requires that there should be a by-election. So I do appeal to the Government and to the Members because they can do something about this by resigning their seats in Parliament and contesting the seats all over again. If that is done, then may I say the world will see, and Singaporeans will see and understand, that this is a party, that is the ruling Party, which believes in parliamentary democracy, which believes in giving voters their rights under the Constitution, which believes that there should be an effective Opposition in Parliament and not just a party that pays lip service every time but does not believe in what it says. I hope the Prime Minister, if he is the only one who has got to decide this question, will reconsider and if there are good reasons, let us have them, but not facile reasons about economic activity coming to a standstill. Question proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, although we are now debating this motion that Parliament resolves that there should be a by-election in Jalan Besar GRC, we can envisage that the motion will not be passed because Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong has already made his stand before this sitting that there will not be a by-election in Jalan Besar GRC. Prime Minister Goh said that there would not be a by-election because he did not want to divert the people's focus on our economic recovery. I feel that this is just an excuse. As we all know, in Singapore, even in general elections, the whole process can be finished within 10 days. Now, only one GRC is involved. How would this affect our economic recovery? In fact, there is no need for Prime Minister Goh to seek an excuse. He could simply say that according to the Parliamentary Elections Act, there is no need to hold a by-election. The PAP Government had in 1988 amended the Parliamentary Elections Act to the effect that only when all the seats in a GRC are vacant, will it be mandatory for a by-election to be held. Under the circumstances, in a six-seat GRC, even if there is only one Member left in the GRC, there is no need to hold a by-election. The PAP can just ask some others to help out in the constituency work. As far as this motion is concerned, whether or not we must hold a by-election, it is a foregone conclusion. Nevertheless, it still makes sense for us to discuss this issue of whether a by-election should be held under the present circumstances, because the law in Singapore is often amended again and again. Let us go to the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter lies with the Parliamentary Elections Act. Although the Act provides that a by-election is necessary only when all the seats in the GRC are vacant, there is no express provision to say when a by-election must be held. This is a loophole. Under such circumstances, it is for the ruling Party to decide when to hold a by-election. They could just drag on until the next general election, as they had done in the past. In 1986, when the Anson constituency was vacant, they made use of this loophole in the Parliamentary Elections Act to refrain from holding a by-election. The seat was left vacant all the time until the general election in 1988 when they split Anson into three parts and have them absorbed into a GRC. If the PAP Government is a responsible government, they should amend the Parliamentary Elections Act to provide that whenever there is any vacancy in any constituency, a by-election should be held within a specific period even if there is only one seat in the GRC which is vacant. In the present situation in the Jalan Besar GRC, even if all the Members have vacated their seats necessitating a by-election, there is no provision to say by when the election must be held. So if the PAP is a responsible government, they should urge all GRC Members to resign their seats so that there will be a by-election. In the event that the PAP is saying that it is not fair to ask the other Members to resign, then they should consider the suggestion by my Secretary-General that Whampoa be taken out from the GRC to form a single constituency, and hold a by-election there.

Sir, the opposition is the voice of the people. Presently, the people want a by-election at Jalan Besar GRC. The opposition must voice their desire in Parliament. But the Government has a contrary view. It says that there is no need to have a by-election in Jalan Besar GRC. If a by-election is held in Jalan Besar GRC, it shall distract the people from the Government's effort in turning the economy around. The Government's excuse is of course unacceptable. It is a lame excuse. How can a by-election in one GRC suddenly stop all economic activities in Singapore, stop foreign investors from wanting to invest in Singapore or stop their investments from coming into Singapore? At one time, I remember in the late 1970s, the Government said that should one Opposition Member be elected into Parliament, it would drive the foreign investors away from Singapore. Since then, more than one Member of the Opposition has been elected to Parliament, and yet Singapore has prospered. The economy has done so well that the Government is able to reap unprecedented surpluses each year. In similar vein, the excuse that one by-election in Jalan Besar GRC will distract the Government from its efforts to turn the economy around is one that cannot be accepted by the people. The real reason is of course the memory of Anson. It was at Anson, in 1981, that the PAP suffered its first defeat after 15 years of one-party rule. Mr Jeyaretnam of the Workers' Party broke the one-party rule by winning the by-election in that constituency. The defeat jolted the PAP. The PAP machinery quickly started to work and find ways and means to stop another Anson from happening. The best solution of course is to do away with by-elections altogether. This solution is 100% foolproof. If there are no by-elections, there shall be no defeat for the PAP. It is as simple as that. There were vacant seats after 1981. One was at Havelock when the then Minister for Finance Hon Sui Sen died in office and later Anson itself became vacant due to the ouster of its incumbent MP from Parliament. For those two vacant constituencies, their terms were not ended and, yet, by-elections were not called for. The Government gave the lame excuse that the Constitution did not state a time frame within which by-elections have to be called. Normally, if no time limit is given for doing an act in the statute, then the court would normally interpret it as an act to be done within a reasonable time. The common law therefore states that a by-election at Havelock and Anson should have been held within a reasonable time of becoming vacant. I would say that within three months would be a reasonable time. Yet, by-elections were not held in those two constituencies. The PAP knew that if they maintained only single seat constituencies, inevitably in mid-term, there shall be by-elections. For example, there were four vacant wards in 1979 and, before the 1984 elections, there were two vacant wards but no by-elections were held. After Anson, I would say that the Opposition had a good chance of winning the by-elections. The people know for sure that the Government is already firmly in place and it cannot be toppled by a by-election. For this reason, Singaporeans are more amenable to vote the Opposition at a by-election and the PAP knows that. That is why the PAP invented the concept of GRCs and keep the number of single seat constituencies to a minimum. Currently, there are only nine single seats, down from 22 out of 83 elected seats in Parliament. Under the GRC system, legally, there is no need to hold a by-election when one of the component MPs in the GRC drops out, either by resignation or whatever reason. There shall only be a by-election in the GRC when all its MPs are no longer Members of Parliament. It is almost impossible for this kind of situation to happen after the election laws were amended at the beginning of 1988. After the amendments, the GRCs currrently are made up of four, five or six MPs in a GRC. It is difficult therefore to envisage a situation when all four, five or six MPs in one GRC completely leave Parliament. In these days, the new MPs are in their 30s. They are well-fed, strong and healthy. I cannot see any one of them falling ill and opting out of Parliament. Besides, I cannot see young MPs, with so much to look ahead, voluntarily resigning unless they are forced to do so like Choo Wee Khiang's case at Jalan Besar GRC this year. The purpose of the GRC scheme is aimed at wiping out by-elections. It is noted that the Prime Minister did not use the legal reason for not wanting to hold a by-election at Jalan Besar GRC, but instead use an economic reason. If the Prime Minister has said that he need not hold a by-election at Jalan Besar GRC because the law does not require him to do so, the people will be quick to point out that he held one at his own constituency in Marine Parade GRC in December 1992. A precedent has been set at Marine Parade GRC that if he wanted to, he could call a by-election despite the fact that the law did not require him to do so. In Marine Parade's case, it was obvious to the PAP that they would win that by-election because it was the Prime Minister's ward and he was an incumbent MP for many years. As regards Jalan Besar, it is no sure winner. That is why the PAP is not willing to announce a by-election there. The Jalan Besar GRC comprises a large part of the former Rochor constituency. The PAP still remembers that they nearly lost in Rochor in 1963. The PAP's Chairman then, Dr Toh Chin Chye, narrowly beat the Barisan Sosialis candidate, Dr Lee Siew-Choh, by less than 100 votes. The PAP old guard shuddered when they talked of the election at Rochor constituency in 1963. They won that election only by the skin of their teeth. After that experience, I do not think that the PAP is going to chance a by-election at Jalan Besar. A mid-term by-election is normally a good time for the people to assess the Government's policies. The last general election was held on 2nd January 1997. At this point of time, it is exactly half way through the term before the next general election is held. So it is a good time for the people to audit what the Government has done up to now, ie, whether the people are happy with the Government's policies such as cost cutting measures and other policies to revive the economy or the Government's handling of Singapore's relations with Malaysia and its other policies. The Government should allow itself to be judged purely on its performance without massive incentives offered to the people like in the last election such as the upgrading of flats. If the PAP really believes in democracy, then it should hold a by-election at Jalan Besar GRC. The essence of democracy is representation and choice. The residents at Jalan Besar GRC elected the original four persons to represent them in Parliament. But now the slate of four is left only with three. The PAP has sent a former failed candidate at Hougang, Mr Heng Chee How, to fill in that place of the resigned MP. He may or may not be good. We do not know. But what we do know is that he is not the choice of the voters at Jalan Besar GRC. He is the choice of the PAP. The voters at Jalan Besar GRC must be given their democractic right to choose their own representative in Parliament, not to force one upon them. The PAP should uphold democracy and call a by-election at Jalan Besar. The next general election, if it goes its full-term, is to be held in early 2002. This Parliamentary term has still 2 1/2 years more to go. A by-election should be held at Jalan Besar GRC. I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would first like to refer to the comments made by the hon. NCMP saying that the number of opposition is an indicator of the state of Parliamentary democracy in Singapore and that the number of backbenchers or NCMPs does not matter. I would like to say that what is more important is to have a free and fair election. We have seen that in the region. You cannot predetermine the outcome of elections if you have a free, fair and transparent election like what we have here. Speaking for the NMPs, I would like to perhaps remind the hon. NCMP that the NMPs, representing a non-partisan section of the population, has played a useful role not only in Parliament but in the whole range of social and community institutions and developing and supporting a very strong people sector which certainly must be a very important and strong indicator of the state of democracy in this country. Coming back to the motion, Sir, I would like to say that one of the objectives of GRCs is the ability of the other elected members in the GRC to carry out its function and duties of another member in the absence which may be caused by either death, disability or other unforeseen circumstances. What is more difficult in this case is that the constituents in Whampoa have lost their elected Member, not by an act of God, but by an act of crime. I suppose in most cases a reasonable voter is a lot more understanding and can be persuaded to see the practical arguments against by-election because of the current economic crisis and the ability of the other elected Members to carry on with the additional responsibilities brought about by the loss of an elected Member. However, there are others who place a much greater moral obligation to replace the MP with other elected representatives. Here, in my own sense is that the PAP suffers from a very high moral position it occupies of not being corrupt and taking a firm and strong position even against its own members. For this reason, some may then want the PAP to take that high moral position by calling for a by-election in Jalan Besar. There are some questions that come to mind in trying to balance this. First, even if there is a general perception, which I tend to agree, and the feeling that the constituents do not want a by-election, and they see that the other Members are able to carry out their duties quite effectively because of their good track record, the question then is: should not we then leave it to the voters through the election process to decide whether they really want to have their Members of Parliament re-elected? Second, I would like to ask if we need clearer guidelines in fact to determine the circumstances where a by-election may be required, if, say, two Members of Parliament in a GRC are unable to continue office for whatever circumstances. Because then it can be argued that the remaining MPs would be physically incapable of carrying out the functions and duties in the GRC. I must say that I, like most Singaporeans, can see the practical argument for not calling for a by-election in Jalan Besar. But having said that, Sir, some Singaporeans are a little bit confused because recently we heard that the PAP has announced that Mr Heng Chee How will be sent to the GRC to look after some of the duties left behind by the former MP. Why is there a need to have Mr Heng carry out this duty if the other three Members can effectively perform those roles? I think there is some confusion there. Perhaps, we may need some clarification. And the clarification is really the role that Mr Heng will play there. I do understand that in all constituencies, we have advisors and helpers, but I think what people would like to see is Mr Heng playing the role, and not necessarily the same role as has been played by the elected Member. To me, not having a by-election is actually a loss to the PAP, more than to the Opposition. In my view, it can perhaps demonstrate that Singapore is different from the rest of the region. Because in an economic crisis, contrary to the experiences in the region, where the economic crisis has brought about a more vocal, prominent Opposition in local politics, I would think even if a by-election were to be held, it could demonstrate that Singapore is quite different that despite the crisis, the Government is able to win elections, because it has, I think, in most cases, demonstrated that the Government is a very strong catalyst of change and reform in Singapore. I personally do not see the Opposition playing that role. So, that is quite a big difference. Having heard Mr J B Jeyaretnam, I feel that he has not made a very strong case for calling for a by-election. The vacancy, as I said, was brought about by a crime. But Mr J B Jeyaretnam has not made a case of that crime basically perhaps because of the Government's own firm and open attitude in dealing with it very openly and fairly. And it is for this reason, Sir, that I cannot give my support to Mr J B Jeyaretnam and his motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to rise to speak against the motion standing in the name of the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament. The NCMP, Mr Jeyaretnam, has once again called for a by-election to be held in Jalan Besar GRC on account of the resignation of our erstwhile colleague, Mr Choo Wee Khiang. Mr Jeyaretnam seems confident that if a by-election were to be called at this time, he will be able to give the PAP a beating, something which he has tried to do in the last election but failed dismally. Even in this House, Mr Jeyaretnam's tirade against the Government and the Party sounds like an old gramophone record, which he plays over and over again. He begins by suggesting that there is a lack of a tradition of Parliamentary democracy, the lack of freedom of expression for the Opposition and an inability to allow the Opposition to express themselves in a forum such as this. Let me ask the NCMP to account for his presence here in Parliament today. He is a loser in the last election, as I have said previously. But for the grace of this present Government, he is able to sit in this Parliament together with the rest of the duly elected Members and make his points known in an august body such as this. How can Mr Jeyaretnam then say that we are short in the standards of representation expected in a democracy, as he has described?

You missed the point.

He thinks the PAP is out of sync with the aspirations of our people. Perhaps, at this moment, one wonders whether the issues he raises in this House clearly reflect the aspirations of the common man he claims to represent. Sir, as a lawyer, Mr Jeyaretnam would have realised that under the Constitution and relevant laws, there is no legal obligation on the part of the Government to call for an election after an MP resigns his seat in Parliament. The essence of such a legal requirement in the Constitution applies both to single-seat constituencies and to Group Representation Constituencies as well. Mr Jeyaretnam cites Article 49 of the Constitution in which he used to support his case. If I may just read Article 49 of the Constitution, it simply states: "Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections." This Article in the Constitution is therefore largely qualified as opposed to what Mr Jeyaretnam appears to have suggested, that there is a legal obligation on the part of our Government to call an election as long as there is a vacancy in this House. Of course, the NCMP has created a mischief by alluding to a duty, that there is a legal obligation which is obviously not true. If it is an election to be called in the manner prescribed by law, the law is the statute that we have before us, and that is the Parliamentary Elections Act. As a lawyer, I am sure Mr Jeyaretnam knows the Parliamentary Elections Act does not prescribe any particular time limit within which to call for an election. That, Sir, is clearly the prerogative of the ruling Government. The issue was specifically dealt with after we became independent in 1965. During that time, our Government has specifically amended the provisions of our law to require an election to be held within a period of time after the seat was vacated. Mr Jeyaretnam so much as conceded that that has since been amended after the election. Obviously, I could be wrong and Mr Jeyaretnam could be right. But the point is, if Mr Jeyaretnam still thinks that there is a legal obligation to hold an election at the moment in Jalan Besar GRC, then he should apply for a writ of mandamus to compel the Government to do so. He is capable of doing it and nobody is ever going to deny him the right to petition to Court to issue such a writ. However, Mr Jeyaretnam obviously knows that there is no legal obligation to hold an election at this moment for Jalan Besar GRC. Although there is no legal obligation to hold an election at this moment, Mr Jeyaretnam is perhaps saying that, as opposed to a legal obligation, there is a moral obligation to hold an election instead, and that obviously is the other thrust of his argument. If so, we should perhaps examine closely whether or not such an obligation exists. By moral obligation, Sir, what one supposes it to mean the expectation based on the values and beliefs of the people comprising the society at large. By this, one would ask whether or not it is the expectation placed on Parliament and indeed the Government by the people of Whampoa at this moment to hold a fresh election and to seek a new mandate from the people of Whampoa to act as their representatives in Parliament. Sir, one would imagine that when the MPs from Jalan Besar GRC went to the people at the last election for an endorsement of their candidacy , the people of Whampoa voted categorically that they wanted the present team to represent them. When the Whampoa residents voted for their Members of Parliament in the GRC, they did not, in the way in which the election was conducted, specifically vote for any particular MP to represent their ward. The endorsement was placed on all four Members of Parliament to be their representatives and it is on that basis that the candidates were returned. Mr Jeyaretnam obviously has not got his laws right. He seems to think that in a GRC, it is a just convenient arrangement where you tie all these individual constituencies together and therefore each Member of Parliament is specifically voted by the constituents in his particular ward. But bear in mind, in the Parliamentary Elections Act, when the people vote within a GRC, they voted for an entire team and not for any specific individual. It would therefore be ludicrous for anyone to suggest that since the mandate was given to four MPs to act as representatives in Parliament, the absence of one would necessarily mean that the rest have lost their electoral mandate. Such an argument, if carried to its extreme conclusion, would also mean that at any time if Mr Jeyaretnam steps down as Secretary-General of the Workers' Party, Mr Low Thia Khiang would have to resign his seat as Member of Parliament for Hougang since it can be argued that some Hougang residents may have voted him because of the leadership provided by Mr Jeyaretnam. Just because a member of the team resigns his seat, it does not necessarily follow that the people would have withdrawn their support for the remaining Members of Parliament in the GRC. Mr Jeyaretnam must understand that the existing team for Jalan Besar stood for election and won the election for what the PAP stands for and not because Mr Choo Wee Khiang was popular so that without his representation, the mandate of the people would be withdrawn in the process. Sir, such an argument against the call for a by-election is not extreme and there are parallel examples found elsewhere. For instance, taking a leaf from corporations, if a member of the Board of Directors, having been elected to the Board by the shareholders and who, before the expiry of the term, resigns his Board seat, there is no obligation on the part of the Board to go back to the shareholders for a fresh election. The management of the company goes on so long as the Board feels that they are not hindered or incapacitated in any way by the absence of the member of the Board. In the case of Jalan Besar GRC, what is most critical in the minds of the residents at this moment is whether or not their interest, will just be as well-served by the remaining representatives within the GRC. If the level of service and commitment to the residents continues to remain as it was before the MP resigned his seat, there is therefore really no reason for calling for a fresh election. The point is how much better served will the people be by calling for a fresh election. What it means, however, is that the three existing MPs for Jalan Besar GRC would have to work much harder in order to meet the demands of the constituents or otherwise they would have a poor showing at the next general election. If the people are indeed very, very unhappy because they feel they have been shortchanged by the resignation of their MP, then obviously, there is an avenue for them to register their unhappiness at the next election. We are half-way through the present term of this office and it is only approximately another 21/2 years before we are required by law to go into another general election. Rather than calling for a fresh election, we should focus our mind on how we can serve the residents better during this period. I have spoken to many Whampoa residents and they feel that a fresh election is not what they want at this moment. I think it will be rather presumptuous on the part of the Opposition Members to assume that this is really what the residents of Whampoa want. What matters to them is whether the present MPs can really attend to their needs. I have no doubt that my colleagues, including the appointed second advisor, would be up to the task at this moment in serving the residents. It makes us wonder, therefore, whether the NCMP's call for a by-election is really to serve his purpose and his political party's purpose or to serve the residents' purpose. Bear in mind the huge expenses involved in calling for a by-election when there is no legal obligation to do so, let me repeat, when there is no legal obligation to do so. It would be just another occasion to show that Mr Jeyaretnam is absolutely callous about the way public monies are spent, since it is quite obvious to us that his call for a by-election is to serve the interest of his party, and not of the residents of Jalan Besar GRC. For that reason, Sir, I beg that the motion not be approved.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to join in the debate. I do not support the motion. Having heard the NCMP and the seconder, Mr Low Thia Khiang, I regret that I cannot agree with their reasons. It is clear to me that there is no legal requirement for a by-election under existing laws. In this sense, I think the hon. Member for Hougang, Mr Low Thia Khiang, and Mr Chiam See Tong, Member for Potong Pasir, have got it right, and the NCMP has got it wrong. But I think there is another debate about the principles of democracy and of morality, and these are, basically, around two possible principles. The first is on the nature of the offence and the second on the question of fair representation for constituents in a parliamentary democracy like Singapore. First, the nature of the offence. In the past case of the late Dr Tay Eng Soon in the Eunos GRC, it is clear to us that it was his untimely death that caused the vacancy. There was therefore no question of approbation. Here, given the nature of the disqualification faced by the former Member of Parliament, Mr Choo Wee Khiang, it could be argued that this might have affected how voters have felt if they had known at the time of voting. That is to say, we could argue that the nature of the offence vitiates the vote at the last general election. However, I believe the Singaporean public as a whole trust the PAP, on a general basis, is not corrupt and, in fact, the events in this case evidence that wrong-doing will be investigated thoroughly and punished, no matter who is the perpetrator. Therefore, I think on this ground, the nature of the offence, there is no need for a by-election. Let me move on to my second point on representation. The NCMP has stressed at great length that the nature of democracy means that every voter must have a representative in Parliament. That is true. But it is a jump from there to suggest that every constituency must have a Member, and he misunderstands the fundamental change that has been made in Singapore under the concept of a Group Representation Constituency (GRC). These are fundamentally different from single-seat constituencies. The concept here is for a team representation. And this fundamental change in Singapore's system has not been understood by many people who draw analogies from Britain which does not have this system, as the NCMP has done. In this sense, my answer to him is quite simple. When he points to the Constitution and suggests that when a vacancy arises, it must be filled in certain ways. But there is no vacancy. Nobody elected Mr Choo Wee Khiang as an independent, separate constituency. It is a team concept. We do not even know whether the constituents of Whampoa did, as a majority, elect Mr Choo Wee Khiang. All we know is the official result. For the Jalan Besar GRC as a whole, the PAP team led by Minister Dr Lee Boon Yang won. So, to me, there is no vacancy and it is a political question. We have analogies to this in other systems. In a system of proportional representation, once a party is elected, it is up to the party to say who should fill up the slots it has won in Parliament. And I think this shows that our constitutional system has changed fundamentally from certain English roots, and must be understood on its own terms. So long as a majority of a team exists and believes it can meet the needs of the constituents, I would think that Singaporeans are pragmatic enough to focus on the level of the service. The NCMP has a very nice argument that the right of voters for a team then is to have four representatives, rather than three which the Jalan Besar GRC now has. I think that Singaporeans do not care about the formal numbers. It is a question of function and efficiency, rather than numbers. And so long as the team tries and believes it can do well, then it should be able to continue. If the team does not do well and does not meet the constituency's needs, then there will be a price to pay at the next general election. They can choose another team. In that sense, I think it is very much a question of political judgment by the party in power, rather than a legal question. Let me turn in this sense to two other points made by, first, the NCMP and then by the Member for Potong Pasir, Mr Chiam. The first was that several people - I think Mr Chiam as well - suggested that the PAP was afraid. There was a question of fear. I must, in fairness to the PAP, bring up the Marine Parade GRC election. I think there is clear evidence that where it is felt there is a moral obligation, Prime Minister Goh, of all people, had not been afraid to put his own neck on the line. Secondly, Mr Chiam, the Member for Potong Pasir, made a great deal about the fact that it is a by-election. I would remind Mr Chiam to remind himself that he has twice claimed credit for the so-called by-election effect at the last two general elections, and none of these was the question of government at stake. And yet in both, the PAP achieved quite substantial victories. I am not pro-PAP. But I think these are facts that must be stated, to be fair to the debate in this House. We then turn to the question of why the Prime Minister has decided not to meet the request of the Opposition to hold a by-election. I frankly do not know. I am not a mind reader. But if I were to guess, I would look at some of the elections that are coming up in the countries around us in this time of crisis. When we look at Malaysia, we realise that in the run-up to a possible early snap elections, their foreign relations seem to be taking a very aggressive and unreasonable stance at some of our issues. If we look at Thailand's elections that are coming up and those in South Korea, we will see this as well. Basically, by-elections or general elections force both parties to make their voices more shrill and more nationalistic. My bet would be that in the Thai general elections, you will see a lot of statements made about nationalism, about foreigners buying up Thai companies. That could be a problem for us too. We had a debate in this House about foreign talent, especially in times of crisis. Do we need, in a time of crisis, therefore, to open up potential fissures? Another stray point made by the NCMP is related to the nature of Backbenchers and NMPs. He says that the nature of democracy must be judged by the number of Opposition Members in the House. Well, I would say this much. The job of the Opposition is to be the next government. That is their claim in democratic theory. It is not to ask questions here in Parliament. My job, as an NMP, is certainly not to be the next government. It is to try, as best as I can, to increase accountability and add what little I can to the debate in this House. In this sense, we cannot compare the two. One is an apple. The other is an orange. I do not see what he stands to gain by this, except for a stray bullet here and there. [Laughter]. Let me deal with the stray bullet. I would say that while that, in theory, taking over government is the goal of the Opposition, the Opposition has failed to do that so far. And I do not see, more to the points of this motion, what a by-election would do to further the cause of the Opposition of trying to be the next government. Having talked about the nature of representation and emphasised the team GRC concept, I think I have another point to make. And this is the degree to which a person who is not an MP can be allowed to take on additional duties caused by the vacancy. It has been widely reported that Mr Heng Chee How is now serving as the Second Adviser to Whampoa. Citizens can, of course, help at the grassroots, as can party members who are not MPs. I think almost all MPs have somebody from their party helping them, as a very close associate. But I think there must be a line between what an MP can do and what these normal citizens and party members can do. A legal principle says it quite nicely. The nature of parliamentary representation is that it is delegated to you as elected MPs. What is delegated cannot then be further delegated. There are, in that sense, some things an MP can do that a non-MP cannot. Of course, parliamentary debate and duties is one of them. But, also, I would argue, things outside this House, eg, signing letters to Ministries on behalf of constituents, officiating as guest-of-honour. Let me give Members an analogy. When a football team has a player sent off, the team as a whole is not disqualified, but it cannot substitute the sent off player. The position of the PAP Government is that the team in Jalan Besar can cope and carry on and, therefore, there is no need for a by-election. It is consistent with that stand. The PAP team in Jalan Besar should observe the differences and, even if Mr Heng serves as Second Adviser, he should not act as an MP without being elected. I am confident that the PAP team in Jalan Besar GRC will observe the constitutional and legal principles of representation and fair play. Sir, it is for these reasons that I do not support the motion.

Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam argues and I quote him in his motion that "in all the circumstances it is only right and proper" that a by-election be held in Jalan Besar GRC in view of Mr Choo Wee Khiang's resignation. I completely disagree with that. He quotes us the Singapore Constitution and the Malaysian Constitution, Article 54, saying that the Malaysian Constitution provides a limit within which a by-election should be held. But Article 54 of the Malaysian Constitution is really the Malaysia's Constitution. Singapore adopted it only when Singapore joined Malaysia in 1963. Before 1963, we had in our Constitution which was then called the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council 1958, Article 44. And that Article 44 is exactly what we have in today's Constitution Article 49(1) which says: 'Whenever the seat of a Member has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law for the time being in force in Singapore.' This was in the 1958 Constitution. In the 1965 Constitution, we changed it after we left Malaysia. We adopted the same words in the 1958 (Constitution) Order by expunging the words "within three months from the date on which it is established that there is a vacancy" in the Malaysian Constitution because we did not take the position that the Malaysians had taken. And it is for good reason that we went back to the 1958 Constitution, because that was our position before we went into Malaysia. As the Constitution says, we will hold a by-election "in the manner provided by and under any law for the time being in force". The law being in force is our Parliamentary Elections Act. Section 24(2A) says: 'In respect of any Group Representation Constituency, no writ shall be issued under subsection (1) for an election to fill a vacancy unless all the Members for that constituency have vacated their seats in Parliament.' Members may recall that we debated the GRC issue during the debates on the amendments to the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act, and why we specifically made this provision. We specifically and expressly prohibit the issue of a writ for an election in a GRC, unless all the MPs resign their seats. The legislative intent then was not to allow any particular MP so elected as part of a group of MPs for the GRC to hold the rest to ransom through resignation or otherwise. The thinking then was that all the other MPs should not be forced to vacate their seats on account of one MP vacating his seat for whatever reason - death, resignation or whatever. So it is quite clear that under our law, it expressly provides for the exclusion of the issue of a writ for a by-election in a GRC. That is the legal position which Mr Jeyaretnam may well know, and some of our colleagues here have also mentioned this. So there is no conflict between Article 49 of our Constitution and section 24 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. There is also no breach of parliamentary democracy, as Mr Jeyaretnam has suggested. As Mr Sin Boon Ann and Mr Simon Tay have said, the MPs in a GRC are elected together as a team, and not singly. This is our GRC system. I choose the words "Whampoa area". There is no such thing as "Whampoa Constituency". The GRC is Jalan Besar GRC. The number of MPs there is four. By an internal arrangement, Mr Choo Wee Khiang went to work in Whampoa and Kallang and also by arrangement, the MPs in the area also take turns to visit one another's area when they have block parties, block visits, meet-the-people sessions, and so on. For example, at the end of every third Tuesday of the month, I am in another Branch meeting the residents who may be living in the Sin Ming area or in the Toa Payoh East area. Similarly, the MP in that area will come to my area. We are MPs of that GRC. We do not just belong to Bishan East, like myself, for example. Neither does Mr Choo Wee Khiang belong to Whampoa only. So in 1997 the voters elected the four of them, Dr Lee Boon Yang, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Mr Peh Chin Hua and Mr Choo Wee Khiang, as one team. Dr Lee Boon Yang also canvassed in the Whampoa area together with Choo Wee Khiang. Similarly, he did the same thing in Geylang West with Peh Chin Hua or in Kolam Ayer together with Dr Yaacob Ibrahim. So there is no reason whatsoever for the remaining MPs to resign just because one MP has resigned. In fact, I would say that the remaining MPs have a moral obligation to carry on and implement the programmes which they promised and pledged to the voters in 1997. Of course, this means that they have to work a bit harder. Mr Sin Boon Ann talks about the example of a board. It does not need to resign if one board member resigns and they need to call an AGM. There is no such requirement. Mr Simon Tay gave the analogy of football. I can also use the analogy of football. If the striker beats up the referee for a wrong ruling and the referee gives him the red card, he is out. But that does not mean that the other 10 members have to quit. They will carry on and they will play hard, and they will win if they play very hard. It is the same thing for the three MPs now in Jalan Besar GRC. They work hard and they will work very hard so that through their efforts they will be returned again. I have no doubt that they will be returned again. Indeed, the three of them lost no time in making arrangements to cover the Whampoa area since Mr Choo Wee Khiang went on leave of absence in December last year. They took turns to attend meet-the-people sessions. They took turns to attend the RC functions, block parties, house visits and so on. So they are still active. They remain active, and they will have to be active. Why is Mr Heng Chee How sent there? Is it to replace Mr Choo Wee Khiang? Certainly not. Mr Choo Wee Khiang was elected together with the others. Mr Heng cannot be appointed by the Government to represent the people. He is not there to represent the people. He is there - the PAP always plans ahead - for training. We sent him there for training so that he gets ground experience on how to work with people, how to understand the issues and concerns, how to deal with their problems and help them with their problems. But in the signing of letters during the meet-the-people session, the three current MPs will still be there by rotation to take care of such cases, as they do for block party attendance and so on. So there is no question that the constitutional rights of the voters in Whampoa have been diminished. They have their rights. They voted for the four MPs and the MPs carry on. The voters, in fact, voted with the knowledge that should a vacancy arise, such a vacancy need not be filled, as provided for in our law. There is no question that the mandate has been thwarted or withdrawn. So regardless of the reasons or the circumstances under which an MP has to resign, there is no need for a by-election because the existing MPs will carry on with the task which they have been entrusted. Mr Jeyaretnam must be fooling himself when he said that the PAP is afraid to lose the by-election in Jalan Besar because according to him that is the only reason why we do not want to have a by-election. He said that the PAP accused him of chickening out in the Marine Parade by-election. I do not know why he chickened out. Maybe he did not chicken out but he was played out! There were four of them. One of them who was supposed to be there with him happened to be somewhere else in Jurong and lost his way. He was supposed to be in the Marine Parade nomination centre but he could not find his way to Marine Parade. So he should find out why that team-mate of his decided not to turn up. Maybe he chickened out. So there was good reason why the PAP said the Workers' Party chickened out because they did not find the right person to contest. There is no reason why the PAP should fear a loss in a by-election either. We won convincingly in 1997 - 67.7% of the votes. There is no question that we will win again should there be a contest. I read Mr Jeyaretnam saying that he would quit politics if he were to contest and lose. We do not want him to lose. We want him to remain here. It would be a pity if he were to contest and lose. In fact, his presence here is a good lesson for all Singaporeans that that is the kind of opposition leaders we have in Singapore. I think it is a salutary lesson. If the opposition does not wake up, then they may lose again in the next election. So it is a lesson not just for Singaporeans but also a lesson for the opposition parties themselves to find the right kind of people to lead them. Mr Chiam, in fact, said that we should have a by-election to put the Government's handling of the economy to the test. We do not need a by-election to put the Government's handling of the economy to the test. If he had been following events, and reading reports from financial analysts, from people who know, they have said that Singapore indeed has come out with flying colours in the way we have handled the economy. But the real test is, at the end of the term, how would the people vote for the PAP? That is the real test, not in a by-election. So what does he want? To get an opportunity to contest? But his party cannot even get organised. So he would not be contesting. Maybe he would leave it to Mr Jeyaretnam. I do not know whether the Workers' Party could also be organised to contest. The Government's record for good governance is widely acknowledged. So we do not need to have a by-election to test the Government. Mr Jeyaretnam also suggests that maybe at a time like this, we should save money and have the Presidential election together with the by-election. That is a facetious argument. A Presidential election is vastly different in purpose, scope and format compared to a by-election. The candidates are different, the issues are different, the objectives are different. So we should not hold the two together and confuse our electorate with two different elections going on at the same time. The prerogative to call a by-election, "considering all the circumstances", really rests with the Prime Minister. His decision will be based on the best interest of Singapore. He has explained why he has decided not to call a by-election. He wants Singaporeans to focus on our incipient economic recovery. Do not take for granted that our economic growth is assured. Look around us. Many things can still happen and it is still in the early stages. So despite the changes and the rising stock market, do not take for granted that things will be good. This was the same message that we put out even before the 1997 crisis. We said: "Don't take things for granted." The people said, "It cannot happen. The PAP will handle it." Indeed, we have an economic crisis due to external reasons. So for very good reason, do not take things for granted. The Prime Minister has indeed cautioned Singaporeans against assuming that the current upturn would be quick or permanent. He feels that a by-election held at this time will be a distraction from the main task in seeing through this economic recovery. I think Singaporeans on the whole appreciate that the Government's far-sighted policies have stood the test of time, particularly in this time of regional economic crisis. They also know that the Government has acted decisively to review and improve many of its policies, some in very fundamental ways, like the way we handle our financial institutions and banks. Ensuring that these revised policies are implemented effectively and successfully will therefore require the undivided attention of all Singaporeans. I think that should be our primary objective. It is not the time for fractiousness and partisan politics which a by-election will foment. This is the pragmatic, hard-headed approach that we have taken which has worked for Singapore all these years. The opposition parties, on the other hand, like what Mr Simon Tay has alluded to, want excitement and political agitation. They have had their day during the last general elections and they made no impact. Two Members were returned. There is no reason why the Government should satisfy the vanity of certain opposition figures by holding a by-election. Predictably, the opposition makes loud calls for a by-election to be held. But Mr Jeyaretnam fools himself if he thinks that having a by-election is the topmost priority of Singaporeans now. Not holding a by-election is not a breach of parliamentary democracy. In accordance with the law, the electorate has a choice at every general election. The law does not require a by-election to be held when an MP in a GRC vacates his seat for whatever reason. The law provides leeway to the Prime Minister to decide. If he considers it necessary, by-elections will be held. The PAP has not shied away from by-elections in the past. As for the vacancy that has arisen at Jalan Besar GRC, the Prime Minister has decided that, on balance, it is not necessary nor is it in our interest to hold one.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have sat through all the speeches and, apart from the speakers from the Opposition Members in Parliament, the sum total of the answer from NMPs and PAP MPs seems to be "Section 24(2A) does not require us, so we would not hold any by-election." May I suggest that that is a lame excuse of people who fear defeats. They hide behind a legal excuse for them and not face up to the realities. I am aware of section 24(2A). I pointed out what Article 49 of the Constitution says. It does not say "leave out GRCs". It says "leave out only NCMP post", but in every other case the vacancy "shall be filled." There are no two ways of reading it. The vacancy shall be filled. As Mr Chiam pointed out, "shall be filled" cannot be interpreted as saying you do not have to hold it till the next elections. But is that how the Article is to be interpreted, that you do not have to hold any by-election? Section 24(2A), as I said, in the first place, would appear to conflict with Article 49. I am challenged to take it to court. But better than the court it would be for this House to resolve that notwithstanding section 24(2A), there should be a by-election in Jalan Besar GRC. It is within the competence of this House. Parliament can pass a resolution. So I do not have to take it to court. I come to Parliament which, as I have said, is the supreme body in a parliamentary democracy. If I may deal very briefly. As I said, the main theme seems to be that we do not have to hold it, we have got section 24(2A) behind us. The other reasons are simply just by the way. But if I may just reply to one or two of these criticisms. Mr Zulkifli Baharudin said that I had not made out a strong case. I do not know what he meant by not making out a strong case. I did not follow what he said about PAP having shown itself to come down on criminal activities. What has that got to do with representation in Parliament? Just because the PAP has prosecuted - is that what he is saying - Mr Choo Wee Khiang in court and had him punished, that there is no need to hold any by-election? Is that the argument? I do not quite follow that. I think almost every speaker mentioned about the practical arrangements that have been made by the PAP, how wonderful it is, that they can send Mr Heng Chee How to look after voters in Whampoa. But that again misses the point. Heng Chee How, as Mr Chiam mentioned, is not the choice of the voters yet. And he cannot by any stretch of the imagination be asked to do the work of an MP there. They need an MP to do the work in Whampoa, not Mr Heng Chee How. I think the third speaker also talked about free and fair elections. This was taken up by Mr Sin Boon Ann and Mr Simon Tay, says, "Oh, the Opposition got a sound beating in the last elections." So there is no question about Singaporeans not wanting an Opposition in Parliament, that they do not want any Opposition in Parliament. That again, with respect, ignores the realities. I have to, at the risk of repetition, go back to our own particular experience in Cheng San. Why did we lose? Because of the threats and intimidation, extra-parliamentary, extra-legal methods used by the PAP, by the Prime Minister and his two Deputy Prime Ministers invading our own pitches in Cheng San, and watching over the voters. And to say that we got a sound beating is to miss entirely the point and to see the elections through the PAP glasses. Both Mr Sin Boon Ann and Mr Simon Tay also brought up examples. Mr Sin Boon Ann talks about a board of companies losing a director. I am afraid I cannot see the analogy. They are quite different things. And the football team which Mr Simon Tay talks about, I am afraid I cannot really see what the analogy is between a football team and having your own representatives in Parliament. But what really astounded me was Mr Simon Tay's announcement that there is no vacancy in Parliament. As I have pointed out when I spoke, the Speaker only this afternoon announced that there was a vacancy in Parliament from 2nd June this year. So what is Mr Simon Tay saying that there is no vacancy? Was the Speaker speaking out of turn when he announced that there was a vacancy?

May I ask whether the NCMP will give the floor to me? Will you allow clarification?

If you want, speak afterwards, Mr Simon Tay. But did you not say that there was no vacancy? If you want to clarify, you should have clarified it then. And he harps on Opposition Members failing so far. This was again taken up by the Minister. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, they say. And here is an opportunity to have just that - to see whether the Opposition Members have failed or not. Will you take up the challenge? Or will you just say, "Ah, but section 24(2A) says we don't have to." Will you take up the challenge? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Let the electorate in Jalan Besar decide whether the Opposition Members are failing or not, or whether they would like to see Opposition Members in Parliament. It is no good indulging in words without being prepared to put your words to the test. He says that the PAP has no fear. And I thought the Minister would be giving us sound reasons for not holding a by-election. But he says PM has given his reason. We should have expected greater clarification of what the PM was trying to say. But we did not get that. What was the Prime Minister saying when he said "to distract the nation from its economic activities"? What was he trying to say? Just mere words without any meaning? If there is a meaning, what is it? Let us have it. And we do not get any of these. So I do not know if there is anything else for me to answer.

Mr Jeyaretnam, have you got any more new points?

Yes. I do not think there is anything more for me to answer. I am just coming to that, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you will bear with me. I was just saying that it would appear there is nothing more to answer. Because all we have heard is just one reason. It is a pity. But I think the people of Singapore will see. They will read, I hope, something of what was said today and they will judge for themselves. In the final analysis, it is the people. And it is the people's judgement that we must accept. The conclusion I get from this evening's debate is that the PAP is not prepared to face the people and accept their verdict.

Question put, and negatived. Motion accordingly negatived.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed. " - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes past Six o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.

asked the Prime Minister, for the Presidential elections, whether Singaporeans who are overseas will be allowed to vote at Singapore's missions overseas.

The matter of overseas voting was last raised in Parliament in October 1998. There is no change to the Government's position that we are not yet ready to introduce such voting. This is because the limitations of the various forms of overseas voting remain.

We estimate from experience that only about 3.5% of electors are likely to be overseas on polling day for various reasons. They are dispersed in many countries and many locations within them. We have only 26 missions, which means that many electors will not live or work close enough to one of these missions to go there to vote, especially in large countries like the United States or China. Voting in our overseas missions would probably not effectively reach the majority of these Singaporeans.

There are no plans to introduce overseas voting in the forthcoming Presidential Election. However, the Government recognizes that this is not a static situation. With globalization, more Singaporeans will work abroad and the case for overseas voting may change.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the recent incidents of crimes involving the police and civil defence officers reflect an increasing trend of crimes amongst officers in the force.

There is no consistent upward trend in the number of Police and Civil Defence officers committing corruption and other criminal offences.

As at 26th June 1999, 21 Police officers have been charged in court for corruption and criminal offences as compared to 33 in 1998, 29 in 1997, and 34 in 1996. As for Civil Defence officers, the numbers are 1 in 1998, 4 in 1997 and 2 in 1996 for various offences. None was charged for corruption. There is 1 case under investigation this year.

The number of police officers charged in Court for corruption and criminal offences averaged about 28 per year from 1995 to 1998. This makes up less than 0.4% of the Police Force strength (strength to-date is 7,417). Nevertheless, these cases are still of concern. The harm caused by a few rogue officers goes far beyond the numbers they represent. A single case is one case too many.

The Commissioner of Police has given the assurance that such officers will be systematically weeded out and charged in Court. They will be held fully accountable for their actions even if it means having to make their acts public. Such transparency clearly demonstrates the Police's determination to eradicate corruption and criminal acts. We cannot allow public confidence in the Police to be eroded because of the acts of a few rogue officers. The Ministry of Home Affairs places a high premium on honesty and integrity for all its officers. Police has implemented a range of enhanced measures aimed at eradicating corruption and criminal acts in the Force. These include:

Better preventive measures; (b) Stronger detection mechanism; and (c) Proactive co-operation with CPIB.

The situation is well under control. The Ministry of Home Affairs and its departments are fully conscious of the trust and respect accorded to them by the public. The exemplary conduct and behaviour of officers contribute to this trust and respect. We will continue to uphold the high standards and values that we have set for our officers.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government has any plans to review legislation affecting juvenile delinquents in view of rising crimes among the group.

Juvenile Delinquency Trend

The incidence of crime involving juvenile delinquents is not rising. In the first 5 months of 1999, the number of juveniles arrested decreased by 42%, from 1,079 to 631 compared to the same period last year. The misperception could be due to a number of recent cases happening in quick succession and extensive media coverage on these cases.

Juvenile delinquency is a multi-faceted problem. The reasons why a juvenile turns to crime are diverse and complex in nature. A concerted effort by Governmental bodies, social agencies, community organisations, and parents and family members is needed to deal with the problem effectively. In this regard, the "Inter-Ministry Committee on Youth Crime" or IMYC which I chair monitors the youth crime situation and coordinates the various measures by key agencies such as the Police, schools, the Courts, MCD, NYC and VWOs to tackle youth crimes. A wide range of measures, such as the Streetwise Programme, the Honorary VSC Scheme and the Guidance Programme, have been put in place over the last 2-3 years. These measures have kept in check the incidence of juvenile and youth crimes in the past couple of years.

Meanwhile, the Government is reviewing the Children and Young Persons Act to enhance the rehabilitation programmes for youth offenders. The review will look at provisions for the treatment of juvenile offenders. In the area of juvenile delinquency, we will be looking at alternative treatment options and provisions to enhance the rehabilitation process.

On its part, Police will continue to make its presence felt on the ground and monitor places where youths usually gather. It will continue to conduct checks on suspicious juveniles found loitering in the void decks, coffee shops, fast food outlets and shopping malls.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology whether there are plans to introduce laws to prevent Internet service providers from intruding into the privacy of account holders.

Under the existing Computer Misuse Act, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are prevented from intruding into the privacy of their account holders. Although the current legislation already offers protection to the Internet users, we recognise that there is a need to formulate a set of clear guidelines for ISPs on the actions which constitute an invasion of user's privacy. The MCIT, together with NCB, TAS and other Government agencies, have already started work to develop this set of guidelines. At the same time, we will also examine the current laws to see if there are areas that need to be improved.

Our goal is to create an e-environment that is safe and secure, so that e-commerce can thrive, and legitimate computer users can use the Internet with confidence.

asked the Minister for National Development whether, in the light of economic recovery, there will be plans for more upgrading programmes for Housing and Development Board estates.

The upgrading programmes are part of our Estates Renewal Strategy to rejuvenate older HDB estates while keeping the community ties intact. The Main Upgrading Programme (MUP) aims to improve the living conditions of the older HDB estates and bring them closer to the standards of the latest HDB housing developments. The Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP) allows residents living in HDB blocks that are more than 10 years old to enjoy some form of upgrading to the common areas before the blocks are due for MUP. Both these upgrading programmes are heavily subsidised.

The Government will maintain the IUP at 18 precincts for 1999 to allow residents to continue to enjoy the benefits. This takes into account the resources of the Town Councils. Increasing the number of precincts will lead to slower and less than satisfactory implementation of the projects. The current programme of 18,000 dwelling units per year is just right for the Town Councils to comfortably handle.

As for MUP, it was earlier announced that the programme will be scaled down to 5 precincts in 1999 from 10 last year in view of the economic uncertainty then, and the fact that we will be having a budget deficit in FY99. Should the economy continue to show clear and sustained signs of recovery, my Ministry will review the programme with a view to increasing the number of precincts for MUP next year.

asked the Minister for the Environment whether recommendations and guidelines have been given for the construction industry to reduce noise pollution, especially in the densely populated areas.

My Ministry has regular dialogue sessions with the Singapore Contractors Association and one of the topics discussed at these sessions is noise. The permissible noise levels in construction sites are spelt out under the Environmental Pollution Control (Control of Noise from Construction Sites) Regulations. Contractors are aware of the permissible levels and are familiar with them.

Earlier this year, my Ministry amended the Regulations to tighten the control of noise at night. We will monitor the situation to see if further measures are required.

asked the Minister for Health whether the amount of Medisave that can be used for chemotherapy in hospitals will be revised upwards from the present $2,000 ceiling which has not been reviewed since 1991, so as to make the effective but expensive 'advance cancer drugs' affordable to patients.

I am pleased to inform the hon. Member that my Ministry has already reviewed and increased the Medisave withdrawal limits for outpatient chemotherapy. From January 1998, these limits have been raised from $250 to $400 for each treatment cycle lasting between 21 and 28 days. The withdrawal limit is $100 for a weekly treatment cycle. The yearly withdrawal limit now stands at $3,000, up from $2,000. With the raising of the limits, about 80% of subsidised patients and 60% of private patients would be able to pay their entire chemotherapy bills using Medisave alone. This does not take into account MediShield claims which can also be used to offset part of the bill, hence making the chemotherapy treatment even more affordable. The hon. Member may be assured that my Ministry reviews Medisave withdrawal limits regularly to ensure that they are adequate for most patients.

asked the Minister for Manpower if he will consider allowing spouses of citizens and permanent residents who stay here on Dependant's Pass to work.

I would first like to clarify that Singapore Immigration and Registration (SIR) issues dependant's passes to two categories of foreigners:

spouses and unmarried children (under 21 years of age) of Employment Pass holders; and

children of intended adoptive parents who are Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents.

In the case of eligible foreign spouses of citizens and permanent residents, SIR either grants them Singapore permanent resident status or issues them with long term social visit passes. Foreign spouses who are issued with long term social visit passes are allowed to work in Singapore. They can apply for the appropriate category of work pass.

As for Dependant's Pass holders, they are also allowed to work in Singapore. DP holders who wish to work must apply to the Ministry of Manpower for a letter of consent to work.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence what are the reasons for granting and not granting military deferment to 18-year-old male Singaporeans and if he can give an update on (i) the number of such persons who were granted this deferment to complete their tertiary education before joining the army, from 1994-1998; (ii) which field of study they were in; and (iii) whether they were in local or overseas tertiary institutions.

Singaporean males are liable for full-time National Service enlistment once they are 18 years old. For practical reasons, MINDEF, in general, defers their enlistment to allow them to complete the course of study they are undertaking when they turn 18. This means that MINDEF would generally grant deferment from full time national service to allow them to complete their GCE A level, ITE or diploma studies.

We also grant deferment for university studies if the applicant is able to commence his course of study before the enlistment age. For overseas university studies, he will have to commence his studies before the age of 17 1/2.

The numbers of persons granted deferment for tertiary (i.e. diploma and undergraduate) studies fluctuate from year to year. On average, over the last 4 years, about 4000-5000 deferments are granted annually for local tertiary studies, primarily in the local polytechnics. In addition, about 100 deferments are granted for overseas tertiary studies each year. I am unable to provide a further breakdown of these figures by field of study because we do not keep such records since field of study is not a factor for consideration for deferment.

On compassionate grounds, MINDEF also grants deferment to males if enlisting them for full-time national service will cause them and their family severe financial or social hardship. All applications for deferment on this ground are evaluated by an Advisory Board which comprises representatives from both the public and private sectors and which will make a recommendation to the Commander of Central Manpower Base. Deferment, if granted, is meant to give the males concerned time to sort out their financial or social problems before they are enlisted. In the past 3 years, an average of 50 cases a year were granted deferment on compassionate grounds.

MINDEF also grants deferment to those whose medical or physical condition renders them temporarily unfit for enlistment. The deferment is to enable them to recover from their medical and physical conditions. In the past 3 years, an average of 130 registrants are granted deferment on medical grounds each year.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, in view of the rising consumption of water whether the Government will launch an annual campaign to save water.

Our water consumption actually declined in 1998. The average daily water consumption fell by 0.3% in 1998, a reversal from an increase of 5 % and 4.2 % in 1997 and 1996 respectively. The first five months of 1999 also saw a decline of 2.9 % in the average daily water consumption. This is partly due to the economic downturn and the measures we introduced to conserve water. Water tariffs were restructured in 1997 to reflect the strategic importance and scarcity of water. The third increase of water tariff, of four annual increments, has just been implemented on 1st July 1999.

The Public Utilities Board organises an annual programme to promote the conservation of water as a way of life for Singaporeans. The programme covers a range of activities including publicity, visits to waterworks, water conservation talks to schools, "save water" exhibits at community functions, and the distribution of "save water" leaflets. In some years, we also mount a "save water" campaign. There was a "save water" campaign last year, but this need not be done annually. PUB will press on with its programme of water conservation activities.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether his Ministry has plans to secure more funding for the Skills Development Fund.

Currently, employers contribute to SDF at 1% of the monthly remuneration of workers drawing salary of $1,000 or less a month. In FY98, the SDF collected some $20.4 million in such levies. Despite the economic slowdown, the SDF supported a record 564,375 training places in FY98, which is a 6% increase from the previous year. This translates to one training place for every three persons in the workforce, compared to only one training place for every ten persons in FY86. With the increased level of training activity, the total grant commitment has risen to $88.4 million in FY98, exceeding collections significantly.

Although there is no danger of immediate depletion of SDF funds, the current rate of disbursement versus collection is clearly not sustainable.

The present salary cut-off of $1,000 was raised from the previous ceiling of $750 in April 1995. In the 1995 Budget Debate, the Minister for Finance had given notice that the Skills Development Levy would be further adjusted over time to ensure that the SDF has adequate funds to help upgrade Singapore's workforce for the 21st Century.

My Ministry is currently studying how this adjustment can be made, taking into account the state of the economy. We will not want to make any increases to the levy until the economy has fully recovered.

asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government will give details about the listing of Companies from the Temasek Group.

Temasek Holdings currently has a number of directly held unlisted GLCs, eg, PSA Corp, Singapore Power and SMRT. The Government's intention is to publicly list these unlisted GLCs when they are ready. There is no predetermined schedule for their listing. The Government is in no hurry to divest its shares in them as, unlike many countries which have embarked on privatisation exercises, we do not require the privatisation proceeds to fund the Budget. The timing for the listing would depend on factors like market conditions, and the companies' state of preparation for a successful listing.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology whether he will consider tax and other special incentives to promote electric, hybrid and other cars with special features that conserve fuel and reduce harmful emissions.

From the traffic management perspective, electric vehicles (EVs) and hybrid vehicles (HVs)1 occupy road space, contribute to traffic congestion and cause road damage no different from conventional vehicles (CVs). EVs and HVs should therefore be subject to similar ownership and usage management measures, ie., customs duties, registration fees, additional registration fees and road tax; as well as COE and ERP charges. 1 EVs are powered only by batteries which have to be recharged. HVs on the other hand have both a gasoline engine powered by petrol/diesel and an electric motor powered by batteries. In congested urban areas when the speed is low, the electric motor is used. The gasoline engine kicks in at higher speeds automatically to power the vehicle as well as recharge the batteries.

Nevertheless, we recognise that EVs, and to a lesser extent HVs, can be less pollutive than CVs. My Ministry will examine the issue carefully together with the Minstry of the Environment and Ministry of Finance to determine if tax incentives should be provided to promote their use in Singapore.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology whether the Land Transport Authority has plans to alleviate residents' transport woes by increasing the number of bus services in Sengkang to supplement the limited five services currently plying there.

Trans-Island Bus Services or TIBS is currently the public bus operator serving Sengkang New Town. TIBS has been introducing and expanding its bus services in tandem with the growth and development of the town. Currently, there are 5 bus services (TIBS No 82, 864, 865, 866 and SBS 88) operating in Sengkang with a deployment of 88 buses at a peak hour frequency of 4 - 10 minutes. These services provide residents with direct links to major HDB towns, namely, Hougang, Ang Mo Kio, Bishan, Toa Payoh and Pasir Ris; as well as major destinations along Serangoon Road, Paya Lebar Road, Geylang Road, Orchard Road, Marina Centre and Shenton Way. They can also connect to other bus services and the MRT at these places to travel to other parts of Singapore.

With the appointment of SBS as the operator for the North East MRT Line (NEL) and Sengkang and Punggol LRTs, SBS will take over the TIBS' bus services in Sengkang and Punggol sectors. SBS will then become a multi-modal operator for the North-East corridor to provide more integrated and better transport services to the residents in the area.

SBS plans to increase the number of trunk buses serving Sengkang by introducing new services and rationalising the existing 5 Sengkang services with those it currently operates in Hougang and Serangoon. This will be done as it takes over the bus services from TIBS between July and November 1999.

Finally, when the NEL and Sengkang LRTs commence operations in the Year 2002, Sengkang residents will be able to enjoy an even better level of public transport service.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister if he will give an update on levels of non-performing loans, both local and foreign, at Singapore banks.

MAS has been making these figures available on its website (www.mas.gov.sg) on a quarterly basis (please see attached table at Appendix A (Cols. 1813 - 1814). As at 31st March 1999, the 5 local banking groups had a gross exposure of S$34.7billion (12.5% of their total assets) to Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Korea and the Philippines. This was a marginal increase over December 1998 (S$34.2 billion), but a decrease in exposure from September 1998 (S$ 35.8 bn).

Appendix A - Regional Exposure and NPLs of Singapore Incorporated Banks (Cols. 1813 - 1814)

The non-performing loans [NPLs] of the 5 local banking groups to these 5 countries amounted to 24.3% of their loans to these countries as at 31st March 1999. This figure has gone up, compared with 23.3% in December 1998 and 17.8% in September 1998. Including domestic loans and other global loans, the total NPLs of the local banks amounted to 8.0% as at 31st March 1999. NPL levels are high as local banks only write off the NPLs when all avenues to recover the loans have been exhausted. Restructured loans are classified as NPLs by local banks. Loans which are adequately collateralised and that are not in arrears in interest or principal repayments are also classified as non-performing if they have weak financials. This has resulted in local banks reflecting a higher NPL figure than is the actual case.

Local banks have set aside substantial provisions, amounting to 72% of their regional bank and non-bank NPLs as at 31st December 1998. These provisions and the collateral backing the regional NPLs in aggregate exceed the regional NPLs outstanding. The level of NPLs does not threaten the financial health of any of the local banks.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he can give an update on (i) the statistical trend of youth crimes from 1994-1998; (ii) the educational and family characteristics of arrested youth gang members; (iii) the kinds of crimes committed; and (iv) what measures are in place to tackle youth crimes.

Statistical Trend of Youth Crimes Juveniles1 arrested for seizable offences from 1994-1998 are as follows: Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 No. of JD 2,102 2,574 2,110 2,147 2,408 Arrested Comparative statistics on youths2 are available only for the period 1997-1998: Year 1997 1998 No. of Youths 4,412 4,396 Arrested

1 Juveniles are persons aged 7 to 15 years old. 2 Persons aged 7 to 19 years old.

Education & Family characteristics of Youth Gang Members The education characteristics of youth gang members dealt with by Police in 1997 and 1998 are as follows: Education Youth Gang Youth Gang Members Level Members Arrested in 1998 Arrested in 1997 (%) (%) Primary 103 (13.7) 64 (10.6) Secondary 589 (78.3) 488 (81.0) Vocational 41 (5.5) 46 (7.7) Institution Polytechnic 12 (1.6) 4 (0.7) Unknown 7 (0.9) 0 (0) Total 752 (100) 602 (100) Police does not keep records of the family characteristics of youth gang members. (III) Kinds of Crimes Committed For the period 1st January 1999 to 31st May 1999, 1,366 youths were arrested for seizable offences. This is 37% lower when compared to the 2,159 youths arrested for the same period last year. Theft and its related offences form the bulk of seizable offences committed by youths. About 66% of those arrested for seizable offences in the first five months of 1999 (or 900 youths) committed such offences. For the same period last year, such offences were committed by about 72% of those arrested for seizable offences (or 1,522 youths). Shoplifting is the most common theft related offence among youths. 522 youths were arrested for shoplifting in the first five months of 1999 while 978 were arrested for the same period last year. The number of youths arrested for offences relating to unlawful assembly, rioting and serious hurt from 1st January to 31st May 1999 is 189, a 10% decrease from 209 for the same period last year.

Measures in Place to Tackle Youth Crimes

The Inter-Ministry on Youth (IMYC) cordinates a range of measure on prevention, enforcement and rehabilitation. Measures to tackle youth crimes involving MHA include:

School Talks Police and CNB jointly conduct school talks to educate high-risk students about the dangers of secret societies and drug abuse, and to advise these students to lead drug-free and crime-free lives.

Caution And Prison Visit Programme This programme is part of the rehabilitative programme for high-risk youths, such as gang members or those who are associated with gangs. Students who are involved in gangs will be cautioned by officers from Secret Societies Branch (SSB) of Criminal Investigation Department (CID) against future gang involvement. They will also be counselled by CID and invited to participate in the Prison Visit Programme. Under this programme, they will see for themselves the harsh realities of prison life. The students will be recalled during the school holidays after the visit for a review.

Honorary Volunteer Special Constabulary (VSC) Scheme The honorary VSC scheme aims to strengthen links between schools and the Police so as to keep juvenile delinquency problems and youth-gang influence away from the schools. School discipline masters/mistresses and disciplinary teachers from secondary schools are appointed as honorary VSC senior officers. These honorary VSC officers serve as school liaison officers in networking with the Police. They also help to project a symbol of police presence and authority in the schools.

Guidance Programme The Guidance Programme, administered by Police and MCD, targets juvenile offenders who have committed petty crimes, but where there are mitigating factors. It is a 6-month supervision and counselling programme which involves the parents of the offenders. The programme aims to help the juvenile offenders recognise the seriousness and consequences of their act and to acquire life-skills and self-control. It also aims to equip parents with the necessary skills and knowledge for effective parenting. Upon successful completion of the programme, these juvenile offenders may be cautioned by Police in lieu of Court prosecution.

StreetWise Programme The StreetWise Programme, initiated by the National Youth Council and Police, is a 6-month programme designed to change the behaviour of youths who have unwittingly drifted into gang activities. Youths who are identified as gang members or associating with gang activities, but where there are mitigating factors, may be placed under this programme. The programme aims to inculcate life skills and discipline through counselling and developmental training sessions, as well as voluntary curfew. Juveniles involved in serious offences with mitigating factors may also be placed under this programme. Restriction on Participation in Tea Dances Juveniles have been restricted from patronising entertainment outlets that serve alcohol with dancing facilities or tea dances. This is to protect them from undesirable influences at such entertainment outlets as well as to prevent the gangs from using these entertainment outlets as grounds for youth gang recruitment and congregation.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if there are any (i) projections regarding the potential contribution of E-commerce over the next 5-10 years to Singapore's Gross Domestic Product compared with other regional economies; and (ii) statistics as to the percentage of small and medium-sized enterprises in economies such as Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea which have embarked on E-commerce.

There are no such projections regarding the potential contribution of E-commerce to our Gross Domestic Product over the next 5-10 years. The E-commerce industry is still a very new industry, whose impact on the economy, not just for Singapore, but also for the global economy cannot be correctly estimated. But its rapid growth confirms the conclusion of most analysts that this is major global trend with far-reaching effects. The problem of estimation arises because the industry is potentially very broad and cuts many economic sectors, making any computation of the exact contribution of E-commerce activities on the existing value-chain a complicated undertaking. Singapore is however keeping abreast of statistical developments relating to the measurement of E-commerce, where there is still no international consensus. In February this year, DOS launched a new survey1 to obtain information pertaining to electronic commerce (EC) activities in Singapore to enhance our understanding of this emerging sector. The full set of results would be published in due course. Preliminary findings confirm that the E-commerce growth potential in Singapore is good, even if the actual level of activity is still small at the moment. For example, revenue derived from EC supporting services amounted to S$144 million in 1997. This soared 85% to S$267 million in 1998 and is expected to increase by another 34% to S$359 million in 1999. The focus remains primarily on business-to-business (B2B) rather than business-to-consumer (B2C). Similar projections by agencies like the International Data Corporation (IDC) also paint a very optimistic scenario. IDC projected that E-commerce revenue in Singapore would grow by about 110% per year over 1998~2003. We do not have comprehensive data on the percentage of small and medium-sized enterprises which have embarked on E-commerce. However, a recent NCB sample survey on the state of E- commerce readiness (based on a sample of more than 1000 companies in 8 industry sectors) showed a high level of Internet-readiness among companies in the selected industry sectors, notably in the manufacturers of electronic products. About 73% of the companies surveyed already had corporate Internet access and over a third owned corporate websites. About 9% already use the Internet to conduct business-to-business e-commerce. Of the companies already procuring through the Internet, 57% were already procuring through Web-based trading platforms and another 32% used e-mail. The survey, however highlighted that many small and medium-sized companies were still relatively behind larger companies in the area of E-commerce. It is important for these SMEs to do more to move into E-commerce, by taking advantage of various Government schemes currently in place. Corroborating our state of overall EC readiness, the World Competitiveness 1999 ranking of whether the E-commerce environment is sufficiently developed for business opportunities, ranked Singapore as the 3rd, after Iceland and Finland. (In comparison, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea were ranked 13th, 16th and 40th respectively.) Singapore will continue to promote global companies to base their E-commerce hubs in Singapore to further grow the industry. EDB targets to anchor at least 25 of the leading logistics, manufacturing and services companies to set up their e-commerce operations in Singapore by 2003, in order to tap the tremendous growth worldwide2.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what is the number of tourists that have come to Singapore during the second quarter of this year.

An estimated 1.65 million tourists came to Singapore during the second quarter of 1999, about the same number as that for the first quarter of the year. This number is 8.3% higher than the same quarter last year. 1 Capturing over 2000 companies in Singapore. 2 In a University of Texas study funded by Cisco Systems, it was found that in 1998, total E-commerce for US based companies alone exceeded $102 billion. At this rate of growth, it will easily surpass the earlier prediction of US$200 billion by 2000, made by IBM, for E-commerce worldwide.

asked the Minister for Education what is the number of students who have applied to study at the South Asian Studies Department of the National University of Singapore.

At the National University of Singapore (NUS), students are first admitted to the faculty and not directly to departments or programmes. For this academic year (AY), they will matriculate on 7th July 1999, after which they will declare their subject preferences on 8-9th July 1999. NUS will be able to ascertain the number of first-year students who applied to read South Asian Studies (SAS) as one of their 3 first-year subjects and provide information on the number of students allocated to read SAS on 12th July 1999. Appendix A - Regional Exposure and NPLs of Singapore Incorporated Banks (Cols. 1813 - 1814)