Hansard, 1999-08-03

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: FromTo Name(1999)(1999) Mr Leong Horn Kee15 Jul17 Jul Dr Lily Neo18 Jul31 Jul BG George Yong-Boon Yeo19 Jul23 Jul Mr S Iswaran19 Jul24 Jul Mr Lew Syn Pau20 Jul22 Jul Mr Ang Mong Seng24 Jul26 Jul Mr Goh Chee Wee24 Jul31 Jul NameFromTo (1999)(1999) Dr Aline Wong26 Jul30 Jul 3 Aug12 Aug Mr Mohamad Maidin B P M26 Jul30 Jul Dr Ker Sin Tze26 Jul2 Aug Dr Lee Boon Yang27 Jul1 Aug Mr Tan Soo Khoon28 Jul30 Jul Mr Zulkifli Baharudin28 Jul30 Jul 4 Aug7 Aug Mr Mah Bow Tan 31 Jul31 Jul Mr Matthias Yao Chih1 Aug7 Aug Mr Lee Kuan Yew 3 Aug3 Aug Mr Abdullah Tarmugi7 Aug11 Aug Mr Heng Chiang Meng22 Aug26 Aug Mr Seng Han Thong22 Aug29 Aug 10 Sep12 Sep TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 13 July 1999 (1) Sultan Hussain (Amendment) Bill; (2) Dentists Bill; and (3) Drug Trafficking (Confiscation of Benefits) (Amendment) Bill. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Prime Minister whether he will give details of the list of problems with the Government encountered by the first Elected President during his term of office.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Net Investment Income or income derived from past reserves is defined as earnings for past reserves or current reserves and whether there has been a change of definition since the Elected President's office was created.

asked the Prime Minister whether all assets belonging to the state have been accurately identified, accounted for and recorded and whether a list of assets can be made available to Parliament.

asked the Prime Minister if he will direct all Ministries and key Statutory Boards to not only maintain a complete listing of Physical Assets, which are defined as Reserves, but also ensure that these land parcels and buildings are properly maintained so as to preserve and protect their value.

asked the Prime Minister whether it will be possible for the Government to disclose annually, after the close of the fiscal year, (i) the amount of reserves, if any, accumulated during the year by the current Government; (ii) the portion transferred to the official reserves (guarded by the President); and (iii) the remaining amount of cumulative funds useable to fund deficits, wherever applicable.

asked the Prime Minister if he will respond to the President's comment that he suspects some Ministers may find him a nuisance and that public officers should change their mindsets and see it as their constitutional duty to help the Elected President protect the past reserves.

asked the Prime Minister, with regard to Net Investment Income (income earned from past reserves), if he will disclose (i) its magnitude in 1997 and 1998; (ii) the rationale for the recent change in its treatment from being considered as part of past reserves to being considered as part of current reserves; (iii) whether such a change is temporary or permanent; and (iv) why it is still an unresolved issue.

Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, Questions 1 to 7 are all related to remarks made by the President at his press conference on 16th July 1999. The Government will make a Ministerial Statement addressing fully the issues raised by the President. It had planned to do so today, but in view of the demise of Mrs Ong Teng Cheong, it has postponed the Statement to a sitting of Parliament scheduled for later this month. I therefore request the Speaker's permission to defer answering these questions until after the Ministerial Statement has been made, so that the issues can be seen in their proper context.

You have my permission.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister if he will give an update on the status of the Clob issue, and what are the possible solutions being considered to resolve the matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I last updated Parliament on the Clob issue in May 1999. Since then, Mr Akbar Khan's cash offer has closed with 359 investors out of more than 172,000 accepting. Three more private sector offers have been announced, but none have obtained regulatory approvals and been formally made. Akbar Khan's Straits Fund Sdn Bhd is offering units in a closed-end investment fund in exchange for Clob investors' securities. It is not yet known at what price the Clob securities will be valued or how Clob investors are to trade these units. Tungku Abdullah's Bintang Melewar Sdn Bhd is offering Clob investors three options, including units in a closed-end investment fund, fund management services for larger investors, and custodial services for non-accepting investors. And the third private sector offer is for Clob investors to swap their securities for an equal proportion of shares in Telekom Malaysia and United Engineers of Malaysia ("UEM"). The two companies have said that they will purchase the Clob securities at a discount to market prices, and sell shares in Telekom Malaysia and UEM at a premium to market prices. Any offeror intending to offer Clob investors shares or units in investment funds for their Clob Malaysian securities will need to issue a full prospectus in Singapore. This prospectus must be approved and registered with the Registry of Companies and Businesses ("RCB"). The RCB verifies that the prospectuses comply with the disclosure requirements set out in Singapore's Companies Act, and will register the documents if it is in the public interest to do so. In evaluating the public interest, the Registrar will take into account all relevant factors and considerations. The Securities Investors' Association of Singapore ("SIAS") has urged the Registrar not to register prospectuses of offers until a comprehensive solution is in place for all Clob investors. The Registrar has stated that it will take into account the views of the SIAS, which is the only body representing investors, together with other information and views that it may receive regarding the offers. The Stock Exchange of Singapore (SES) has stated that it will not stand in the way of private sector offers. However, there should be clear and reasonable arrangements for non-accepting investors to trade their shares on the KLSE. When the offers are formally made, investors should study the terms of each offer carefully before making a decision. The agreement between CDP and SCANS contains arrangements for Clob investors to transfer their securities to individual account with the Malaysian Central Depository, and thereafter trade these securities on the KLSE. SCANS continues to be in breach of this agreement, but investors should not feel pressured into accepting any offers if they are not satisfied with the offerors' terms. The SES is continuing to explore all means of resolving the problem. It has been taking advice from lawyers on the legal position. The SIAS has also announced that it too is consulting lawyers, as the legal position of the Clob investors is different from that of the SES. Meanwhile the SES has submitted a proposal of its own to the KLSE, suggesting a staggered release of the Clob securities over 12 months, without prejudice to its rights under the CDP-SCANS Agreement. The proposed mechanism will result in a daily release of Clob securities with the value of a mere 0.015% of KLSE's total market capitalisation. This effect on KLSE stock prices should be negligible. This is a fair solution which directly addresses Malaysian concerns that any solution to the Clob issue must not disrupt the KL market, and enables Clob investors to exercise their rights under Malaysian law to trade their securities. The two exchanges are currently in communication on the proposal. And the SES will inform Clob investors as and when progress is made.

Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he has any expectation on the timeframe by which this issue could be resolved since the CDP-SCANS Agreement would have to do the transfer by the end of the year. And if it is not done by the end of the year, would it lead to some legal process being introduced to enable the Clob investors to get their shares transfered? The second question is whether the SES will assist in special cases where there are rights issues or warrants which have a timeframe expiry, for example, rights issues may be called within a certain timeframe or warrants may expire within this year, and whether the SES can approach the KLSE for special considerations to allow the Singapore owners to either exercise their conversion rights for such issues.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the timeframe, it is not the case that the end-of-the-year is the deadline, because the agreement was settled last year (signed in September 1998) and was meant to be implemented as soon as possible. There is no specific timeframe. The end-of-the-year is not a deadline for the agreement between CDP and SCANS. There have been some statements by one of the offerors, I believe, that at the end of the year, if this matter is not settled, the shares may be confiscated. But the SES is taking advice on that, and its advice so far is that even if the shares are transferred to the Minister of Finance in Malaysia, the titles still belong to the shareholders and they still have a claim on those shares. So they are not expropriated. But we are clarifying this position because it is an important point on which I am sure Clob shareholders would want reassurance. As for the legal process, as I said in my statement, SES is taking legal advice and the shareholders' association is also taking legal advice. I do not think we should rule anything out but neither are we seeing that as the only solution. As to when the whole package can be solved, as Members have been reading in the newspapers recently, the Malaysians are gearing up for elections and I think their minds are likely to be on other weightier matters for the time being. So it will be some time before the matter would be solved. On special cases like rights issues and warrants, I have to ask the Stock Exchange to look into the matter but we will have to study the specific cases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister said that to make Clob legal, the Malaysian authorities would have to go to Parliament, in other words, to pass a resolution to make Clob illegal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Clob is not illegal. Even today, it is not illegal. Clob is an offshore market. It operates outside Malaysia, just like people trade in Malaysian shares in London or Hong Kong. It does not require Malaysian law to make it legal. It did require the cooperation of the KL Stock Exchange because Clob had to operate nominee accounts and also investors had to buy additional shares, rights issues, and so forth. Indeed, it complied with all the rules and regulations of the KL Stock Exchange all the many years it was in existence. In September last year, the KL Stock Exchange changed its rules and Clob reassessed its position and decided that it was no longer viable for it to operate under the new rules. But there is no question of Clob being illegal.

Sir, in view of the difficulty of the Clob issue so far and the so-called unsatisfactory result in the level of negotiation between the Singapore Stock Exchange and the Malaysia Stock Exchange, does the Government intend to take up the issue with the Prime Minister of Malaysia?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in fact, the Government had already done so. If you read my previous statement in May 1999, I explained that after the matter reached an impasse at the working level, the two Prime Ministers discussed it in Hanoi when they met during the ASEAN Summit. After the meeting, Dr Mahathir came out and told the press that Clob would be part of the package of issues to be negotiated between the two governments, including water, railway land, CPF, and so on, and he mentioned specifically Clob. But, unfortunately, the Malaysian Government subsequently changed its position. On 17th May this year, Prime Minister Mahathir made a different statement and he said, "No. Clob is not one of the issues. Clob is a separate matter." But the Singapore Government has said, in our negotiations with the Malaysians, that while this is something we can negotiate separately, by the time the main negotiations are settled, Clob should not remain outstanding. So the two can proceed on parallel paths but they must reach a conclusion at the same time. But both packages may take some time to resolve because, in the nature of our relations with Malaysia, these are not easy problems. So we will have to wait and see what happens.

Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Deputy Prime Minister say that he would not expect any form of solution until after the Malaysian general elections?

I did not quite say that. I said that they have their minds on other matters right now. I am sure you understand the psychology. So I think it is more likely it will be settled after, rather than before, the general elections.

Order. On behalf of hon. Members, I welcome Hon. Dr (Mrs) Najma Heptulla, Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) of India, who is present in our Gallery. (Applause).

asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government is still hopeful of recovering all monies invested in the Suzhou project.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam last asked about investment of public monies in Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) in January 1998. In my reply, I explained the composition of SSTD, that is, the Singapore consortium participating in the SIP project. I also provided the amounts its shareholders had invested. I pointed out that as the shareholders include publicly listed companies and MNCs, the SIP project had to be viable. Any losses sustained would have to be made public and available for scrutiny by the international investment community. I also explained the problems faced by the SIP as a result of aggressive promotion by the Suzhou Government of a rival industrial park next door, the Suzhou New District (SND). Since January 1998, both sides have carried out extensive consultations to resolve the problems. They thoroughly evaluated the progress of the SIP and the experience gained so far, and sought to work out jointly the best way to advance the project, given the circumstances. The discussions were successful, and resulted in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by the two sides in Singapore on 28th June 1999, and published. Initially the Singapore side suggested that SND, that is, the rival, suspended its marketing for five years, so that full attention could be given to accelerate SIP's development. The Chinese side explained why they could not suspend SND, but expressed their commitment to SIP's priority status by offering to coordinate the marketing of the two parks. The Singapore side accepted the Chinese explanation of their constraints. Hence, the need for a fundamental review. The MOU is a comprehensive package redefining the objectives and structure of the project, and resolving many long outstanding problems. Its main points include: a) Refocusing the SIP project on completing the first 8 sq km by 1st January 2001. b) Transferring majority ownership and management control of CSSD, the joint venture company from Singapore to China on 1st January 2001. c) The Suzhou Government and the joint venture company to continue to look after the interests of SIP tenants and investors. They guarantee that the changes to the project will not affect their commitments to these tenants and investors. d) The Suzhou Government will respect SIP's priority status by recommending all suitable projects to the SIP, encouraging investors to choose SIP, and taking concrete measures to pre-empt disorderly competition between SIP and SND. e) The Suzhou Government will encourage population from Suzhou old city to move to SIP so as to accelerate SIP's development and growth. f) Both sides will accelerate the adaptation of Singapore's experience. Beyond 1st January 2001, software transfer will continue through attachments and training of Chinese officials in Singapore. g) Both sides have also settled all the outstanding commercial issues, to enable the project to go forward with a clean slate and the best chance of success. h) Both sides will jointly assist CSSD to enhance its financial performance and to enable CSSD's early listing. These measures will put the SIP project on a workable track and improve the joint venture company's financial viability. The Chinese side have assured us that they will do their utmost over the next 18 months to implement the agreements and make the 8 sq km area a success. The Singapore side remains committed to the project and will do all it can to achieve a positive outcome. The shareholders in the Singapore consortium have fully endorsed the MOU. They include American, Japanese, Dutch and Korean corporations. The consortium has slightly increased its investments in the joint venture companies since January last year. I have circulated an updated list of investments (Cols. 1867-1870) by consortium members and other Government-linked companies in the SIP project. Members should have it on their seats. The total amount invested by statutory boards and GLCs in the project so far is US$147 million. In addition, as part of the package deal in the MOU, Temasek has agreed to guarantee a loan of up to US$65 million to the project, for a fixed period up to 31st December 2003, in return for a commercial fee from the members of the Singapore consortium. Beyond these commitments, the Singapore consortium does not expect to inject further amounts into the SIP project. LIST - SSTD SHAREHOLDERS (Cols. 1867-1870) The strategic objective of the SIP project was not just to earn a profit for the joint venture, but to be a vehicle for software transfer. But shareholders in the Singapore consortium decided to invest in CSSD based strictly on commercial considerations. They have always emphasised that the project must be commercially viable. Unless it can earn a reasonable return, the consortium cannot justify its investment, and SIP cannot support the software transfer. The shareholders in the Singapore consortium evaluated the viability of the project critically before committing themselves. But like any other project, it was subject to normal commercial risks. There could not be any certainty of profit. For a combination of reasons, it has proved more difficult for SIP to become profitable than the Singapore consortium initially expected. However, with the package of solutions now agreed upon by both parties, and the assurances given by the Chinese, the SIP project has a reasonable opportunity to turn around and become profitable in the medium term, provided the external investment climate does not deteriorate.

May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister why has the Memorandum of Understanding not been made public? I understand from the librarian that it was not presented to Parliament. May we know why?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Memorandum of Understanding is a commercial document which was published when it was signed, and it was all over the newspapers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether it is true that the Suzhou project costs the Government more than $30 billion of public funds, and this was apparently alleged by Dr Chee Soon Juan in a speech he made at Raffles Place in December last year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no truth at all. I had already given Parliament a full update on the status of SIP in January 1998, giving figures similar to what I have just stated again, which is $147 million. Dr Chee Soon Juan made a speech last year at Raffles Place where he said that if we continued talking about Suzhou, we were bailing out $30 billion of public funds, not "his" money ("his" meaning Mr Lee Kuan Yew) but $30 billion of taxpayers' money. I do not know where he got his figure from, but Members will know that this is Dr Chee Soon Juan's statement and, with him, accuracy and facts are matters of taste rather than morals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether it is reassuring to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister that the Government hopes that it will show returns. What I want to know from the Deputy Prime Minister is: is this a pious hope or are there any realistic expectations and, if so, when do we expect any returns?

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are commercial propositions. There is a commercial consortium. They have spent 19 months negotiating the MOU, which they have signed. It is still not guaranteed that the project will become profitable. But they have to make the best of the project in the circumstances, and we will have to see in due course what happens. I think it is too early to speculate.

Sir, I do not know whether the Government has sufficiently considered the Suzhou New District before committing its investment which has resulted in today's position. I understand that the Suzhou New District had been in existence before the Government decided to make an investment. Was it prudent for the Government to make the investment and pulling in the commercial establishments which are now suffering losses and facing an uncertain future?

Sir, in retrospect, obviously, we did not pay enough attention to it. But there was a reason. We were aware of it but there was a reason why we started on a different area, and that is because we were not just building an industrial estate, but building a township complete with schools, houses, infrastructure, industrial park, utilities, everything. Therefore the idea was to look for a fresh piece of ground and start in order to have a clean slate. We believed that the Suzhou authorities would give clear priority to the SIP project over SND and indeed this was so for the first few years of the project. But as time went on, the competition and rivalry became a problem and finally came to a head. As Members know, I think in November 1997, one of the Vice Mayors of Suzhou went to Germany to promote SND, the rival, and told the German investors that they should come to SND because Jiang Zemin did not support SIP, to the amazement of Chancellor Helmut Kohl's special representative, who was in charge of encouraging German businessmen to go to China together with Singapore. And that is what brought the matter to a head. We have been discussing it over these last 20 months and it has been finally settled. I should quote to the Member what one very senior Chinese official told us. He said that if he had been aware of SND, he would not have advised us to go to Suzhou. Therefore, this was a problem which we did not fully appreciate and their top leaders were not aware of either.

Clarification, Sir. Is the Deputy Prime Minister saying that even the adviser to the Singapore Government from China was not aware of the existence of the Suzhou New District at the point in time, and was the Singapore Government aware of the Suzhou New District at the point in time?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not say the adviser to the Singapore Government. I said a senior Chinese leader who gave us advice told us that he would have given us different advice had he been aware of SND. We were aware that SND existed. We did not know how big a problem it would pose and we believe the problem was manageable, and we were mistaken.

Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister that having learnt a lesson of the problems that we face in Suzhou with the Chinese officials, are we applying this lesson learnt in the other deals that we have in the other industrial parks? Are we facing any problems in the other parks that we have in China, for example, the Wuxi industrial park?

I am not aware of the details of the Wuxi industrial Park. There is no G-to-G element in that. That is purely a commercial proposition. It is much less ambitious. They are not talking about 70 sq km with 8 sq km in phase I. They are going one sq km by one sq km, advancing as the project develops. From my not very up-to-date knowledge, I believe that they are also having some difficulties, not because of the Chinese partners but because investments into China generally are down this year and therefore they are finding it difficult to get tenants. But certainly, from the lessons from SIP, we would have to do a full post mortem and derive the full benefits from them. And it is not just us who will do the post mortem but I am sure Harvard Business School will take a very close interest and so will the Europeans, Insead, and the others. And they will write it up because here was a very important project, given very high level support from both sides, including the Chinese side. It is not a laughing matter, when the President of the People's Republic of China goes and provides calligraphy for a park. And yet, there were these difficulties which finally could not be properly overcome and we have had to re-adjust our project in order to accept these limitations. It will be very carefully scrutinised and the lessons documented so that everybody who goes to China will have it available. It will be made into case studies. Therefore, we are trying our best to make sure that it becomes as much of a success as possible.

May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether a comprehensive agreement was drawn up between the Chinese Government and the Singapore Government before we embarked on this Suzhou project, and if there was, whether any provisions were made for the resolution of any disputes that may arise by reference to arbitration or to any other international tribunal?

Of course there were agreements. There was a G-to-G agreement which governed the software transfer and there was a commercial agreement which governed their commercial development. And some of the items in the agreement were issues which were long in dispute and have taken us this long time to settle. The commercial agreement would have been subject to the investment guarantee agreement signed between Singapore and China which provides that, in case of dispute, the matter would be referred to arbitration. And that was one of the options which was considered seriously, but fortunately, the two parties were able to resolve their difficulties without having to refer to arbitration.

Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, in view of our reduced role and stake in Suzhou, whether we would be able to provide the same support and service level to these companies, many of whom have invested in Suzhou simply because of our involvement and reputation and credibility there.

Sir, that is one of our major concerns in negotiating the MOU, which is to make sure that we do our best to safeguard the interest of the tenants who have gone in, because we have encouraged them. They went in because we gave them comfort. We persuaded them. They went in expecting our help and support in navigating any unexpected bumps in the night. Now, we will still be there but in a much lesser role. We have taken some pains in making this agreement to get the Chinese side to commit, which they have done so publicly, that anything which has been settled with the tenants before this will remain in force after this and will not be changed by the signing. At the same time, we have gone round and explained to the tenants and reassured them what the agreement consists of and what the arrangements are which we are making over the next two years. There is a transition period of two years to the 1st of January 2001 before the shareholding structure changes and by that time, Suzhou Industrial Park will be nearly seven years in existence. It would have been in existence for a considerable length of time and companies which are tenants in our park would have been able to establish themselves. We could not have expected this project to continue indefinitely. At some stage, it must complete and the experiment must be declared either a success or not. There must be a graduation and then probably, if it is of a commercial success, there should be a public listing of the company and the original shareholders would exit or partially exit, and the structure will change. So, when you go in, it is for a reasonable expectation, but not indefinitely. And that we have tried to explain to the investors. Naturally they are still concerned but we would do our best to hold their hands.

Is the Government satisfied that the senior government official from China was honest when he said that he was not aware of the existence of the Suzhou New District when he advised the Singapore Government about investing in Suzhou?

Sir, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that.

Question No. 10, Sir.

I have another supplementary question, Mr Speaker, Sir.

File another question for the next sitting. We have a long list of questions today.

asked the Minister for Manpower whether he will consider amending legislation to allow executives the right to union representation in case of retrenchment, dismissal or other workplace problems.

Mr Speaker Sir, let me first explain the rationale behind existing labour legislation. Executives, regardless of seniority, are not covered by the Employment Act. It is assumed and our law takes the position that executives should be able to look after their own interests, as they are usually better educated, and professionals who can negotiate their terms and conditions of employment. They can negotiate and enter into employment contracts by themselves, and do not need to rely on collective bargaining by unions on their behalf. To include them under the Employment Act will create unnecessary rigidity and hinder the free operation of the labour market. Sir, nevertheless, executives who need help to resolve employment disputes with their employers can seek the assistance from the Ministry of Manpower, which provides conciliation service. If their disputes cannot be resolved amicably through conciliation, they need to file a suit under the common law to seek remedy, because employers are not legally obliged to accept the Ministry's advice. With more employees becoming executives, and more jobs being classified as executive jobs, the assumption that all executives are sufficiently well-informed and experienced not to need any protection from the Employment Act may be questionable. Indeed, during the past two years, for example, several executives have sought the help of my Ministry, the unions and MPs at their meet-the-people sessions. We may need to extend part of the provisions in the Employment Act to executives. However, we should do so only to the extent necessary. The Government will study this carefully. Sir, current labour laws do not prevent executives from forming or being represented by their unions. However, they may not be represented by trade unions whose membership consists of rank-and-file employees. Over the years, NTUC has argued for both executives and rank-and-file employees to be allowed to join the same union as it is better for team-work. Thus, frontline supervisors who were promoted from the ranks have been allowed to join rank-and-file unions under the Tripartite Guidelines on Eligibility to Join Rank-and-File Unions, introduced in 1992. In addition, some employers have, on their own accord, allowed their executives to join rank-and-file unions, but this is a voluntary arrangement. Junior and middle level executives can join rank-and-file unions as general branch members, but only to enjoy the social benefits the unions provide. Our trade unions have played a crucial role in maintaining industrial harmony, and cooperating with employers and the Government to promote economic development and workers' welfare. The growing proportion of new entrants to the labour market joining executive ranks, rather than the rank-and-file posts traditionally represented by trade unions, means a potential shrinkage of the unions' support base. This would have major implications for the NTUC and for the strength of our tripartite relationship. We should review the Industrial Relations Act, especially section 16(3), to see how it can be amended to suit the very different circumstances that prevail today. We should consider allowing the same union to represent both rank-and-file workers and junior and middle level executives, instead of having the two groups in separate unions. We may, as the Member has suggested, allow rank-and-file unions to represent junior and middle level executives in some employment matters, such as retrenchment, dismissal and grievances, although not in collective bargaining. Employers' organisations have expressed to my Ministry their concerns over the possible difficulties that such a change may cause. They are concerned with the potential for a "conflict of interest" when executives become members of rank-and-file unions. Employers are also concerned with the impact on management's control, disciplinary and grievance procedures and lawful termination of contracts of employment of executives. In reviewing the Industrial Relations Act, we will take into account not only the desirability of widening the membership base for trade unions, but also employers' legitimate concerns. Sir, my Ministry has called for a tripartite meeting with the NTUC and SNEF to discuss this issue. We will table a preliminary proposal to the meeting, for full discussion with the unions and employers. I look forward to forging a tripartite consensus on how we can bring our laws on union membership up to date, strengthen harmonious labour relations, and create a more competitive workforce.

Sir, as the Minister has said that he is likely to accept my suggestion, will he set a timeframe for the tripartite committee? And would he agree that if there is a clear disciplinary procedure in a company, there should be no conflict of interest for executive staff to join the rank-and-file union of the company?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we will try to resolve this matter as soon as possible. As I have said in my main answer, my Ministry has already called for a meeting with both the Singapore National Employers' Federation and the NTUC. I hope to achieve a consensus as soon as possible to resolve this issue. With regard to the other point about grievance procedures, I think this is an issue that the committee will have to discuss. I understand the trade unions' perspective on this issue and their desire to be involved in some way, but I also have to be aware of the employers' concerns. The purpose of the tripartite committee is for all three parties to sit down and work out a consensus which can allow us to move forward from the position today.

Sir, may I ask the Minister whether the Government will now consider bringing in an Unfair Dismissal Act and setting up a tribunal to hear any grievances or complaints that executives may have against their company?

Sir, again, as I have said, we should let the tripartite committee explore this issue and find which is the best way to deal with some of the problems that have cropped up as a result of the changes in the profile of our workforce.

Is the Minister aware that the Unfair Dismissal Act exists in most enlightened countries? Why can Singapore not have one?

Sir, as I have said, we already have procedures where executives who feel that they have been unfairly dismissed can appeal to my Ministry, and we will try our best to resolve the problems. In most cases, we have been able to do so. As to whether an Unfair Dismissal Act is required or is there another approach to tackle this problem, I believe that the tripartite committee that we have convened is in the best position to discuss this and look at the problem from all angles. And we can come up with a workable model in our context.

Mr Speaker, Sir, having worked in a multi-national environment, I do know that some MNCs have concerns about setting up unions in Singapore. Part of the reason is that they operate in many countries and it may weaken their position. That is why they refuse to set up unions in some of these countries. I believe that some of these feedback have been given to the Economic Development Board.

Mr Singh, no speeches. Please ask your question.

Sir, can the Minister comment on some of these concerns that employers have, especially the MNCs?

Mr Speaker, Sir, employers have many concerns over unionisation of their executives. We have to bear in mind that employers, especially the MNCs, operate throughout the world, and they may have very different experience with trade unions elsewhere. In some countries, they have very unpleasant and unhappy experience with trade unions, and this has in some way affected their mindset. So, some MNCs operating in Singapore see efforts to represent their executives as a failure on the part of management to look after the needs of the executives in their employ. Very often, when the union seeks to represent even their rank-and-file employees, the head office will question the local management by saying, "Have you done something wrong to cause the workers to be unhappy?" These are some of the examples that have been given to us in our discussions with employers. Employers are also concerned that unionisation of their executives would give rise to rigidities, because it is natural for unions, once they start to organise the executives, to want to seek standardisation of rewards and benefits. And many MNCs operating in Singapore, like MNCs elsewhere, take a totally different approach in the remuneration package for their executives. There are a lot more individual components and there are different reward schemes for executives. Other employers have given us feedback that they are concerned with union representation of their executives because they fear that it would give rise to more workplace disputes and could also affect labour-management relations at management level. As I said, a number of such feedback arose from the employers or the MNCs' prior experience or contacts with unions, sometimes in their home countries and sometimes from operating in other countries. Let me hasten to add that I do not entirely agree with all the feedback and their responses. I think the trade union movement in Singapore is very different from the trade union movement in many other countries. The trade unions in Singapore take a non-adversarial and non-confrontational approach. In fact, they have played a key role in helping employers to survive the recent economic downturn that we have just experienced. So we need to persuade such employers to change their mindset and attitude. But we must also bear in mind that where they have genuine concerns, we should be prepared to address these concerns and not force our way upon them. Lest they see Singapore as an unattractive place for them to do business.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether I heard the Minister correctly. Did he say that executives can appeal to him if they feel that they have been unfairly dismissed? If so, I would like to know where the provision is to be found in the law.

Yes, I did say that, Mr Speaker, Sir. In my main answer, I said that executives who need help to resolve employment disputes with their employers can seek assistance. We can provide conciliation. And in the vast majority of cases that we have to deal with, such conciliation had been effective and we have been able to help both employers and their executives reach a compromise and solve their problems.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister agree that preventing workers of any grade from joining a union amounts to an infringement of human right, especially in Europe and in the US?

Sir, I missed the question. Can he repeat, please?

Does the Minister agree that preventing workers of any grade from joining a union amounts to an infringement of human right, especially in the US and in Europe?

Mr Speaker, Sir, under our law, we do not prevent any workers, including executives, from forming or joining a union. They can, including executives, form their unions. What we have is a situation where the law does not allow executives to join a rank-and-file union of workers within a company because of this concern of a conflict of interest in the past. As to whether it is an infringement of human right, of course, our law states quite clearly that there is a right to form and join a union.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, in the light of a recent High Court ruling on the overturning of an order by the Minister for Manpower that the business school owners should pay compensation to an employee for unjust dismissal, the High Court held that the Ministry has not given the business school sufficient opportunities to be heard and the way the investigation was conducted was not in line with the rules of natural justice. Since the said High Court decision had affected the confidence of ---

Mr Tan, I think your question is not related to this. I suggest you file it as a separate Question.

My question is whether the existing system provides sufficient opportunities for disputing parties to be sufficiently heard, including the case involving the business school, and how the current procedure can be improved to ensure that investigations into such disputes could be conducted fairly and that the rules of natural justice are observed by both employers and employees.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the Nominated Member was referring to the case of a lecturer who was employed by a commercial school. Permit me to address his supplementary question, although it does seem to be a little far from the main Question that was answered. I will have to take a bit of time, with your indulgence, Sir. The lecturer, who was the subject of this court case, was dismissed on 6th May 1997, less than four weeks before his contract was due to expire on 31st May 1997. The contract provided for a gross monthly salary of $3,700 and a bonus or gratuity equivalent to at least one month's last drawn salary at the end of the contract. The school said that the lecturer was dismissed because of his poor performance. The lecturer appealed to me alleging that his dismissal was unjust and without valid ground, and here is the answer to Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam too. In fact, the avenue for such an appeal is provided for under the Employment Act. Pursuant to the Employment Act, I therefore asked the Commissioner for Labour to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances leading to his dismissal. This was done by an officer of the Ministry on behalf of the Commissioner. Throughout the inquiry, the employer had refused to cooperate. They maintained that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to deal with the case as the lecturer's employment contract with the school contained a clause for arbitration over any dispute relating to his employment, and that since the lecturer earned more than $1,600, the Employment Act did not apply. Sir, this is incorrect. The lecturer was clearly covered by the Employment Act. The school participated in the inquiry only after much persuasion, even then, very reluctantly. The investigating officer extended four invitations to the school to present its case to the Ministry. The school only responded once by sending its executive director on one occasion. The executive director gave a statement to the investigating officer and left the Ministry hurriedly, claiming that she had to attend another appointment elsewhere. The school was given more than sufficient opportunities to state its case but, for reasons known only to the school, it chose to avoid participating in the inquiry. Sir, in one of the letters to the school, it was stated very clearly that the Ministry would proceed to evaluate the case based on whatever facts gathered so far, notwithstanding that the school's interests might prejudicially be affected by the Minister's decision. Based on the facts and evidence he was able to gather, the investigating officer reported that the dismissal was wrongful and recommended that the lecturer should be compensated. The officer's report noted that the school did not conduct any investigation or inquiry to establish that the lecturer performed poorly as a lecturer. In short, he had no opportunity to defend himself. The complaints of the school against the lecturer had, in fact, occurred early in his employment. The lecturer had explained, and the school appeared to have accepted his explanation and did not pursue the matter. It was, therefore, surprising that just before his term of employment was to end, he was suddenly sacked. After considering the report, I concluded that the school had sacked the lecturer without just cause or excuse. The school was accordingly ordered by me to pay a sum of $6,800 to the lecturer. The school challenged the order in the High Court. Initially, it argued that the Ministry had no jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry. Later, it shifted its stand and kept changing its grounds for challenging the order. They failed on almost all the new grounds they raised. But the Court accepted their arguments that the Ministry's inquiry failed to comply with the rules of natural justice.

I do not know whether this matter has gone on appeal. But if it has gone on appeal, it is sub judice. So we should not be discussing the case now.

I will come to that.

Can you listen to the Minister?

Let me repeat. The court accepted their argument that the Ministry's inquiry failed to comply with the rule of natural justice as the school was not given an opportunity to be heard. On this basis, the court gave judgment in favour of the school. The Ministry did give evidence that the school was given every opportunity to be heard. The school presented evidence to the opposite effect. Sir, the court also criticised the Ministry for lack of procedures in dealing with complaints under the Employment Act. Sir, I would like to assure the House, employers, unions and workers that under the existing procedures to inquire into a dismissal, adequate steps are taken to ensure that all parties involved are given sufficient opportunities to present their case and to respond to arguments put forward by one party against the other. This process is evident in the case in question. The school was invited repeatedly to provide its side of the story. The school was given a copy of the lecturer's complaint letter to the Ministry and was invited to attend the investigation on four occasions. It was the school which chose not to attend the inquiry proceedings, except on one occasion, and even so, reluctantly. My Ministry will not be appealing the court's ruling. We were advised by the Attorney-General not to appeal as the judge's decision was based on his findings of fact. Appeals must be on points of law and not findings of fact unless the factual findings are manifestly against the weight of evidence. The court had focused on the inquiry procedure adopted in dealing with the dismissal appeal. My Ministry has, in fact, commenced such a review to refine and tighten the inquiry procedure in view of the court's ruling and observations. We will spare no effort to rectify any shortcomings. We will also take steps to minimise the opportunities for persons to present to a third party a distorted picture of what we did or did not do, when carrying out our statutory responsibilities. I would, however, like to assure the House that the existing dispute settlement system administered by my Ministry is effective and efficient in resolving conflicts between employers and workers in an amicable manner. We have enjoyed three decades of industrial harmony with no major industrial conflict. The existing dispute settlement system has served us well for 30 years. In 1998, my Ministry had helped to settle the employment claims and disputes involving some 12,000 non-unionised workers and amicably resolved 291 cases of industrial disputes brought up by trade unions and employers. For the first half of this year, claims by about 6,200 non-unionised workers and 120 unionised dispute cases were handled by the Ministry. Sir, my Ministry fully subscribes to the rules of natural justice. Indeed, as an arbiter of employment disputes, my Ministry has a duty and responsibility to evaluate each case thoroughly and objectively, and to uphold the principles of impartiality and fairness in dealing with employment disputes. I would like to assure the House that our employment dispute settlement mechanism is sound, as judged by the overwhelming number of resolved case. Notwithstanding that, my Ministry will not spare any effort to improve on the existing system.

asked the Minister for Manpower what further safety measures are being considered to reduce accidents in the construction sector, in view of the increased number of accidents recently.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the first half of this year (January to June 1999), a total of 753 accidents in construction sites were reported to my Ministry. This is an increase of 19 cases or 2.6% when compared to the same period last year. In terms of fatalities, 28 workers died in construction worksite accidents for the first half of this year. This is 11 (or 28%) less than the 39 workers who lost their lives over the same period last year. Although the number of fatalities has been reduced, the number of fatal accidents is still high and should be further reduced. Over the last two years, the Ministry has taken a number of measures to help improve the safety situation in the construction industry. Some of the more significant measures include Safety Courses for Project Managers, the requirement for Safety Provisions in Contract Documents and the stepping up of enforcement action. Last year, officers from the Department of Industrial Safety conducted a total of 179 special enforcement exercises on construction worksites in addition to the 4,581 routine inspections. The inspections led to 344 contractors being fined from $500 to $42,000 each and 54 occupiers were issued with Stop Work Orders for grossly unsafe work sites. The Ministry is aware that safety issues confronting contractors must be addressed by the whole of the construction industry. Hence, there is a need to adopt a total systems approach involving contractors, construction professionals and developers to improve the safety situation in the construction industry. The Construction 21 (C21) study which my Ministry and the Ministry of National Development have undertaken with key partners of the construction industry will recommend measures aimed at addressing both the upstream and downstream processes to achieve higher safety at construction sites. Notwithstanding the C21 study, my Ministry feels that more must be done by the contractors as employers to improve the situation. Investigations into accidents that occurred at worksites revealed that most of these accidents could have been prevented if only the contractors had provided the basic safety measures, such as barricading open sides, covering all openings to prevent workers from falling as well as objects from falling into these open areas and also improving on housekeeping. Contractors must know that they have the ultimate responsibility to ensure that there is a safe work place for their workers. As a further deterrent, my Ministry is now considering three additional measures. Deterrent sentence for contractors Under the Factories Act, a person who contravenes any provision of the Act that could lead to bodily injury of any person will face a maximum penalty of $10,000 or a jail term of six months, or both. The Ministry will not hesitate to press for deterrent sentence (including jail sentence) for individuals who are found to have blatantly disregarded safety rules. Compulsory safety re-training of all worksite personnel When a worksite is issued with a Stop Work Order, the Ministry will make it a condition to have all the personnel of the worksite undergo appropriate safety refresher training, before allowing work at the worksite to resume. This is to impress on the managers, supervisors and workers that unless the worksite is managed safely, work cannot resume. Bar contractors from further employing Work Permit holders Lastly, contractors who employ foreign workers are obliged to provide a safe and healthy work environment. If a contractor has a bad safety record, it is an indication that the contractor is not able to meet this obligation. Such contractors should not be allowed to engage more foreign workers. Hence, my Ministry will consider barring the contractor from employment of more work permit holders, i.e. no new work permits will be issued and renewal of existing work permits will not be allowed. We have to take such firm action in order to further bring down the accident rate in the construction industry. 1.30 pm

Order. End of Question time. [Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Question Nos. 12 to 46 on the Order Paper have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 4th August 1999.]

"to amend the Bankruptcy Act (Chapter 20 of the 1996 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the Business Registration Act (Chapter 32 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and the Companies Act (Chapter 50 of the 1994 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 amend the Copyright Act (Chapter 63 of the 1988 Revised Edition)", presented by Prof. Jayakumar; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Stamp Duties Act (Chapter 312 of the 1997 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 68 of the 1985 Revised Edition), the Penal Code (Chapter 224 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and the Trustees Act (Chapter 337 of the 1999 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Public Utilities Act (Chapter 261 of the 1996 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (BG George Yong-Boon Yeo); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Building Control Act (Chapter 29 of the 1990 Revised Edition)", presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House expresses its deep sympathy and condolence to President Ong Teng Cheong and his family on the loss of his wife, Mrs Ong-Ling Siew May. When President Ong first learnt of his wife's colon cancer in January 1997, I can imagine his shock and dismay. He himself had been diagnosed with low-grade lymphoma in November 1992. To have one person in the family stricken with cancer was bad enough. To have both husband and wife suffering from it was indeed a cruel blow. But President Ong and his wife took the news calmly and stoically. As President Ong told me several times, life must go on. Both he and his wife decided to live as normal lives as they could. They shut out their ailments from their minds, and immersed themselves in their work. The prognosis for Mrs Ong's cancer was poor. But she fought on, with the support of her husband and family. She was one courageous lady. Over the past two and a half years, she went in and out of hospitals, both in Singapore and the United States. She underwent repeated major surgery, and received chemotherapy and radiation treatment. But she took everything in her stride, and kept to her normal heavy schedule of her own architect's work and her duties as the First Lady. When her friends fell ill, she would visit and comfort them. She kept to herself her own condition, and the pain she suffered as the disease progressed. Mrs Ong was brave until the end. Her last public engagement was the President's Charity Ball on 9th July. My wife and I called on her and the President in hospital on Sunday, 18th July. We knew that her illness was in its last stages. She was in obvious discomfort. Yet she received us with her ready smile, and chatted in good spirit. Mrs Ong chaired the boards of Nanyang Girls' High and Nanyang Primary School. When we talked about Nanyang Girls' High School, her eyes lit up immediately. The new school buildings at Linden Drive had just been completed. She spoke with pride about the new campus, and was delighted when I commented on its beautiful facade and distinctive features. We had such a lively conversation that for a moment, we forgot that she was not well. She even talked about her next project, to redevelop the Nanyang Primary School. Mrs Ong was the architect for the new campus of Nanyang Girls' High School, as well as several other projects for the school. I was glad to read in the Zaobao that Mrs Ong had donated her architectural fees from these projects to the school. Mrs Ong was also deeply involved in charitable work. She supported many fund raising projects for various charities each year. She was also patron of several civic and charitable organisations, including the Children's Charities and Girl Guides Association. Many of us knew Mrs Ong Teng Cheong long before she became the First Lady. She was an unfailingly gracious hostess and a friend. My wife and I, and many of us here, have enjoyed her hospitality at her home. We will all miss her. Mr Speaker, Sir, President Ong Teng Cheong was a member of this House from 1972 till 1993 when he resigned to stand for election as President. We all know him well. He has lost a dear wife. Our hearts go to him and his family in their moment of grief. We offer them our sincere condolences. Even though the untimely passing of Mrs Ong has left a big void for the family, we hope that they will draw some comfort and strength from our sympathy and support. On behalf of the people, the Government and this House, I extend our heartfelt condolences to the President and his family on their bereavement. I propose that the House observe a two-minute silence as a mark of our respect for the late First Lady after others have spoken and the motion is passed. Question proposed.

I propose to adjourn the sitting at approximately 2.30 pm to allow hon. Members to attend the funeral of Mrs Ong. I, therefore, ask hon. Members who intend to speak on the motion to bear this in mind. The Minister without Portfolio (Mr Lim Boon Heng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion moved by the Prime Minister. And in doing so, I speak on behalf of the NTUC, all union members and workers. Many unionists got to know Mrs Ong when Mr Ong Teng Cheong was the Secretary-General of the NTUC. Our unionists were encouraged by the quiet support she gave to the labour movement and were touched by her warmth and hospitality. It came naturally to her as she herself had a difficult life in her younger days. The empathy she felt for the lower income came naturally. She provided a good role model for all workers. Everyone knows she was hardworking and diligent, and strove to excel in her work. She had also been a good role model for all female Singaporeans - a good mother, a good housekeeper, a successful career woman who still found time to support her husband in his public service. We also know that she had a soft spot for the disadvantaged through the support she gave to many charities. Sir, we all share the family's loss.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister. My wife and I have known the President and Mrs Ong for more than 20 years. We feel that Mrs Ong was a strong, courageous, gracious, optimistic, frank and sincere lady. She was a compassionate person ( ). She would go all out and put in her wholehearted efforts to do whatever she thought she ought to do for the nation and society, without any consideration for her personal gains or losses. Whenever she had any view and feeling on any issue, except for major national issues, she would unreservedly express her opinion on the matter in a straight-forward manner. Even with her illness, she steadfastly discharged her duties as the First Lady without any hesitation. The First Lady herself was enthusiastically involved in charity and attached great importance to educational and cultural work. She took the initiative and actively participated in many cultural, educational and charitable activities. With more than two decades of association with her, of course, we have many fond memories of her. Many of our conversations with her are deeply embedded in our minds. I would like to mention just two recent events. The first event was two years ago, at an informal lunch with President Ong, my wife asked Mrs Ong about her illness. She just briefly mentioned about the condition of her health, and then pinched my wife's hand and said in one simple sentence, "Just like this" ( ) to end this part of the conversation. However, when touched on the subject of raising funds for the construction of the new premises for Nanyang Girls' High School, she was full of zeal and enthusiasm. My wife and I once again appreciated the very style in which President Ong and Mrs Ong conducted themselves in life, and that is, to suffer in silence their own pain but to devote themselves enthusiastically to the cause of public interest. The second event was in July last year when I went with the delegation to accompany President Ong and Mrs Ong to Liverpool. At the convocation ceremony of the Liverpool University, when President Ong was conferred the honorary doctorate degree, I noticed that Mrs Ong appeared to be full of thoughts and feelings. Subsequently, she shared with me some memories of the days she spent looking after her husband and children in Liverpool. From the conversation, I felt her deep love and devotion to President Ong and the children. The First Lady has departed. She has lived through a full life with little or no regret. For the nation, for the family, for society, she has made many great contributions. Her love remains with us. I believe if, at all, she has any anxiety, it would be the impact of her departure on her husband, President Ong, because over the past three decades, she had been a pillar of great strength supporting President Ong. I would urge President Ong to restrain his grief and take care of his health ( ). With the support of his friends from various quarters, I hope that President Ong would be able to overcome the impact of this bereavement. I also hope that after the death of their beloved mother, Tze Guan and Tze Boon would be even more resolute in the development of their careers, and spend more time with their father so as to console the soul of their mother.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by our Prime Minister. Like him, I share the President's grief for the loss of his wife. The President told me a moving tale of his wife when she attended the Charity Ball function. He said she sat through the night function with no signs of any problem. It was a long night and she patiently and courageously went about her duties as the First Lady. But beneath the strong composure, was a woman in severe and excruciating pain. It was only when she reached home that she collapsed in pain. She must be very strong to have gone through this and I am sure she must have put up such a strong front in the course of her duty as the First Lady. She had always stood by the President. She carried her duty as the First Lady with the courage very few can match. Mr Speaker, Sir, my condolence to our President and his family.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the First Lady, Madam Ling Siew May, passed away on 30th July 1999. The business community felt a great loss in the passing away of the First Lady. On behalf of the business community, I would like to convey our deepest sympathy and condolence to President Ong. Having read the life story of Mrs Ong, I was greatly touched. Mrs Ong was an exemplary model of an Asian woman cultivated under traditional Asian culture and values. Her contribution to family, business, society and the nation was the pride of womenfolk in Singapore, and the pride of the people of Singapore. Allow me to raise the following five points to illustrate the greatness of the First Lady: First, she was very hardworking and dedicated. She went through severe hardship in her younger days. After spending an unhappy childhood in an orphanage, she travelled across the ocean to Singapore at the tender age of 11 to study. All the problems in coping with a very different language and living environment did not overwhelm her. Instead, it inspired her to cultivate in herself a fighting spirit. She overcame the difficulties in learning English and the other subjects, and successfully completed her secondary and high school studies. Eventually she went overseas to study in Australia and became the first Asian girl to graduate from the Faculty of Architecture in the University. At a time when the society was still very conservative, as a female and a Chinese-educated student, she overcame many difficulties and went on courageously to achieve academic success. This spirit of enduring hardship and self-reliance is worthy of our emulation. Secondly, she was a good wife and a good mother, diligent and thrifty. In the family, she was a good wife and a good mother, devoting herself body and soul to look after her husband and her children and creating a warm home for them. This enabled the President to concentrate on his work without having to worry about things at home. The two sons could devote themselves to their studies to become useful citizens of society. The First Lady must be given due credit for the great success achieved by the President and the two sons today. During President Ong's term of office as Minister and subsequently as the President, Mrs Ong was always at his side, silently giving him all the support. Her cordial smile, her gracious and elegant demeanour, her simple outfit gave people the feeling of being very approachable and respectable. Thirdly, she was devoted to her duty and enthusiastic in her work. The First Lady was the most reliable partner of her husband's career. When her husband was holding the ministerial position, she took over the bulk of workload in their architectural firm. After her husband was elevated to the high office of Presidency, her official duties became even more busy and heavy. Yet, she did not drop her responsibility in the architectural work. She divided her time and energy on both her public and private career, attending to each and every aspect of life with great success. Her spirit of love for work and devotion to duties is something that is worthy of our admiration and praise. Fourthly, her passion for her alma mater and society. The First Lady's love for her alma mater is well known to everyone. She had made the reconstruction of Nanyang Girls' High School her lifelong aspiration. Besides her passion for her alma mater, she was also deeply concerned with education, charity, welfare of women and children, as well as the latest situation and development of culture and the arts in Singapore, giving them her wholehearted support. The female nature of love, kind-heartedness, patience and concern for others was manifestly revealed in the person of the First Lady. Fifthly, her courage and unyielding fight against her illness. Two and a half years ago, she was diagnosed to have suffered from cancer, but she exercised tremendous perseverance to battle against her illness. She showed no sign of being dispirited or depressed. She carried on discharging her duties as the First Lady, greeting the people with her usual smile, receiving foreign dignitaries, and even went on overseas trips with the President. From her smile, we could see a strong and courageous woman who loved life and work and was full of fighting spirit, battling against her illness. She had not been overwhelmed by her disease but continued to live, and lived bravely. These noble qualities had shaped a superlatively unique image of the First Lady. Mr Speaker, Sir, the First Lady devoted her whole life to her family, society and the nation. She worked steadfastly and silently all the way until the end of her life. She was the epitome of the virtues of Asian women. The physical body is finite, but the spirit lives on eternally. The love that the First Lady has left behind will stay forever. Her smile, demeanour, integrity, noble moral character and poise will always remain in the minds of the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the business community, I fully support the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed) (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not know the First Lady, Mrs Ong, well, but well enough to say that Mrs Ong was a mother, a professional, an entrepreneur and a First Lady who was determined, strong-willed and full of benevolence. When I was Editor of Berita Harian, and covering the former Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew's visit to China in 1980, President Ong and Mrs Ong were in the delegation. I saw Mrs Ong then as someone who was gentle, gracious and caring. Mrs Ong was very concerned about our needs and welfare, especially for the reporters who were covering the visit. Singapore has lost a First Lady who was full of dedication and one with the true spirit of being a Singaporean. May her soul rest in peace. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion moved by the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise, on behalf of the Party and the other Member and myself in this House, to say that we support whatever has been said by the Prime Minister. And on behalf of the Party and us, we extend our condolences to the family of Mrs Ong.

Sir, I rise in support of the motion. The first time I met the First Lady was when my wife and I were invited to the Istana to have a popiah party. She was very gracious, a woman without airs and easily approachable. I read in the papers that she carried out her duties very bravely and courageously. No one would know, by looking at her calm and dignified surface, that she was internally in great pain and discomfort. I read also in the papers that President Ong knew the First Lady when he was in school and they courted and carried on their courtship into the university days and I believe when they came back to Singapore, they worked together. They were very close and I believe that they must have been a very loving couple and, therefore, it must have been a great loss to the President on the untimely death of his beloved wife. I extend my deep sympathy and condolences to the President and his family.

Sir, I join the Prime Minister and the Members of this House to express my deep sympathy and condolences to President Ong and his family on the loss of his wife, Mrs Ong. Mrs Ong, whom I have known for the past eight years, was indeed an outstanding person, an outstanding First Lady, who in her own quiet ways has won the hearts of Singaporeans. Those of us who know her personally, know her for her kind and gentle ways in which she carried herself. She had won admiration and respect for her simple and humble personality. Sir, I had the privilege of attending a number of receptions and dinners hosted by the President and the First Lady. At these occasions, she was always an excellent hostess who went out of her way to show her concern and care for the guests, in fact, every guest. She would be deeply missed. Singaporeans have also come to know her as a brave and courageous person who had carried out her duties as First Lady, despite her illness. Her smile, an infectious smile, often gave away little clue of her physical condition and often made us believe that she was feeling better. During the past weekend, at several of my constituency functions, many grassroots leaders, residents and even children had expressed words of sympathy and sorrow at her sudden demise. One resident who was emotional said that she felt as if she had lost a member of her family. Such are the feelings of Singaporeans. Many Indian Singaporeans and Indian organisations have also expressed their grief and sorrow at the passing of Mrs Ong. They share the sorrow of President Ong, his family and the nation. The Hindu Endowments Board plans to hold special prayers in memory of Mrs Ong at its four temples tonight. Many Hindu devotees are expected to join in in the prayers. Singaporeans from all walks of life, different races and religions feel the loss with great sorrow. It is this emotional bind that bonds us as one people. Mrs Ong will be deeply missed and fondly remembered by us all.

Tan Keng Yam): Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. My family and I have known Siew May for over 20 years since I entered politics in 1979. We always found her to be kind and gracious and considerate in the concern for others. Siew May was a brave woman. My wife and I last saw her on 20th July when she was in hospital having a blood transfusion. She was sitting on a couch holding a pillow, speaking to her grandson. She spoke animatedly about family matters and preparations for the opening of the Nanyang Girls' High School. She was at that time in pain but she showed no signs of it and conducted herself cheerfully and as graciously as ever. In the work for education, particularly for the Nanyang Girls' High School, for charity, in the way she carried herself and lived her life, Siew May was a model for many women in Singapore. Her passing away is a sad loss, not only for the President and his family, but for the whole nation. Sir, I support the motion. The Senior Minister of State for the Environment (Encik Sidek bin Saniff) (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, every living thing has to pass away. But that has many ways and, according to a Malay idiom, when a tiger dies, it leaves behind its stripes but for us human beings, we will leave behind our good name and respect. Khairil Anwar, a poet, said that one's legacy remains even after it has passed away. I believe all these idioms can make ourselves understand about Mrs Ong who has passed away. Like the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Tony Tan, my family and I have known her since I was appointed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Culture. I was the Parliamentary Secretary to President Ong who was at that time the Minister for both the Ministries, and what has been said in this House by my colleagues is true. For my wife and I, whenever we had special meetings with her at Istana or at other places, we always talked about the future, our children, their experiences in National Service and what we have done for them. President Ong and the First Lady have given us strength when we have to perform our duties during a period of certainty and uncertainty. Her departure has left an impact on the people - the students, the workers, as has been said by Mr Lim Boon Heng and including those who are unable to come close to her but have seen her from far away - who have found her departure as a loss. And that is what I feel about her contribution to the prosperity of Singapore. Just like the Malay idiom that says that when a tiger dies, it will leave behind its stripes but when a human being dies he will leave behind his honour and respect. That is the actual meaning of death and whether we die at the age of 30, 40 or 50 years old, is secondary. The important thing is that we have made our life meaningful in many ways, like contributing to our society. My family and I feel this loss and we are grateful that we have got friends who are older whom we treat like our sisters and brothers. I fully express my condolences to President Ong and his family, as stated by the Prime Minister just now.

Sir, I wholeheartedly support the Prime Minister's motion. First, like the speakers before me, our hearts do go out to President Ong and his family during this time of their bereavement. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I think this motion finds resonance all across Singapore because we can see how many Singaporeans from all walks of life, regardless of race, gender, age - how they have actually flocked to attend the wake because they respected and cared for the First Lady.

Sir, I would like to support the motion by the Prime Minister and on behalf of my fellow GPC Chairmen and the Members extend our deepest condolences to the President and his family on the untimely demise of the First Lady. There is much truth in the statement that behind every successful man is a supportive woman. The President's long and illustrious career spans the private and public sectors, in political office, culminating in the present high office of President. Throughout the past 36 years, the First Lady had been most supportive of her husband. She continued to lead the architectural business of the family when her husband became a Minister in the Government. As a loving mother, she brought up the family of two sons, not to mention looking after her husband when he himself fell sick. As First Lady, she had done much, more than a fair share of charity work, and lent her personal support to a host of social services. It would have been difficult enough to juggle these three jobs when one is healthy. It would be too much to expect the First Lady to continue doing them when she herself was stricken with cancer two and a half years ago. To the amazement of all Singaporeans, the First Lady took her illness in her stride. She worked tirelessly until almost to the end. Her positive attitude to life, living it to the full, and making a full contribution to her family and Singapore, despite daunting odds, deserves our full admiration and our thanks. We will all miss her as she had touched our lives in one way or another. We will all have warm memories of the good that she has done for Singapore directly and through her husband. My own wish is that with time, the President will come to terms with the loss of his loved one in the comfort that the First Lady in her time, had made contributions to Singapore that he would be very proud of and we will all remember. May the good Lord continue to look after the President and his family and help them to overcome the grief during these difficult times.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity. Sir, I share the sentiments of the Prime Minister and the other Members of this House. The loss of the First Lady has been a loss to the whole country. The loss to the President and his family is irreparable. The First Lady, in her lifetime, had contributed to the country and to the community, especially her contribution to education would be a living testimony. During the last few days, people from all walks of life have gone to the President's house to pay their last respect. We pray that President Ong will find fortitude in the days to come. Sir, I end my speech by quoting from Bhagavad Gita which says, the body leaves the world but the soul lives on. In a few hours, the mortal remain of the First Lady will leave this world. But her good deeds will live with us. We in this House pray for the President and his family. May God grant them strength to overcome the present grief. The President's loss is the loss to the whole country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members who have spoken and joined me in expressing our condolences and support to the President and his family. The Members who have spoken represent a whole spectrum of the House - backbenchers, frontbenchers, the opposition as well as the NMPs. I note that, if not for the constraint of time, more Members of Parliament would have joined us in expressing our condolences to the President and the family. We all share a sentiment which I have expressed earlier on this sad occasion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House expresses its deep sympathy and condolence to President Ong Teng Cheong and his family on the loss of his wife, Mrs Ong-Ling Siew May.

As a mark of respect to the late Mrs Ong Teng Cheong, the House will now rise to observe a 2-minute silence. The House rose and paid respect.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we will resume our sitting tomorrow for the remaining Questions and items of business on the Order Paper. Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes past Two o'clock pm.

asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the current and projected numbers of expatriates working in Singapore; and (b) whether the Government will introduce any tax efficient pension scheme as an alternative retirement provision to the Central Provident Fund scheme for such expatriates, in line with its efforts to attract and retain international talent.

There are currently about 80,000 Employment Pass holders in Singapore, an increase of 20,000 as compared to that in 1995. We do not have detailed projection figures of expatriates. However, we would expect a higher demand for expatriates in the future. As Singapore evolves into a knowledge-based economy, our industries will restructure themselves to take on higher value-added activities that require a better skills profile. Therefore, there will be the urgent need for more international talents to meet this shortage. (b) To attract and retain international talent, we must offer employment terms that are internationally competitive. Tax rates for expatriates working here are generally competitive. However, as such expatriates do not contribute to CPF, their effective rate of income tax is higher than that paid by citizens and permanent residents. MOM together with MOF is studying this, to see if there is any justification for allowing tax efficient pension schemes as the Member has suggested.

LIST - SSTD SHAREHOLDERS (Cols. 1867-1870)