Hansard, 2000-02-21

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 (2000)(2000) Mr Othman Bin Haron Eusofe16 Jan29 Feb Dr Tan Cheng Bock19 Jan21 Jan Mr Matthias Yao19 Jan22 Jan Mr Tay Beng Chuan21 Jan22 Jan 11 Feb15 Feb NameFromTo (2000)(2000) Mr R Sinnakaruppan27 Jan10 Feb Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed28 Jan30 Jan Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap9 Feb11 Feb 15 Feb19 Feb Mr Chew Heng Ching9 Feb11 Feb Mrs Lim Hwee Hua9 Feb11 Feb Dr Ker Sin Tze10 Feb18 Feb Dr Ow Chin Hock11 Feb15 Feb Mr Lim Boon Heng13 Feb20 Feb BG Lee Hsien Loong15 Feb16 Feb RAdm Teo Chee Hean15 Feb18 Feb 10 Mar11 Mar Mr Tan Soo Khoon15 Feb18 Feb Mr Peh Chin Hua15 Feb19 Feb Mr Goh Chee Wee15 Feb23 Feb 26 Feb29 Feb Mr Mah Bow Tan17 Feb19 Feb Assoc Prof Koo Tsai Kee17 Feb19 Feb 2 Mar3 Mar Dr Teo Ho Pin17 Feb21 Feb Mr Ahmad Md Magad21 Feb24 Feb Mr Davinder Singh21 Feb25 Feb Mr Lee Kuan Yew 21 Feb21 Feb 26 Feb11 Mar Prof S Jayakumar27 Feb3 Mar Mr Lim Swee Say27 Feb8 Mar Assoc Prof Toh See Kiat28 Feb3 Mar Mr Goh Chok Tong28 Feb5 Mar Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam2 Mar13 Mar Mr Goh Chong Chia2 Mar10 Mar Mr S Iswaran27 Mar7 Apr Mr Ang Mong Seng8 Jul18 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: 8 February 2000 (1) Factories (Amendment) Bill; (2) Securities Industry (Amendment) Bill; (3) Futures Trading (Amendment) Bill; (4) Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill; and (5) Fire Safety (Amendment) Bill. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology whether the Government will adopt a hands-off approach in the development of the telecommunications and information technology industry, especially in the industry's pricing of services and marketing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in a fully liberalised and competitive market environment, the Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore, or IDA, will be moving towards regulating with a lighter touch. This will allow more freedom for telecom operators to innovate and compete in terms of pricing and marketing. However, IDA will continue to uphold the key regulatory requirements of fair and equitable inter-connection, inter-operability and open access so that consumers can transparently and seamlessly communicate with others regardless of whichever network they are directly connected to. Only then will consumers truly benefit from competition in a multi-operator, multi-network environment. IDA also recognises that there will be a transitional phase as we move towards a fully liberalised environment. During this period, it will still be necessary for IDA to keep a vigilant watch over the industry to facilitate the entry of new players.

Sir, press reports seem to suggest that our telecommunications policies are falling behind Hong Kong and that we are playing catch up. Will the Minister like to comment on that?

Sir, I am not too sure exactly what Mr Chng is referring to. But if he is referring to the fact that we are now opening up the market fully with effect from 1st April 2000 instead of 2002 whereas Hong Kong has a fully liberalised environment, then it is true. We cannot hide from the fact that we have stipulated a deadline for the opening up of the market and this deadline was stipulated when we first privatised Singapore Telecom and when we invited tenders for the second fixed line network in Singapore which was set in 1996.

asked the Minister for Finance if he will explain the rationale for the merger between Singapore Telecom and Cable & Wireless HKT and whether there are any long-term security concerns due to the dilution of Government controls.

asked the Minister for Finance if he will state the Government's position regarding the proposed merger between Singapore Telecom and Cable & Wireless HKT, and if there are any plans to safeguard our shareholders' interests in the proposed merger in the face of adverse reactions from certain quarters of the business community in Hong Kong.

Sir, before I ask Question No. 2, I wish to declare my interest as an independent director of Pacific Century Development Limited. Question No. 2, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 2 and 3 together as they are related?

Yes, you may.

Sir, the proposed merger is driven purely by commercial considerations. The combined entity, which would become one of the leading regional telcos, would be better positioned to face the challenges posed by the rapidly globalising and evolving telecommunications industry. The potential dilution of Government's shareholdings in SingTel should not pose security problems. Concerns over security confront telecommunication markets worldwide whenever mergers and acquisitions of telcos, whether foreign or local, take place. However, these security concerns can be adequately addressed through the regulatory framework. Temasek Holdings and SingTel believe that the merger will create value for the shareholders of both SingTel and Cable & Wireless HKT. As with all commercial companies, they take into account the interest of its shareholders, including minority shareholders, when making any business decisions, particularly major ones involving mergers and acquisitions. The Government does not intend to institute any specific safeguards for shareholders, as the investing public should exercise prudence in their investments. The caveat emptor applies to all investments, including investment using CPF as well as those under Asset Enhancement schemes.

Sir, I have two supplementary questions. The first question is, if this is strictly a commercial deal, press speculation is that it is more than commercial but political as well, especially in our case, one of our Ministers has approached the Hong Kong government on behalf of SingTel. The second question is that Government's shareholding in SingTel will continue to be diluted as a result of the loyalty shares issued to current shareholders. Which point will the Minister feel comfortable that we need to improve the framework to make sure that Government still has control over SingTel?

Sir, on the first question, I am in no position to comment on these speculations. These are pure speculations on the part of the media. As far as the Singapore Government is concerned, this is a purely commercial consideration. The fact that Government has a major shareholding is irrelevant in this particular case. On the second question, whilst the proposed merger may dilute the Government's shareholding it should not affect the security concerns. This is because the Info-communications Development Authority has already put in place provisions to safeguard national interest. For example, as a licence condition, telecom operators will be required to cooperate fully with relevant Government agencies for the provision of national security and emergency services. We will cover this particular problem through the regulatory requirements.

Sir, I would like the Minister to clarify. Since the public listing of Singapore Telecom, the share price has fallen below the listed price. I would like to know whether sufficient efforts have been taken by Singapore Telecom and the relevant authorities to restore the confidence of the Singapore shareholders to achieve the original purpose, ie, to enhance the scheme to give Singaporeans a stake in Singapore.

Mr Tay, I do not see the relevance of your question to the Questions which are on the Order Paper.

In the light of the proposed merger, we know that SingTel's share price has fallen below its listed price.

Sir, I think share prices will have to reflect what the market demand is and Government is in no position to influence it directly. I am confident that SingTel management has done all it can to strengthen the position of SingTel but the Member should realise that, all telecom monopolies as SingTel was, are subject to extremely strong competitive pressures as a result of deregulation. The same situation has happened in all countries where share prices of monopolies tend to take a major hit because their overseas IDD calls are usually the ones first hit by competition. As far as SingTel is concerned, they have expanded overseas into many areas, Belgium, UK and Australia, and Members have read in the press that they have made several moves to acquire other telcos, but with mixed success, unfortunately. I did not get the second part of the question. Can the Member repeat it?

SingTel was the first of a series of Government enterprises to be privatised and it was part of the Asset Enhancement Scheme. The drop in its share prices will reduce public confidence in this scheme.

In the case of SingTel, the public was granted a discount of the original price and with the loyalty shares the effective price paid by shareholders is a lot lower than $3.

60. But I think the basic principle is that Government cannot protect the price of shares. As I mentioned earlier in my reply to Mr Chng's question, investors must make their own judgment and I still believe that, in the long term, SingTel is a good investment.

Sir, since Pacific Century Cyberworks is also bidding for a share of the Cable & Wireless HKT, I would like to know what is the Ministry's position on that.

The Ministry has no position on this. This is an independent bid from a Hong Kong entity and, like all proposals, it is being put on the table in competition with the SingTel deal. I have no comment on this particular case.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Chiam See Tong - 4. To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the recent riots in Bintan Island have affected Singapore's investments in that and the other Riau islands and what steps will the Singapore Government take to prevent or lessen the chances of further riots taking place as Singaporeans have their investments there.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what is his Ministry's assessment on the current political and economic situation in Indonesia, and how his Ministry will continue to encourage Singapore businessmen to invest in Indonesia.

Sir, Question No. 4.

Mr Speaker, can I have your permission to answer Question Nos 4 and 5 at the same time, please?

Yes.

Thank you. The political situation in Indonesia has improved since the presidential election in October last year. President Abdurrahman Wahid enjoys domestic political legitimacy and wide international support. The present Indonesian leadership is possibly the best combination under the circumstances. However, the present government inherited multi-faceted problems when it assumed power last year. The security situation has not fully stabilised. There are still many social problems. Racial and religious violence continues to break out from time to time. These problems faced by the government are complex and cannot be resolved in a short time. The President is trying to address and resolve the many challenges it now faces. As for the Indonesian economy, it is showing a tentative recovery. Real GDP is expected to register a flat or slightly positive growth in 1999, after contracting nearly 14% the previous year. The consensus forecast for GDP growth for Indonesia this year is about 3-5%. In January this year, the Prime Minister led an international business delegation to Jakarta as a demonstration of our confidence in Indonesia. PM Goh also announced a package of economic assistance measures to help catalyse Indonesia's economic recovery. For Singapore businessmen, there is the $400 million loan financing scheme administered by the EDB through participating Singapore-based banks. This scheme is to encourage Singapore companies to look for commercially viable opportunities in Indonesia. When these are identified, these companies can seek loan financing at competitive interest rates from the participating Singapore-based banks. The risk of the loans will be shared between the Singapore Government and the participating banks. A seminar was just held on 18th February to elaborate on the details of the scheme. The response was very good. Other elements of the assistance package include a US$500 million Singapore Co-Investment Fund for the major Singapore Government-linked companies to support other foreign investors who may be interested in acquiring IBRA-held assets and other financially viable investments. Our Tourism Board will also implement a $2 million Tourism and Marketing Package to help Indonesia restart its tourism promotion activities. At the same time, we will continue to work with the Indonesian authorities to enhance the investment climate in the Riaus. By our investments and efforts, we hope to create a positive catalytic effect that will help to attract additional investment funds from other foreign investors. However, ultimately, whether the businessmen will decide to invest in Indonesia depends on their assessment of the prospects. They will choose to invest in places where they and their investments are safe and their operations can carry on uninterrupted. They will be monitoring if the current Indonesian leadership pursues sound economic policies and if there is political and social stability within Indonesia. In this regard, it is unfortunate that the issue of land compensation at the Bintan Industrial Estate has resurfaced. When development works by the Indonesia-Singapore joint venture company on the Bintan Industrial Estate began more than five years ago, compensation for the land was fully settled and the land was free of encumbrances. The recent demonstrations at the Bintan Industrial Estate have resulted in losses for the companies operating there as work had to be stopped. They have also affected tourist arrivals, and undoubtedly, the livelihood of the people in Bintan as well. The disturbances, if unchecked, would not only affect investors in the Estate, but more seriously, it would dampen foreign investor confidence in Indonesia. Singapore's ability to act as a catalyst to enhance investor confidence in Indonesia and help bring back foreign investment there would be curtailed. The Singapore Government has conveyed to the Indonesian authorities, at various levels, the importance for Indonesia to resolve the problems. However, the disturbances in Bintan should be seen in the context of the other incidents of social unrest elsewhere in Indonesia. President Wahid himself has said that the recent outbreaks of unrest in Indonesia were the product of a conspiracy against his government. The Indonesian authorities have indicated that disruptive elements from other parts of Indonesia had been involved in Bintan. They recognise the nature and potential impact of the problems and have taken swift action to end the disturbances. We will continue to closely monitor the situation in Bintan.

Sir, I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, has the land compensation issue been resolved there? Secondly, what is the population of Bintan and what percentage of the population has been given jobs by the investments there? Thirdly, has the Singapore Government or its linked companies helped or assisted the private investors to provide social needs such as medical clinics and schools for the population there?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as we are concerned, the issue of land compensation was settled when the land was acquired before the industrial estate was established. The land, as I had said earlier, was free of encumbrances. Whether the money in fact went to the people from whom the land was taken, that is something for the Indonesian side to resolve, and I believe that they are taking actions in that direction. But as I also mentioned earlier, Jakarta suspects that there were political elements involved in the disturbances. As to the population of Bintan, I do not have it with me now.

It is 600,000.

600,000 according to Mr Chng Hee Kok. We provide employment in the Bintan Industrial Estate and in the tourism area for some thousands, maybe at the most ten plus thousands. Do we provide facilities there? Where we are located, we do provide some facilities to the workers and to the surrounding areas.

In respect of the $40 million regionalisation finance scheme for Indonesia, the rules are quite rigid and I would like to know whether they can be relaxed somewhat to include the purchase of existing Indonesian under-capacity companies so that the Singapore businessmen do not need to use new funds to build a new factory or to purchase new equipment because there are quite a lot of under-capacity companies. I would like to ask the Minister whether this could be considered in this scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we had a seminar with many Singapore businessmen last week. It was so heavily subscribed that we had to reduce the number of executives which each company was allowed to send for the seminar. Comments had been made. Their feedback is now being analysed and we will liberalise the rules as much as we can, but without losing sight of prudential considerations. We must be aware of the unstructured investment environment in Indonesia, the difficulty of enforcing contracts, and we must not forget that public monies are involved here. But where we can be liberal, we shall try to be.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he will give an update on the status of the restructuring of the local power industry, particularly with regard to the introduction of competition to both electricity generation and supply, and whether there is any intention to limit the number of players in each segment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since 1995, the Government had taken several steps to restructure the electricity industry, starting with the corporatisation of the Electricity and Gas Departments of the Public Utilities Board (PUB) to form Singapore Power Ltd (SP) on 1st October 1995. To facilitate competition, Singapore Power was structured as a holding company with five separate subsidiaries, namely two generation companies (PowerSenoko and PowerSeraya), a transmission & distribution company (PowerGrid), a supply company (Power Supply) and a piped-gas company (PowerGas). Another power station being built in Tuas was put under a separate company, Tuas Power Ltd (TP), owned directly by Temasek Holdings, so that it could compete against the SP generation companies. To facilitate competition in the generation and supply sectors, the Singapore Electricity Pool (SEP) was established as an exchange for trading electricity. The Government decided in March 1999 that the next step in restructuring the electricity industry was for Singapore Power to fully divest its generating companies to Temasek Holdings in 2001. This will bring about ownership separation of the generators, which are the contestable part of the market, from the transmission and distribution network, which is the non-contestable part. All generators will have a level playing field. The transmission and distribution network will be regulated tightly as a natural monopoly. In the year 2001, there will be four competing generation companies, PowerSenoko, PowerSeraya, Tuas Power and SembCorp Co-gen. Review of Industry Structure Many more countries have now liberalised their electricity services. As a result, electricity prices have dropped significantly. Consumers have benefited with greater choice, better product innovation and better service quality. To ensure the competitiveness of our electricity sector, MTI will further liberalise the electricity market with the aim to put in place a fully competitive market. We have engaged a consultant to carry out a comprehensive review of the electricity industry and to recommend how competition in the sector could be further enhanced. The consultant has just completed its review and we are now evaluating the changes recommended by the consultant. We will announce the changes once we have obtained feedback from industry players. Number of players There is currently no limit on the number of players in the generation and retail sectors of the electricity industry. Companies that want to generate or supply electricity in Singapore can apply to the PUB, the Regulator, for a public licence. The PUB will evaluate the application to ensure that the proposed project complies with our technical requirements, rules and regulations to safeguard system security and that the applicant has the financial capability and technical expertise. A public licence will be granted if these requirements are met. There is no plan to impose any limit on the number of players in the future. With the liberalisation of our electricity market, the number of players in the generation and supply segments will be determined by market forces.

Sir, notwithstanding the experience of the other markets of falling prices, is there a philosophy that we would adopt with respect to pricing which will serve to preserve the interest of domestic consumers as well as from the perspective of the overall cost competitiveness of Singapore?

Our intention is, within the next two years, to move towards as free a market as is possible and adopt an ideal framework with marginal pricing. We believe that the interests of consumers are best met by allowing market forces to put pressure on the generators to reduce prices.

Sir, can I ask whether, in the review of the market, will the study include the desire for greater efficiency in order to curb excessive use of power and to encourage greater efficiency in the use by industry as well as households?

I do not think we should put ourselves in the position of deciding who has a greater need for power. From our perspective, the best way is to use the market mechanism to decide who has a greater need for power according to what he is prepared to pay. In other words, to let the market mechanism operate rather than to impose additional considerations as to who should get power at what prices, depending on whether they undertake activities which are socially worthy.

Perhaps I was misunderstood. What I mean is that Singapore has one of the highest climate-change gases already and that in creating a market for energy generation, we run the danger of creating a market where you use more power, you get more profits. I am wondering whether these dangers will overall affect Singapore's standing in such community as well as our efficiency. Would these factors be taken into consideration in creating this market for competition?

I am sorry. I did not quite catch what you said earlier.

May I clarify myself? In the generation of power, there would be release of climate-change gases and other pollutants which would affect both the global climate as well as our local environment.

You are referring to greenhouse gases?

Yes, greenhouse gases.

We observe all international regulations on this and whatever we do, we will conform to international standards and we will play our part as part of our international responsibility but within those constraints, let the market operate.

I wish to declare my interest as a director of Singapore Power. My question to the Minister is: will he allow Genco's to supply power to the Grid from outside Singapore, for example, Malaysian independent power supplier?

I think we should allow the importation of power on a selective basis by taking into account the needs of energy security in Singapore. We are already connected to the Malaysian Grid, but not as if we were part of the same grid, but in an emergency, we supply to them, they can supply to us. We should be able to do the same with Indonesia too one day, depending on the economics. But at all times, we must take into account the fact that energy security is our own responsibility which we must safeguard.

If we free up the market completely, it is going to be hard to be selective about who should supply and how much to supply, is it not?

Cross-boundary electricity flows are completely within our powers to regulate and control. Is that your question? I am not sure.

No. My question really is that if they are prepared to supply power at a much lower price, how do you determine that the Singapore consumers should not benefit and at the same time keeping in mind the long-term interest of Singapore?

We will take these factors into account. If power is available very cheaply from Malaysia and the quality of that supply can be assured, then we should surely in our own interest consider it.

Sir, can I ask the Minister whether a watchdog body, which comprises consumers and operators, could be set up to ensure that consumers are protected, like in Hong Kong where they have a watchdog body?

The agency having principal responsibility for this would be the Public Utilities Board.

asked the Minister for Health if his Ministry will take steps to allay the fears of the public and reassure them that we have (i) first-world standard of medical and healthcare practices; and (ii) effective regulatory bodies in place to ensure transparent audit and inquest of medical errors or negligence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has achieved a high standard of medical practice by: (a) providing a comprehensive network of well-equipped and accessible health care facilities; (b) ensuring our health care professionals are well-trained and qualified through a well-established system of statutory registration and accreditation; (c) ensuring that clinical practice is evidence-based and benchmarked with current best practices; and (d) enforcing compliance with standards through the licensing of all health care establishments. The high standard of medical practice in Singapore is well reflected in the good outcomes of medical care we have achieved which are comparable to the best medical centres in the world. We track benchmark performance indicators regularly. For example, our mortality rate for cardiac bypass surgery is 0.8% which is comparable to the rate of 1% in major cardiac centres in the US. A key component of the tracking and regulatory system is the National Medical Audit Programme (NMAP) implemented since July 1998 for all acute hospitals. The NMAP is the framework for comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of clinical outcomes. From the NMAP, we can obtain a comparative assessment of the clinical performance indicators of our acute hospitals. The NMAP also monitors critical quality assurance processes in the hospitals such as infection control, review of tissues removed at operation, review of complications of interventional treatment, in-patient deaths, adverse drug reactions, audit of post-operative complications, and the audit of ICU care, Through these quality assurance processes, potential medical errors are detected and investigated. Any death resulting from medical treatment is reported to the Coroner for thorough investigation. Inquiries held by the Coroner are open to the next-of-kin of the deceased. Any person found criminally negligent for the death will be liable for criminal prosecution. The hospitals are required to conduct a Committee of Inquiry to investigate any adverse event arising from the management of a patient, eg, severe adverse drug reactions. The objective of the Inquiry is to determine if the patient had been managed correctly, and to recommend measures to prevent the recurrence of any deficiency detected. My Ministry will appoint external audit committees from its panel of medical expert advisors to investigate and review deaths and serious incidents due to medical errors. This will ensure that we learn from our mistakes and prevent a recurrence. Where there is professional misconduct associated with a medical error, the disciplinary process is undertaken by the Singapore Medical Council. The process is retransparent, thorough and objective. To summarise, the current standards of medical practice in Singapore are comparable to reputable centres overseas. Medical errors resulting in deaths and serious injuries here are rare, but when they occur there is an effective and objective system to ensure that such errors are adequately investigated and steps are taken to prevent future occurrence.

Sir, may I ask the Minister how many deaths were there in Singapore in the past 10 years due to medical errors, and how many doctors were implicated as negligent?

Sir, I am sorry I do not have the numbers here. I will send the numbers to the Member.

May I ask the Minister whether he would consider mandatory reporting to the Ministry of Health by doctors on all medical errors including near misses, with the assurance from the Minister that this is a matter of investigation so that certain improvements could be made to correct any individual or system deficiency, and not for litigious proceedings?

Sir, as I have explained in my answer, there is a comprehensive system for reporting and follow-up investigation. We do this in a very comprehensive way under the medical audit programme. So this is already in place and any medical errors are reported and investigated.

Sir, with due respect, we do not have any system that requires all doctors to report medical errors, especially near misses.

It is a question of definition. Our processes, as I have explained in my answer, cover investigation of all the tissues which are taken out during an operation, it also covers any severe adverse drug reactions. These are the key areas where medical errors can occur, and all these are followed up. As regards "near misses", it is a question of how one defines a "near miss". Medicine is not pure science. It is both science as well as art. You act based on the information available at that time. Post-operation, you may discover that there were other information which were not available. So hindsight is always 20 upon 20. Sir, I think we have in place a comprehensive system. If the Member has any further suggestions of how we can improve, we will be very happy to look at these suggestions.

asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the precautionary measures taken by his Ministry to prevent the spread of epidemics, such as the influenza outbreak, to our much-travelled and much-visited Singaporeans, and (b) whether steps are being put into place to ensure that an adequate supply of vaccinations is always available in hospitals.

Sir, the Ministry of Health has a comprehensive and well established surveillance system to monitor and detect epidemics, including influenza outbreaks. This enables the Ministry to take the appropriate preventive and control measures, including giving health advice to the public on precautionary measures, when necessary. Influenza is a self-limiting illness and patients usually recover within a week. In temperate countries, when epidemics occur during the cold winter season, the elderly as well as children and adults with chronic medical conditions such as heart and lung diseases, are at higher risk of having serious complications. They are therefore advised to have annual influenza vaccinations as a preventive measure. However, in tropical countries like Singapore where influenza occurs throughout the year, influenza vaccination is generally not introduced on a routine basis. There is currently no recommendation from international health agencies, such as the World Health Organisation, for countries to restrict travellers and visitors from outbreak areas. The Ministry, however, has advised travellers, especially older adults, going to countries with influenza epidemics, to protect themselves with influenza vaccination. Influenza vaccination is available at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Changi General Hospital and many other private clinics. While it is difficult to anticipate the demand for vaccination, over the years, the hospitals have maintained a sufficient supply of vaccine to meet the demand. The recent increase in local demand for vaccination due to the influenza epidemic in the West is unprecedented. This, coupled with the world-wide shortage of influenza vaccines, has led to a temporary shortage in Singapore as well. However, the hospitals have put in the orders for new vaccination doses, and 1,000 doses of such vaccines arrived last week. Another 3,000 doses will arrive this week. So, the shortage is overcome.

Sir, will the Minister consider a more pro-active approach regarding giving information to our public whenever the Ministry detects an imminent epidemic, especially to inform the susceptibles to go for either vaccination or even immunicable injection?

Basically, the system has two components. One is whether there is an epidemic in Singapore, and we have a tracking system where we look at the attendances in the hospitals, polyclinics and the private clinics, to see whether an epidemic is imminent or is already here. If there is, then, of course, we put out an advisory to advise the Singapore public. The second component is, of course, overseas epidemic, and it only affects Singaporeans if they travel to that area. For this, we also put up advisories as and when necessary if the epidemic is of a very severe nature in the countries that Singaporeans are likely to travel to, and then advise Singaporeans to take vaccinations if they are travelling to such areas.

Sir, could the Minister clarify whether there are any statistics available as to the loss to the economy in terms of workers taking leave during a flu epidemic?

We love to do many, many studies. We will do this if it makes any sense or it gives us the numbers to do something about it. In Singapore, colds and flus happen throughout the year. To some extent, our population builds up some immunity. When there is a very bad outbreak, we take precautions. We send out advisories to advise Singaporeans to avoid crowded places, etc. As to how useful it is to know how much is lost to the economy, I think that leaves to be seen.

Sir, I would like to follow up on the question by Dr Lily Neo. I refer to the more specific issue of the recent flu epidemic which occurred in America and, I believe, also in Europe. Did our health authorities know about this flu epidemic that happened in America and Europe and, if so, did they take any steps to prevent the flu coming to Singapore?

First of all, I do not take it upon myself to find out when an epidemic occurs in the US or Europe before the Health Ministers there. We keep track with all the various agencies around the world and it is part of professional cooperation that we keep each other informed where epidemics are imminent. Similarly, my Ministry keeps in touch with its counterparts around the world. So, when an epidemic has broken out or is imminent, it is professional practice to keep each other informed. And our job is to let Singaporeans know and we send out the advice so that those who are travelling to such countries could take the precaution of being vaccinated. The transmission of such epidemics, particularly flu epidemics, from temperate countries like the US to Singapore is limited, unless we have huge numbers travelling there and coming back to spread the flu around Singapore. For this particular epidemic, for example, we have not seen the transference of the epidemic to Singapore, but we will continue to take precautions and if the numbers do build up in Singapore, then we will advise the public accordingly.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what advisory has the Singapore health authorities given to its citizens, because I recently travelled to America and I went straight into this flu epidemic in America. I came back and I suffered that flu for one month. I did not receive any advisory.

I will send a doctor to take a look at the Member! Is he cured? If he is not, he should not come to this crowded place.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any new reason for not holding a by-election for the Jalan Besar GRC.

Sir, the reasons for not holding a by- election in Jalan Besar GRC were fully debated in this House on 6th July 1999 when I responded to the motion raised by the NCMP. The Prime Minister does not have any new reason nor does he need one for not holding a by-election in Jalan Besar GRC. When the Parliamentary Elections Act was amended to provide for Group Representation Constituencies, the Government decided not to make it a legal requirement to hold a by-election when an MP vacates his seat for whatever reasons. This is to be fair to the other MPs in a GRC. They should not resign simply because a member in the GRC had vacated his seat. It would also prevent them from being held to ransom by an MP who may threaten to resign for whatever reasons. The Members of Parliament for Jalan Besar GRC were elected both as a team and as individuals. The existing members will continue serving the whole GRC.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the risk of your ruling that the Minister need not answer this, may I know why the Prime Minister is not here to answer this question? After all, elections is his responsibility, and not that of any Minister. But my supplementary question is this.

I am certainly ruling against that question. It is not relevant to the Question on the Order Paper.

I have a supplementary question.

All right.

I thought you would rule against it. Is the Minister, speaking for the Prime Minister, aware that when the Party first raised this question, the Prime Minister's reply was that Singaporeans could not be distracted from the grim tasks of recovering from the recession. That was the only reason given. He did not give any other reason. I know that on 6th July 1999, the Minister found lots of other reasons, but I want to know from the Prime Minister what is his new reason.

The Prime Minister can delegate any Minister to reply a question on his behalf. The Prime Minister does not need to give a reason for not holding a by-election. He had given one reason before, and there are other reasons too. But, as I have said, the law provides that it is up to the Prime Minister to call for a by-election for any vacancy in a constituency. It is up to him. That is in our law.

May I ask why is the Prime Minister not obliged to give a reason to Parliament? Is he accountable or not accountable to Parliament?

Sir, the law does not provide for a compulsory calling for a by-election whenever a vacancy arises. That is the power of the Prime Minister according to the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act.

May I repeat my question? What is the reason? The law does not prohibit the filling of the vacancy. The Constitution demands that the vacancy be filled. What is the reason for not filling the vacancy?

Can the Member quote me the Article in the Constitution that demands a by-election be called?

Would the Minister look up Article 49 of the Constitution? I read this on the 6th July debate.

Sir, since the Member quotes Article 49, maybe he can read Article 49 for us so that we can understand.

I will certainly read it. Article 49 reads: 'Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant [may I repeat, the seat of any Member other than 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.'

Is that not crystal clear? It states that the vacancy of any Member other than that of a non-constituency Member shall be filled.

Sir, the Article is very clear that a by-election is to be called in accordance with the law, and the law is the Parliamentary Elections Act. If the Member does not know, read up section 24(2A) of the Parliamentary Elections Act. It is there.

Does the Minister appreciate that section 24(2A) is purely procedural? The substantive Article is Article 49. In any event, the Article takes precedence over any law in any other Act of Parliament.

Sir, Article 49 is very clear that a by-election would be called in accordance with any written law. The written law for election is the Parliamentary Elections Act. If the Non-Constituency Member feels that the Government has violated the Constitution, then he should take the case to the court and seek a redress there rather than to raise this here from time to time hoping that one would be called so that he can try again.

May I ask why does the Prime Minister not openly admit that he fears a defeat at the hands of the Opposition?

Sir, I think the Non-Constituency Member is rather presumptuous that we are afraid of a defeat. I do not think we are ever afraid to confront any issue, but when there is a need to, we will do it. But the law does not provide for compulsory by-election. The Prime Minister does not think there is a need for it, and that is it.

Would he like to put it to the test?

Sir, he will have another chance to have a crack at it. He could choose any constituency he wants at the next general elections.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs what steps are being taken to police the various parks that are used by joggers and others so as to ensure a safe environment for them.

Sir, the National Parks Board, Police and the community are jointly responsible for ensuring safety in our public parks. The Police, in addition to park rangers, regularly patrol public parks, to project their presence. The Police also carry out anti-crime operations whenever necessary. The Police cannot be everywhere all the time to prevent and deter crime. Members of the public should also play their part and take proper precautions, such as not going to secluded or poorly-lit places when they are alone. They should also report to the Police or the park authorities whenever they see suspicious persons lurking in the vicinity.

Is it not true that recently there was a case where a jogger was attacked in broad daylight and, as a result, suffered fatal injuries? Would that not be regarded as a particularly worrying thing for us to look again at the security in the parks?

Our sympathies are with the family of this girl on the incidence of this crime. It is a heinous crime. But the point is this: The overall situation in the parks is safe. That is an important point to note. In fact, over the last two years, only seven out of the 228 rapes were committed in the parks and playgrounds. All of them were committed, except for one, by persons known to the victims. While the incident is something that all of us deplore, the point is that unless you take unnecessary risks in our parks, it would be quite safe to use our parks.

Sir, the nature of this crime, and perhaps the nature and manner in which it has been reported by the media, has left an indelible impression in the minds of the public with respect to the general security, notwithstanding the recent crime statistics and their improvement. The question is this: can the Ministry and the police do more to reassure the public that matters are indeed under control?

Sir, certainly, police on the ground in the various divisions know where patrols need to be done. Indeed, with the new Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC) set up, more patrols have been projected on the ground. Police's estimation is that last year about 4% more in terms of police projection was on the ground. We should leave it to the police to exercise professional judgment where the patrols should be mounted. As I have said, I am sure they do regularly patrol parks. If there are parks out there which are secluded, police presence will be felt. I have been told that, in fact, at the particular park in question, ie, the Bukit Batok Nature Park, police patrols are mounted there. Having said this, let me also say that while police will certainly do its part, the community can also do its part. For example, under the CSSP, there is a park, ie, the Bukit Purmei Park, where the community has also mounted patrols. Overall, our parks are safe. But, as in anywhere, if a person is not aware of the risk and danger, even walking at night - of course, we are very safe here - if it so happens that you are at the wrong place at the wrong time, a heinous crime can also take place. Our parks are safe. Let me give that assurance. Police is mindful that there is a need for them to be aware professionally of areas in the park that need patrol and yet, at the same time, the call is to all Singaporeans to also take this call to heart not, for example, as I have said, to be alone in secluded places or at night. At the same time, on the ground, under the CSSP programme, if community leaders like yourselves, working with your grassroots, feel that certain parks need more patrols, you can also, working with the police, work out arrangements which will benefit park users.

Sir, while I am aware that the police force is constrained by limited human resources, would the Minister consider greater use of alternative approaches such as surveillance cameras in the more secluded places to ensure safety and to give greater comfort and confidence to the people using such secluded places?

Yes, certainly. When I said CSSP, I have cited park patrols only as one example. Other examples can be considered, such as surveillance cameras and lighting up certain areas of the park which need to be lighted up. I think that if we are proactive, more can be done. What I am saying is that certainly police takes this case in hand and the message that is being sent, and the importance of police patrols. The presence of park patrols is also important. At the same time, all of us can also do our part, as users of the park, to be mindful of possible dangers and risks and, also working with grassroots leaders on the ground, take whatever steps that can be helpful. I thank Mr Sin for this suggestion, as he himself has done in Tampines, about the use of surveillance cameras in appropriate settings.

Would the Ministry consider setting up a DNA database of known or convicted criminals as a deterrence?

DNA, in fact, is being used now, where appropriate, to identify or match the culprit. The Member is right in that currently we do not have a DNA database. Police is looking into the possibility of setting up such a database. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Chiam, we are approaching the end of Question time.

Sir, the Minister says that the overall situation is safe, but if you look at the facts, it is not so. Rape, in fact, is on the increase. In fact, this is the second heinous crime. 1.30 pm

Order. End of Question time. [Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Question Nos. 11 to 36 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 22nd February 2000.]

"to give effect to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction concluded at Paris on 13th January 1993", presented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (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 National Science and Technology Board Act (Chapter 201A of the 1991 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 establish the Agri-food and Veterinary Authority, to provide for its functions and powers, and for matters connected therewith; and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws", presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Introduction Sir, the Bill before this House seeks to establish a statutory board to be known as the Defence Science and Technology Agency. The new Agency is to be formed from the Defence Technology Group in the Ministry of Defence, together with parts of the Defence Administration Group in the Ministry dealing with science and technology. The Agency will be charged with the responsibility of providing the most cost-effective and appropriate leading-edge technology to the SAF. Background Sir, allow me to briefly trace the history of the Defence Technology Group and its roles in supporting the SAF since the beginning of the Republic of Singapore. The Defence Technology Group had its origins in the Logistics Division of the Ministry of Interior and Defence, set up in 1966. Defence industries were set up in 1967 and research laboratories in 1972. MINDEF was the first Ministry to embrace IT with the set up of the Systems and Computer Organisation in 1979. Today, the Defence Technology Group is a smart defence equipment buyer as well as a leader in applying new technologies to defence applications. It performs a wide range of functions for MINDEF and the SAF, ranging from research and development to maintenance support, procurement to defence industry development. Under the prevailing system, the SAF concentrates on training and operations, while the Ministry of Defence provides the manpower and financial resources as well as the procurement and technological support. Rationale for Statutory Board Mr Speaker, Sir, I explained in Parliament in March last year the rationale for the formation of the statutory board, which I would like to reiterate this afternoon. Technology has always been, and will continue to be critical to the SAF in the 21st century. Technology is advancing at a rapid rate. As new technology and systems emerge, existing ones become obsolete. To ensure that the SAF maintains and sharpens its technological edge, MINDEF needs to be able to respond more quickly and flexibly to technological change. Yet, it will be impractical for MINDEF to simply continue to expand its engineering talent pool. This will only distort the deployment of the national engineering resource. Instead of simply growing larger, we have to do things smarter. To transcend our manpower limitations, we need to effectively tap on external engineering expertise from either local or overseas organisations. Sir, to meet these challenges, it is imperative that we find new ways of repositioning and re-organising ourselves. At present, the DTG in MINDEF undertakes the whole range of technology functions, from policy formulation to acquisition, maintenance and development. Although this structure was suitable for the build up of our capabilities in the past, it is not optimal and cannot provide the degree of nimbleness and flexibility that will be required in the future. Therefore, MINDEF has decided to form a new statutory board to provide a more flexible and nimble framework to implement defence technology policies and plans. MINDEF will then be better able to concentrate on the core Ministry functions of policy, planning and resource allocation. Formation of DSTA The new Agency is to be formed by merging all the procurement and science and technology-related entities of the Ministry of Defence. It will serve as an agent of MINDEF and the SAF in achieving their scientific, technological and equipping goals. These entities have about 2,400 staff. The corporatised DSO National Laboratories, which has about 900 staff, will remain a corporate entity; but its supervision and control will be transferred from MINDEF to the new Agency. The Ministry will retain responsibility for oversight and control of the new agency to ensure that the desired results are achieved. Key Provisions of the Bill Sir, I now move on to the key aspects of the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill, read together with the First Schedule, provides for the constitution of the Board of Directors of the Agency. The Minister for Defence will appoint the Chairman and directors of the Board. The Chief Executive of the Agency will be appointed with the approval of the Minister, under clause 10. Clause 6 sets out the mission and functions of the Agency. The Agency shall harness and exploit science and technology, and provide technological and engineering support, to meet the defence and national security needs of Singapore. Its broad functions are to advise the Ministry of Defence on all matters relating to defence science and technology, to provide defence science and technology services and facilities to MINDEF, and to promote and facilitate the development of defence technological capability in Singapore. Clause 7 sets out the powers of the Agency. Among other things, the Agency will be empowered to form companies and participate in joint ventures. Clauses 10 to 13 pertain to appointments of the Chief Executive, officers and employees of the Agency. Special provisions have been included to guarantee the Agency's continued operations, especially in times of emergency. Clauses 14 to 21 are the financial provisions. The main source of funding for the Agency will be in the form of fees for services and functions performed. Clauses 22 to 29 provide for the transfer of property, assets, liabilities and employees to the Agency. Property, assets and liabilities as may be determined by the Minister for Finance will be transferred to the Agency. A substantial number of MINDEF and SAF employees currently employed in MINDEF, the SAF, and in the DSO National Laboratories, will be transferred to the Agency. They will be transferred on terms not less favourable than what they were enjoying immediately before the transfer. Clauses 30 to 34 are general provisions. Clause 32 provides for the preservation of secrecy. Conclusion Mr Speaker, Sir, we have always recognised the role of technology as an important force multiplier to give the SAF the edge. It is vital that we be proactive and innovative in exploiting technology. The Bill before the House sets out the legislative framework to establish the Defence Science and Technology Agency. The Agency will be nimble to respond quickly to changes in technology, so that the SAF can continue to receive cost-effective technology support to help it maintain its strategic edge. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the GPC for Defence and Foreign Affairs supports the establishment of the Defence Science and Technology Agency. However, we wish to raise some points of concern in this debate. Sir, it is timely to establish the Defence Science and Technology Agency as the integrated body for defence R&D, technology, IT, communications, command, defence procurement, and land and estates matters. It is no doubt the right move to put all under one roof, with an integrated management and command, with a central focus and direction. It will maximise, I am sure, the synergy, resources and impact. With greater flexibility, it will be easier for the Agency to attract, nurture and retain the best talents, and enlarge the talent pool. Talent is the critical factor. With the right strategy and deployment, the R&D talent can tip the scale between victory and defeat. Indeed, the Agency has a pivotal role in the defence of Singapore, especially in this technological and IT age. Defence research, development and related preparations will indeed decide the outcome of war. Technology alters the course of war. The machine gun in the First World War, the tanks and aircrafts in the Second World War, and the precision guided missiles in the Gulf war changed the face of warfare. Next it will be the digital battlefield and cyber warfare. The Agency can therefore give the SAF the comparative advantage, the cutting edge in technology, communications and IT. If the Agency does its job, we will win the war before the first shot is fired. Better still, such intensive and thorough preparations will deter any potential enemy from waging war against us. The strategy of deterrence is indeed our best bet. This is in line with what Sun Tzu, the best known Asian strategist said 2,000 years ago, that the best strategy is to win without fighting, and to out-plan and out-manoeuvre the enemy. Sir, I wish to raise two points for consideration and clarification. First, the `no strike' clause which stated that "No employee of the Agency shall go on strike or instigate or initiate others to take part in or otherwise act in furtherance of any industrial action." I appreciate the sensitive nature of the work of this Agency, and that we must not and cannot afford strikes and disruption in such a critical area. I appeal to the Agency management not to use this clause as a fig leaf but to take it as a calling, as their special responsibility, to place an even higher premium and priority on good employee-management relationship. They should take care of the interests and welfare of all their employees. I urge the Agency to put in place procedures for handling staff grievances and appeals and provide ample opportunities for staff dialogues and counselling. May I also ask whether this prohibits the employees from joining the NTUC union or the general branch of the NTUC, not for industrial actions, but for welfare purposes and for the wide range of benefits of NTUC membership. Sir, the second point is that the Agency will present its annual report to a committee, appointed by the Prime Minister, instead of to Parliament. This is indeed a special provision, necessitated again by the sensitive nature of its work. I hope the persons appointed to this committee will be thorough in their scrutiny and fearless in their enquiry, for the good of the country. Sir, I support the Bill.

Sir, I welcome the introduction of this Bill which will see the creation of the DSTA which has evolved out of the restructuring of the Ministry of Defence's Defence Technology Group. It will certainly become a one-stop Agency to advise MINDEF on key matters as laid out in the Bill. Sir, I certainly endorse the statement of the GPC Chairman for Defence and Foreign Affairs on the pivotal role of technology, how it will help one to win wars. Sir, I would like to urge the Deputy Prime Minister to consider the following matters in respect of the Bill. The first matter that I would like to raise is on the composition of the board of directors under clause 5(1). Sir, the First Schedule states that the persons who can be appointed must have public administration experience or be involved in the defence, science or technology field. Sir, I would urge the Minister to consider the scope of those who would qualify as I feel that it would be unduly restrictive if one was to restrict appointees to these two categories. With the Agency aiming to be nimble and something that would be similar to a corporatised agency, it will be appropriate if other individuals who may qualify should be considered and co-opted as directors of the board. Perhaps, some CEOs in the private sector who may be able to contribute good corporate practice or certain business practices can be incorporated as directors to the board. I would urge that the clause in the Schedule be amended to also include a clause to say that "any other individual whom the Minister deems appropriate or fit to serve as director". Sir, I would like to raise another issue under clause 11(2) which requires an employee to work for the DSTA when the Minister so orders. Sir, I am not sure that this is a provision worth inserting as it is no good trying to keep an employee whom you have tried to persuade to stay but refuses. So why keep a body if his soul is not in it? Sir, the courts have long hesitated to supervise such clauses as it is something very difficult to supervise and implement. Perhaps, the Minister may wish to delete the clause and try persuasion and provide incentives for such employees to stay. Sir, another clause which is clause 11(4), prohibits strikes and industrial action. Naturally, some are concerned as to whether it is something that infringes the right of every worker in Singapore and whether we are compromising the rights of workers in Singapore. I would have been much happier if the mechanism on how workers' rights would be protected in the DSTA could have been spelt out either in the Bill itself or as a Schedule to the Bill so that employees within the DSTA can feel comforted that their grievances and problems can be heard by the management in the appropriate way and some resolution sought in the most appropriate way within the organisation. Sir, I look forward to the DSTA working out an arrangement, together with the involvement of the trade union movement, NTUC in Singapore to ensure that workers within the DSTA are adequately protected. Sir, another issue that I would like to raise is on the question of accountability to Parliament. Sir, clause 19 recognises that the Minister dispenses money given by Parliament to DSTA. But nowhere in the Bill do I see any accountability to Parliament. The Bill requires under clause 30 the annual report of the DSTA to be given to the Minister for Defence and he, in turn, will hand it to a committee to be appointed by the Prime Minister. Who sits in this committee to be appointed by the Prime Minister is unclear and nowhere does it say that Members of Parliament will be represented in this committee. As Parliament dispenses funds to the Ministry of Defence and in turn they dispense this fund to the DSTA, I would urge that this committee to be appointed is one that takes into its ambit people from different fields who can supervise the work of DSTA and ensure that the funds of the DSTA are properly used and some of the research that is undertaken by the DSTA is appropriate to the needs of our defence forces. I would also urge the Minister to see whether there could be certain instances where the report of DSTA could be given to Parliament. Because in the United Kingdom there is an equivalent agency called the Defence Research Agency which indeed provides its report to Parliament on what exactly it does, not in specifics, but at least a broad picture of what exactly it does so that Members of Parliament can see what exactly this organisation is doing and in particular whether the fund and research that is being undertaken are appropriately and properly used. Sir, naturally, as the body that approves the money for DSTA, Parliament will be interested in ensuring that these funds are effectively and efficiently used. Sir, another issue that I am concerned with is clause 32(3) which states that a ministerial certificate stating a matter to be secret will be deemed secret and cannot be disclosed to Parliament or any other person. Sir, I am a little uncomfortable, as I am always wary of the judge and jury being the same person. It may perhaps be appropriate if the secrecy of the matter is verified by a third party, perhaps even by a committee to be appointed by the Prime Minister under clause 32, which hopefully will not be one that is totally dominated by the Executive. Sir, with those comments, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the strengthening of national security deserves the support of every Singaporean and I therefore support the strengthening of national security and what this Bill aims to achieve. The difference that this Agency will make heavily depends on the quality and the motivation of people who work in this Agency. I support what the Minister said that you need to have talent and talent that can work smart. So in reviewing the Bill, I have looked at how this Agency tries to look at staff matters, the people who work for this Agency. I am glad that they spend more than one part devoted to staff matters and staff moving to this Agency from elsewhere were given an assurance that they would not lose out in terms of remuneration and recognition of service. As employees of a statutory board, I assume that they can be a trade union, they can get representation rights and these are positive things. However, there are some aspects of the provision that do not really give the right signal that people are valuable, can be trusted and can be treated as such. I have some concerns on those provisions and I would like to express them. I am referring to clause 11(2) that empowers the Minister to compel an employee to carry on working even if he or she has tendered in her resignation as well as clause 11(4) which prohibits employees from going on strike or to take industrial action. When employees are unhappy, they normally express it by voicing out their complaints. In most places, when they are not heard, they leave. So we say that you either voice it or if it cannot be heard, you just leave and exit. This Bill puts restrictions on both. And I ask: is it really necessary? Are we sending the right signal? Is our existing law not adequate to handle differences that may arise between an Agency, or for that matter, any employer, and its employees? Someone who wants to leave and he is asked to carry on is an unhappy worker which will not contribute to morale and general work environment of the workplace. So why is he leaving? And if there was a union, he could articulate his concerns and aspirations of workers which can be addressed early, wisely and reduce the chance of a trade dispute arising. Coming on to clause 11(4) on strikes and industrial action, I would like to say that strike is an ultimate weapon for the workers and the unions. Even if the workers call for a strike, the workers have a great probability that they might lose their jobs, they might lose their income and, in some countries, even their lives. Strikes are never a preferred option for trade unions. In Singapore, there had not been a strike since 1977 except for one during the last recession. Strikes, since they are not a preferred option, happen for various reasons. One of it is that it is actually an open manifestation of conflict and a total breakdown of consensus. It is an explosion of pent-up feelings. These feelings and bad blood get bottled up because procedures to handle disputes are inefficient or inadequate. I also accept that there may even be elements who might use strikes to promote their narrow interests and cause havoc. But are these possible in today's Singapore? To show this question, I just want to review and talk about the laws that exist here. We have the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and the Trade Disputes Act which prohibit strikes and lock-outs in water, electricity and gas services. It is these three areas which render service to the community and we are all dependent on them. But while the law prohibits a strike, it also prohibits lock-out. I ask why this Agency, which is so important to national interest, prohibits strikes but not lock-out. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and the Trade Disputes Act also provide for workers in essential services to give two weeks' notice before commencing a strike or industrial action. It has to be in pursuit of a trade dispute. It has to be employment related. And the Trade Unions Act actually says that the majority of union members who are involved have to give support for this industrial action and they have to show their support through a secret ballot. And during this period of two weeks' cooling-off period, efforts can be made to resolve the dispute and if the dispute is referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court, no strike or industrial action can take place. Strike, I say again, is an extreme measure taken only if pushed and there are no other options available. The Industrial Relations Act in Singapore therefore has comprehensive provisions for collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration of trade disputes. These provisions have given us industrial peace with justice. It has served us well. Why does the Agency not want to use the existing laws instead of imposing new and seemingly unnecessary restrictions on trade unions and workers? The other point that I said is whether we are giving the right signals. The Singapore worker is widely broadcast as the number one workforce in the world and the Singapore trade union movement as a responsible one that is not afraid to put national interests before that of sectoral interest. Our legal system governing employment is ranked high by investors. We have a track record to show our responsibility as a movement and its workforce. Only last year, Singapore workers accepted a wage cut without any social unrest. I ask: in these provisions of the Bill, is the Government giving a different signal in its trust and faith in the Singapore workers and the Singapore unions? Is there enough confidence in our present legal system? Finally, I would like to say the solution to ensure that we have got the right people, highly motivated people working for the Agency for the good of the country, is not by placing restrictions on people, but rather by putting in place procedures in which grievances can be handled quickly, effectively and smoothly, and you have processes and procedures to handle people's needs and aspirations. There will be differences. Any organisation will have differences but we must address them and resolve them fairly and justly. Singapore's proven way of treating people and workers fairly by giving them reasonable and good remuneration, listening to concerns, addressing them and involving them or using active citizenship, has worked in most places, and there is a track record to it. If you follow these tested methods, then I am sure that the Agency will have a highly motivated and committed workforce and in that case, there is no need to worry so much of trade disputes and industrial actions. This is a challenge for management and I urge the Minister to review and clarify these points.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I see the formation of the Agency as a consolidation of our resources in the defence industry. As maintaining a strong defence capability is crucial for Singapore's continuing peace and security, I am happy with its evolution and the successes that occasionally appear in the news media. Whilst the formation of such an Agency is a natural progression, I am filled with some unease. Perhaps, I have been watching too many science fiction movies that portray renegade defence agencies carrying out unethical experimentations and developments. Quite naturally, the work of a defence agency must generally be kept secret. Clause 32(3) provides the Minister with the power to certify any information as of a secret nature and as stated in the clause, such information or matter shall not be required to be disclosed to Parliament or any such person. There is no provision for a Committee to monitor the works of the Agency to ensure that it does not breach any universal ethical rule. Since defence development may involve ethical issues, such as the development of land mines, biological weapons, etc, I feel that it would be too much to keep it purely within the Ministry of Defence. Sir, it is my belief that there is a need to have a monitoring body, comprising at least the Prime Minister and two other Ministers from other Ministries, and in fact, it would be my preference to include an independent person, such as the President of the Republic of Singapore. The setting up of such a Committee is critical since defence matters, by nature, cannot be discussed openly without compromising the national interest. As pointed out earlier by Mr Ravindran, there is really a need for secrecy to be independently verified.

Mr Speaker, I share the recognition of the importance of science and technology to defence and I also think that it is important to see that there can be spin-offs from such research which may have value-added for development of Singapore's technology and economy. Generally, I support the Bill. And if the Minister says that it is for flexibility, I also think that starting an Agency to deal with the subject matter is also worthy of support. My concern then is, like the others, more on the effects of creating such an agency quite independent of the Ministry and scrutiny of Parliament, and of the effects of the Bill before us. My first point, Mr Speaker, is about something that I was a bit puzzled by and which perhaps the Minister can explain. Of the departments that are to be incorporated within the Agency, looking at clause 2, I notice that one of the Agencies is Lands and Estates. I am a little puzzled. Perhaps I do not understand the functions of this department why this should be part of our Defence Science and Technology Agency, rather than part of the Ministry. Secondly, I return my concern to clause 6(3) of the Bill. Clause 6(3) permits the Agency to undertake certain functions as the Minister may assign. The Agency may undertake and, in so doing, the Agency shall be deemed to be fulfilling the purposes of this Act. This power to me is a little too wide and yet, at the same time, a little too loose. It may be too wide in the sense that in comparison with this, clause 6(2) constrains the Agency much more to the purposes that the Minister has explained. Even clause 6(2)(l), which is the general one, allows the Ministry to perform such other functions as are conferred on the Agency by any other written law. In clause 6(3), we go much more broader as "such other functions as the Minister himself may assign" and does not even say in writing. But yet, while the power is so wide, I do not understand why the Agency may take up such an instruction from the Minister rather than "shall". Perhaps, the Minister can clarify that as well. A third point I share with many of the speakers before me is with regard to clause 11(2) and (4). I think I cannot improve on what Mr Thomas, the NMP, has said on clause 11(4) with regard to the impact on trade unions and labour law in Singapore. Let me then focus on clause 11(2). Here, as Members have said before me, this provision is for enforced employment. I would like to remind the Minister that Article 10 of the Constitution actually prohibits forced labour. If I may read Article 10: "(1) No person shall be held in slavery. (2) All forms of forced labour are prohibited, but Parliament may by law provide for compulsory service for national purposes." I understand, of course, that the second part "Parliament may by law provide" is probably where we are coming to now. But I would like to ask the Minister to recognise that this should be a power that is exceptionally used. Why is it such an exception? It could be that this is an essential service such as police, fire protection and other matters. May I ask the Minister's assurance that this clause is in line with those other essential services. Because we are in a bit of conundrum here. If the service is so essential, why should it be under an Agency rather than directly under the Ministry? My last point relates to the powers of the Agency to procure. Sir, as we know, powers to procure for defence mean large sums of money and we have all heard nightmare stories of procurement for research in other countries where the system had led to overpriced procurement of what seems to be everyday goods. I want to be reassured that the Agency will continue to follow Singapore's system of prudence and scrutiny. What then may I ask the Minister, would the changes be to Government procedures for tendering and accountability? What are the likely increased financial costs? The Bill says that we would likely incur some additional financial expenditure. We do not know how much. Particularly, may I ask the Minister whether Government will, even with the creation of the Agency, stay within the existing guidelines on our military expenditure as part of the GDP? In this regard, I too share a concern that the lack of accountability to Parliament and the Minister's powers to declare certain things to be a secret must be broadly shared by a Committee of Parliament such as the GPC or other Ministers.

Sir, let me first declare that I am an employee of the National Trades Union Congress and my views reflect that of the NTUC. The NTUC has had discussions with the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Manpower on the Defence Science and Technology Agency Bill because it touches on the fundamental right of trade unions, ie, the right to strike. We, in the NTUC, do not like to see the abrogation of such a right. It is not that our unions are strike-happy or that the industrial relations situation in Singapore is so poor that unions do not threaten companies with industrial actions, they could not get management to settle disputes. In fact, we have had no strike since 1977 except for a brief one in 1986. But no strike does not mean no disputes. Because we have good relations with many employers, we had been able to settle these disputes mainly through bilateral negotiations. When we run into difficulties, we refer cases to the Ministry of Manpower for conciliation. Only rarely do cases reach the Industrial Arbitration Court. In 1986, the NTUC sanctioned a strike at Hydril, makers of parts of oil rigs for two reasons. First, to punish the management for their anti-union actions. The company had set unrealistically high productivity targets and when workers, including those elected as union leaders, failed to reach the targets, they were sacked. Such anti-union actions, if unchecked, would undermine the credibility of the labour movement. The strike was over in two days. The management agreed to take back the Branch Treasurer and to compensate five other dismissed workers who later declined offers to return to their jobs. So it is crucial that we have the means to take strike actions if management were to adopt a decidedly anti-union stance in a labour strike. But strike action is not the objective of our unions. In 1982, when Mr Ong Teng Cheong was Labour Minister, he got Parliament to amend the legislation to re-define the objectives of trade unions. Instead of having unions with such objectives as (1) imposing the restrictive conditions on the conduct of work, and (2) promoting or organising or financing of strikes or lock-outs, the new definition would give these as the objectives of our trade unions: (1) to promote good industrial relations between workmen and employers; (2) to promote the working conditions of workers or enhance the economic and social status; and (3) to raise productivity for the benefit of workers, employers and the nation's economy. One Opposition MP completely misread the situation. He thought the amendment would spell the death of trade unions. How wrong he was! Today, we have far more members in trade unions than in 1982 and our trade unions are stronger and influential. Labour MPs in 1982 fully supported the re-definition of trade union objectives. As they put it, a strike is a means to an end and not an end in itself. Sir, coming to the Bill before the House, we must ask these questions. What is the job of the DSTA? Who are to be posted there? Why does MINDEF wish to stipulate a no-strike clause? MINDEF is transforming its Defence Technology Group into a statutory board to be called the Defence Science and Technology Agency. This means staff working in the Agency would be like employees of any statutory board. They can join the union whereas as MINDEF personnel, they cannot. Through the DSTA, staff will operate in a statutory board environment. The work they do remains basically the same. It is defence-related, for example, logistics support, ensuring that our defence systems are fully operational at all times and providing technical support for the SAF in peacetime and in war. The defence of our country is paramount. As such, we accept the no-strike clause for DSTA employees. A no-strike clause is not new in Singapore or even the more developed countries around the world. In 1967, the Government sought to amend the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act to ban strikes by workers engaged in the very essential services, namely, water, gas and electricity services. While conceding that the provision by itself would appear to be a drastic step in curtailing the rights of trade unions to go on strike, the Government said that it was necessary for it to ensure that the public was not held to ransom by a few irresponsible elements. The Government was referring to an illegal strike by public daily-rated cleansing workers earlier in the year. Labour MPs protested over the erosion of trade union rights. They argued that there was already a law to prevent workers from going on strike. If the Government felt that such action would be detrimental to the good of society, the Government could refer a dispute to arbitration and this would automatically make an industrial action illegal. After a spirited debate, the no-strike Bill was passed over strenuous objections by some labour MPs. But, in a spirit of democracy, union leaders had to persuade the ground to accept the will of Parliament. Thirty-three years have passed. Since then, unions representing water, electricity and gas workers have secured better terms and conditions of service for their workers, despite not having the strike weapon to use as a last resort. All these years, water, electricity and gas supply has been flowing without interruption to our homes, our factories and workplaces. Where necessary, our water, electricity and gas workers have turned to the NTUC for help to resolving conflicts with the management and, with goodwill, problems have been resolved. Sir, we need not be apologetic about giving up the right to strike for it is not a new idea and even adopted by unions in developed countries. Now, let us take a look at the situation in Britain. Let me quote what Sir Ken Jackson, General Secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union (AEEU), had to say about industrial action. He said, "I want to see a strike-free future for British industry." As he told the congress of the United Kingdom Trades Union Congress (TUC) in September 1999, workers want to work, not strike, and there could be "no return to the bad old days". Well, Sir Ken, leader of 732,000-member union, could see his vision come true when the measures of the new Employment Relations Bill come into effect in the summer of this year. The Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union of the UK is a large and expanding union, and they are not alone in promising no-strike agreements to attract foreign investments to their country to create jobs for their workers. A growing number of unions in Britain have signed partnership agreements with companies since 1997 when the TUC produced a document entitled "Partners for Progress" and endorsed the Labour Party's initiative of creating a union partnership with industry. In the United States, the Iron Workers Local 17 signed a no-strike clause with the Construction Employers' Association. When the contract expired in May 1991, the union and the employers' group extended the pact. When the union went on strike, the employers took it to court for violating the no-strike clause. Eastern Airlines and the union representing its flight attendants told an American court in 1991 that they had reached an agreement that would prevent a strike over a three-year period. In 1998, General Motors told Wall Street investors that the United Auto Workers (UAW) had given a no-strike pledge before a new national contract was signed. On its part, the union said that it had agreed to ban strikes at three plants, in return for a company pledge not to shut down or sell the plants for 16 months. So the unions in the West have agreed to give up the right to strike - for job security. While we may think that Arthur Scargill of the coal miners union is a typical British trade unionist, the fact of the matter is that many union leaders in Britain had for many years gone to Japan and other countries to promise no-strike agreements in order to persuade investors to come to Britain and to create jobs for British workers. Sir, having said that, I would like to amplify what my colleagues have said earlier, and more so for me as an employee of the National Trades Union Congress, that we must emphatically call upon the management of DSTA to be fair to our workers now that they have to forgo the right to strike. In the case of DSTA, we are giving up the right to strike for an even more important reason, our national security. One may say that the workers at DSTA are non-combat personnel, but their jobs are no less important to the defence of Singapore for they provide logistical support for the SAF. Sir, we should always remind ourselves about our vulnerability and we must never compromise on our national security. I am sure Singaporeans have not forgotten that not too long ago, we were referred to as a "little red dot". We must give our SAF and our NSmen full confidence that they can call on every resource without disruption and interruption to defend this "little red dot" on the map. Who are the people in DSTA who will be able to join the union? The majority are non-uniformed SAF personnel who are responsible for logistics support for the SAF. There are 1,112 of them. There are 440 civilians - engineers engaged in research and maintenance work and a small number in the clerical grades. Then there are 137 military staff. There is much work ahead of us. The NTUC will have to sell trade unionism to those eligible for membership. I am quite glad that my GPC Chairman has called upon the management to encourage workers to join the union. We will have to do the work to sell trade unionism to these workers. We cannot take for granted that since they can join a union, those deployed to DSTA will want to become union members, but we hope that the majority of those eligible for membership will sign up. We are confident that the DSTA will throw up some good union leaders. More importantly, we will need to help the DSTA union to work out a machinery to deal with labour-management relations. In our discussions with MINDEF, we have been assured that the DSTA management will accord full recognition to the union and extend full cooperation in resolving work related problems. Let us hope that we can get DSTA unionised as quickly as possible. Under the law, unions representing statutory board employees have to be house unions. I understand that among the civilian staff, there are about 40 who are members of the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees (AUPE) before they were posted to MINDEF. They have been allowed to keep their union membership. Now they have to trade their AUPE membership for that of a house union. I am sure AUPE will accept this "loss" as it will be a "gain" to the new union. In forming house unions, the NTUC has its own set of criteria. First, there should be a sufficiently large base of a house union to be viable. Second, there should be effective leaders. And, thirdly, labour-management relations must be good. In the case of DSTA, the first criterion should be met if they are able to persuade the majority of employees to be union members. We are confident that DSTA's staff would throw up effective trade union leaders, who will be a credit not only to their members but also to the labour movement as a whole. As for labour-management relations, we take MINDEF's word that DSTA's management would work with the labour movement for the benefit of the workers and the DSTA. Sir, I support the Bill before the House notwithstanding the no-strike provision.

Sir, I thank the Members for their comments and their perceptive suggestions regarding the DSTA Bill. Let me start off with comments regarding clause 11(4), the no-strike clause, which has been commented on by Dr Ong Chit Chung, Mr Ravindran, Mr Thomas Thomas and Mr Hawazi Daipi, and also the DSTA and the unions. Let me first say that DSTA's staff will be allowed to join unions. However, our national defence is of paramount importance to the survival and prosperity of our nation and, in this area, there cannot be any compromise. In times of tension, the DSTA, being the agency in charge of logistics, equipment acquisition and technical improvisation functions, is an integral part of MINDEF and the SAF. Currently, such functions are undertaken by non-uniformed personnel in the defence technology group in MINDEF who are not permitted to join unions. The move to legislate such personnel over to DSTA is to allow for organisational flexibility to cope with fast paced technological advances in the field of defence science. The jobs these staff perform and the criticality of these functions have not changed. The DSTA and the effectiveness of our national defence cannot be subjected to compromise by industrial action, particularly in times of tension and war and, for these reasons, the no-strike clause 11(4) is necessary. Sir, MINDEF, in drawing up this clause, also looked to see whether we could achieve the same effect under other legislation, eg, the Emergency Essential Powers Act. However, the Emergency Essential Powers Act only covers specific groups of persons, and the DSTA staff would have to be included in the subsidiary legislation of this Act through a presidential proclamation. We have some concerns in regulating DSTA's staff through this particular Act. First, the essential regulations are intended for use only during national emergencies. It may alarm the public and bring about undesirable attention to the fact that Singapore is technically in a state of emergency and that the other articles of subsidiary legislation could be brought to bear at any time. Second, the existing essential regulations were passed between October 1964 and July 1996, and would seem extremely odd after a lapse of some 23 years to pass another set of essential regulations, arousing undesirable public attention and scrutiny of the regulations. Also, passing a set of essential regulations now might send the wrong signal to external parties and create unnecessary political and diplomatic difficulties. Sir, the provisions currently in the Enlistment Act providing for exigencies of service have served MINDEF well over the years in ensuring that our national defence readiness is not compromised. It will be prudent to continue this practice through the inclusion of an equivalent provision in the DSTA Act. Sir, I move to the other clause which has also been commented by many Members including Dr Ong, Mr Ravindran, Mr Gerard Ee and Mr Simon Tay and this is why the DSTA will not have to submit its annual report to Parliament. By its nature, the business of defence has to be conducted under a cloak of secrecy. This includes the work that DTG is doing now. The change to a statutory board does not remove the requirement for secrecy, and secrecy has to be maintained for many of the details of the activities and finances of DSTA. In the Bill, to provide an external check, the DSTA annual report will be submitted to a committee appointed by the Prime Minister. Sir, let me move on to the other points which have been raised by the other Members of Parliament. One is on clause 11(2) which is to require employees to work, a point raised by Mr Ravindran, Mr Thomas and Mr Simon Tay. MINDEF and DSTA know that the last thing we want is to compel an unwilling employee to work because if an employee does not want to work, then obviously you are not likely to get much useful service out of him. But in certain circumstances, for the purposes of DSTA, where it is essential and necessary for DSTA to require the person to work, we must have that provision. Mr Simon Tay also asked about the Lands and Estates Organisation and why it comes under the DSTA. The ambit of the DSTA is a very large one. It includes not only science and technology but also providing logistics support to the SAF, and the Lands and Estates Organisation is required to be included in the DSTA for such purposes. With regard to the procurement powers of DSTA, a point raised by Mr Simon Tay, we will make sure that DSTA exercises its powers well and gets the best value for money spent in our defence effort. I would like to assure the House that even with the setting up of DSTA, we will continue to abide by the present guidelines we have for our defence expenditure, and that is not to exceed 6% of our GDP. Sir, some MPs also raised a point about secrecy and whether it is necessary to have another body in order to restrain the powers of the Minister for Defence with regard to matters regarding DSTA. Sir, many matters of defence, by their nature cannot be revealed publicly, and in such areas it is not possible to have another external body to supervise such matters in the DSTA. Sir, I think I have dealt with all the matters brought up by the Members of Parliament. I just want to end by reassuring the Members, particularly Mr Hawazi Daipi, who speaks on behalf of the trade unions, that we are very conscious about the need to look after the interests of the workers in DSTA. I am confident that the DSTA management will take this heavy responsibility with its full import and discharge it fully. If they do not, Members can be sure that the Ministry of Defence will compel them to do so. One last point I missed is the suggestion by Mr Simon Tay with regard to the formation of a board of directors and that we should look for a wider representation. I think that is a good suggestion and we will take that into account.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 2.33 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Rationale for Third University Since the early 1980s, the Government has been expanding capacity at the universities to meet the increased need for highly trained manpower in the economy and to meet Singaporeans' aspirations for more opportunities for higher education. The two state universities, the National University of Singapore and the Nanyang Technological University, together admitted 8,600 local students in the academic year 1999, including some 900 local polytechnic graduates. This represented a 231% increase from the 2,600 students admitted in 1980. University participation rate has risen from 5% of the cohort in 1980 to 21% of the cohort in 1999. As Singapore competes in the first league of world economies, we need a population that is skilled, innovative and entrepreneurial. The Government has therefore decided to further expand university educational opportunities. The cohort participation rate will increase from the current 21% to 25% when the three universities have eventually reached their capacities. Instead of expanding NUS and NTU, which are already the size of large state universities in the United States, we decided to start a new university specialising in business and related disciplines. The intention is for NUS, NTU and SMU to develop their own unique characteristics and niches. NUS will continue to develop as a comprehensive university; NTU will have a distinctive engineering, professional and business bent; and SMU will focus on serving the business and services sectors of the economy. This model provides for competition and yet avoids wasteful duplication. Each university has enough room to develop its own areas of excellence, and enough competition to spur it on to greater heights. Building a new university also gives us the opportunity to make a fresh start. The Singapore Management University has been conceived to be innovative and pioneering. Approach of the SMU Bill To provide SMU with the flexibility and autonomy to innovate and break new ground, SMU will be structured in a different way from NUS and NTU. While NUS and NTU are statutory boards each governed by an Act of Parliament, SMU will be structured as a private company limited by guarantee. There will be a two-tier approach. SMU's daily operations are governed by the Memorandum and Articles of Association (M&A) of the company which was incorporated on 12th January this year. The company called The Singapore Management University is also subject to the provisions of the Companies Act. This gives SMU as much operational autonomy as possible to innovate and to pursue excellence. At the higher level, SMU's activities will be governed by the SMU Bill. This is necessary because of the wider national role played by SMU as an institution of higher learning in Singapore, and the fact that SMU will receive significant public funding. The SMU Bill will therefore provide the necessary mechanisms for the Government to guide SMU's strategic development in the public interest, and safeguard the use of public funds. Because of this two-tier approach and the desire to give SMU maximum flexibility, the SMU Bill is a minimalist and relatively short Bill. The SMU Bill The SMU Bill aims to serve four key functions: First, it gives SMU the right to confer and award degrees, diplomas and certificates, including honorary degrees and other distinctions; Second, the Bill allows for Government funding to be provided to the institution. This will help ensure that SMU develops successfully, especially in the start-up phase, and signals to the public governmental support for SMU; Third, it permits the Government, when necessary, to influence the strategic development of SMU; and Fourth, the Bill permits the Government to monitor the use of public funds. Permit me to highlight the key clauses in the Bill: Clause 3 sets out the function of the university company, which includes the conferring and awarding of degrees, diplomas and certificates; Clause 6 makes provision for Parliament to provide funding for the university. Clauses 3 and 6 therefore signal the Government's support for SMU; Clauses 4, 5 and 7 provide safeguards in the public interest. These clauses grant the Minister for Education the power to appoint and remove Trustees and to give his consent for: (1) The admission of members of the company; (2) The disposal of the University's undertaking or property; (3) The voluntary winding-up of the University; and (4) Any alterations of the University's constituent documents. Clause 8 clarifies that the Societies Act applies to any student body in SMU unless otherwise exempted by the Minister responsible for societies. Development of SMU Mr Speaker, Sir, to reflect the country's endorsement and support of this major undertaking, I am pleased to announce that the President of the Republic of Singapore has agreed to be SMU's Patron. The Patron of SMU will encourage and support SMU in the fulfilment of its mission. I am also pleased to inform the House that Mr Lim Kim San has agreed to accept the appointment of the Chancellor of SMU. Mr Lim, who has distinguished himself as a Cabinet Minister and in the private sector, is eminently suited to be the Chancellor of SMU, especially since SMU seeks to be a premier institution of higher learning dedicated to the high ideals of scholarship, research and entrepreneurship. SMU has been making good progress in its development. It has established strong links with the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School - the top business school for undergraduate programmes and the MBA programme in the United States. Professor Janice Bellace, formerly Deputy Dean of the Wharton School, has been appointed the President of SMU. In addition, the Wharton-SMU Research Centre has been established to advance research relating to business and management in Asia. In August 2000, SMU will be admitting its first intake of 300 students into its Bachelor of Business Management course. I am heartened to note that there were more than 1,000 applications for about 100 places when SMU opened the course for early admission this year. Some of the applicants, I am told, are of very high quality and could have secured places in the best universities anywhere in the world. This augurs well for SMU. Modelled after the Wharton School's innovative undergraduate curriculum, SMU's curriculum is broad-based. In addition to the core studies, students will be able to choose from a wide range of subjects such as IT and the Law, Political Science, Music and Interpersonal Dynamics. In the longer run, SMU may expand its course offerings to related disciplines. There will also be a strong postgraduate and research focus in management and business issues related to Asia. SMU will be located temporarily at NIE's Bukit Timah Campus until its city campus at Bras Basah vicinity is ready around 2005. We can then expect SMU to become an integral part of the business and financial community and life of the city. Conclusion Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my hope that the Singapore Management University, as Singapore's new university founded at the start of this new millennium, will become known throughout the world for the innovativeness and quality of its academic programmes, management philosophy, research and entrepreneurship. The SMU Bill, together with the university company's M&A, will provide the necessary framework that will give SMU a high degree of autonomy and the required measure of public accountability that will allow it to excel as the first major university of the 21st Century. Question proposed.

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

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, compared to the Acts establishing the NUS and the NTU, this SMU Bill is a very simple Bill indeed. As the Minister says, it is a minimalist Bill. The two Acts are very comprehensive covering many aspects of the operation of the University, including addendum schedules listing University Constitution which specifies exactly how the University is to be governed, including the roles and responsibilities of the officers of the University from the Chief Executive Officer all the way down to the Bursar. In contrast, the Bill simply established a company operating the University. Although this company is termed as the university company in the Bill, for all intents and purposes, it looks like a regular private company. It feels like a private company, and it is indeed a private company. Other than a few clauses empowering the Government to safeguard the assets, the Bill is silent on how the University is to be run. So comparing the two tiers of statutes, it is indeed a very significant contrast. As the Minister has said, the Government has chosen to grant SMU as much freedom as possible. In the light of recent announcement that the Government is giving the two established universities, the NUS and the NTU, greater latitude when it comes to self-governance, this is indeed the right approach at this juncture in time. The question I have in mind is this. Since this is a better way to run university, should the Government not also consider repealing the current statutes governing NUS and NTU and re-enact similar Bills for these two universities as well, if not now but maybe sometime in the future? Otherwise, are there any other reasons that those two universities need to be better safeguarded? Mr Speaker, Sir, another impression that is left in the public mind is that the establishment of the SMU does not seem to have received a thorough deliberation as it rightfully deserves. From the press report, it seems that various proposals for the SMU were tabled in the past and were seriously considered. For instance, it was reported earlier that the NUS Business School would henceforth concentrate only on the graduate programme as the undergraduate programme would be transferred to SMU. Obviously, that is not the case now. And I believe my colleague, the hon. Dr Tan Boon Wan, who is most familiar with the circumstances, will elaborate on this. In view of this change at a relatively late stage, one gets a sense of see-sawing in decision making. So the question I have is: Is the current arrangement among the three universities truly the best for Singapore? Mr Speaker, Sir, having said that, let me assure the House that I support the establishment of the SMU at this juncture when we are rethinking the whole education philosophy and adapting the education scene to the demand of the knowledge-based economy. For a new university, an Act of Parliament gives it an aura of permanence and stability. It gives the SMU a stamp of approval, ensuring public recognition and support. More importantly, graduates of the University will be assured that their degrees will be recognised by the Government and their employability by the civil service and the statutory boards will be assured. In this aspect, I am indeed very glad to learn that our President has agreed to be appointed to the position of the Patron and Mr Lim Kim San has accepted the appointment of the Chancellor. This will indeed give SMU greater status. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry has also disclosed earlier that it will be exploring the use of SAT as a supplementary measure for university admission. This is so because it feels that its sole dependence on 'A' level examinations has encouraged certain study habits of our youths and neglected creativity and innovativeness which are important in the KBE. I am glad to note that SMU, with its stronger emphasis on the American curriculum, is using SAT in its initial recruitment of 100 students out of close to 1,000 applicants. Selection will be done through personal interviews, review of essays written by the applicants as well as the SAT scores. Judging from the press reports of the students seeking admission, they are very impressive indeed. There is even one young lady with a SAT score of close to 700 which is very outstanding. If SMU were able to attract the better students, it will signal to the other two universities that they too need to enhance their attractiveness. It will be no longer business as usual as there will be competition for students. As we all know, a certain measure of competition is healthy in all fields of human endeavours. We can see that in the development of our polytechnics. With four polytechnics competing to attract the better students, our polytechnics have become more innovative in the course offerings and indeed more responsive to the changing time. I believe SMU will have a similar impact on our local universities as well. Mr Speaker, Sir, with all the flexibilities of a private company, SMU will have the maximum freedom to attract the best faculty through a better remuneration package. Already, it has attracted several staff from NUS and in response, the staff in NUS Business School have been offered better compensation. However, I would like to sound a note of caution here that the universities do not engage in a bidding war for staff, especially undergraduate teaching staff. It would seem to be a zero sum game if most of the SMU staff were recruited from the other Singapore universities and few from overseas. We should also bear in mind that what makes universities excellent and famous has less to do with their undergraduate programmes and everything to do with their research and graduate programmes. It is a fact that in the American universities, research talent is valued greater than teaching ability when it comes to the granting of tenures. I studied at Stanford University in the late 70s. I still recall many Stanford University faculty members who were great teachers, well beloved by students but were denied tenure because their research ability was judged to be below par even though their teaching abilities were outstanding. It seems to be the culture in NUS and NTU today as well. In this respect, Sir, I am heartened to learn that SMU has already acquired close to $22 million in its research fund and is collaborating with the Wharton Business School to establish the Wharton-SMU Research Centre. Mr Speaker, Sir, at the current enrolment of 400 students per year, SMU will still have a total population of no more than 2,000 students when it is fully established. By all measures, it is indeed a small university and will remain so unless it has ambition to develop into a comprehensive university. The Ministry of Education typically funds the operation of the universities on a fixed dollar amount per student per year. So if you take the total number of 2,000 and multiply it out, it seems to be that the total budget for SMU would be rather small compared to the other two universities, probably no bigger than the engineering faculties of the two universities. I am concerned that SMU's small size will pose a hindrance to its attractiveness as a centre of scholarship. Furthermore, to restrict to the field of management would seem to be detrimental to the emergence of a truly great institution as many fields of research are multi-discipline in nature. In my opinion, SMU would have to grow beyond the field of business and management studies to evolve into a university of high esteem. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the establishment of SMU. I wish SMU great success and look forward to its contributions towards making Singapore a world-class centre of academic excellence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for permitting me to join in this debate. First, let me declare that I teach at the National University of Singapore. Sir, I support this Bill. Our future is a world of information and knowledge. To be relevant in this new world, our people must be even better educated and trained. The new university will provide more opportunities, as mentioned by the Minister, for our young to be educated. Many who now have to go abroad at great expenses to study may no longer need to do so. The new university will also make the market for academics more vibrant. However, Sir, I would like to raise some issues and concerns. In future Singapore, our people have not only to be just trained and educated, but they need to develop qualities, values and skills that are now not yet emphasised, things like creativity, innovativeness, being entrepreneurial, being thinking and problem-solving oriented, a willingness to take risks and adapting to lifelong self-learning. Our existing education system has strengths much admired by the world, but it must change to develop the future Singaporeans we need. The Prime Minister has identified that this is one of the crucial and critical tasks for the nation. The Ministry of Education has embarked on this difficult and crucial task. Many changes have been made in the education system - in the curriculum, governance, testing and measurement, teachers' training, etc. The changes have taken place throughout the education system, from the pre-primary level to ITE and polytechnics. Our universities must also change. Since the future represents a paradigm shift, significant changes would be needed in our universities. Can our universities meet the challenges? Can they change? How should they change? How can we ensure that the needed changes are made? We know where we want to go, but how to get there is less easy. Sir, concerns have been expressed regarding the quality of degrees to be conferred by the new university. This concern has arisen especially in the wake of the discussion in the Forum page of the Straits Times on the acceptance of the OUDP degree by the Ministry of Education for a teaching career. Questions have been asked if the Public Service Commission would state openly the acceptance of SMU degrees for a civil service career. Regardless of how you call SMU, that it is a private institution as opposed to NUS and NTU as State institutions, like the OUDP, the public sees the SMU as a Government institution. If the SMU degree runs into any problem, the Government will be blamed. The new university will raise the competition for students, especially for the good ones. As GPC Education Chairman has stated, ideally the new institution should raise national academic standards. Good students would want to go to better institutions. But studying is hard work. Even good students can be persuaded by promises of a quality degree with less effort. Eventually, institutions that use such tactics will be found out, but the damage would have been done and would endure. This would be compounded by the fact that talents, especially for a small nation, are a scarce yet crucial resource. Furthermore, our needs are varied and wide. We must also ensure that in the competition, we also do not end up producing more graduates in any areas with corresponding scarcity in other areas. If the tertiary education market should develop into a highly competitive one, we must pro-act to minimise this undesirable fallout. Sir, the development of the university sector has increased in pace. Explosion is perhaps a more apt description. Besides NUS, NTU, we now have OUDP, SMU, INSEAD, Chicago Graduate Business School, John Hopkins, etc, and other long distance learning outfits. All these institutions would increase the demand for academic manpower. Do we have enough of such manpower to go round? Will the demand for such manpower raise the spectre of job hopping whose attending ills are well known from experience in other sectors? Sir, the quality of an academic institution depends much on its staff. In fact, a large proportion of the recurrent expenditure of a university goes to staff pays. Human beings work best when they are committed to what they are doing. Since the capability of an academic lies in his brain, his commitment will reflect the efforts that he will put in to make available the potential of its upstairs grey matter. Therefore, how can we ensure that committed spirits rather than mercenary bodies roam the corridors of our universities, or for that matter, our educational institutions? To get the best out from the academic staff and researchers, universities should put more efforts in this area of human resource management. We must also ensure the proper use of staff. We should avoid the use of academic staff for administrative duties that are not related to academic matters. If academic staff are so used, this is surely a case of misuse of manpower resources and funds, especially with regard to senior academic staff. Academic staff are promoted and rewarded on the basis of their teaching and research, as professional and administrative staff are trained, promoted and rewarded based on their professional and administrative duties. Each is better suited and appropriately equipped for his tasks. The use of academic staff for non-academic related functions not only misallocates resources but the practice also demoralises professional and administrative staff who see their promotional prospects curtailed. The good ones may choose to leave. This will set in a destructive cycle. Sir, research is all important to top universities in the developed countries. We would also like to emphasise research in our universities, but we must not go overboard and inadvertently run down the importance of teaching. Our universities are unlike top overseas ones. With many universities in the country, the top ones take in only the best and can afford to focus on research. This is a luxury that our universities do not have. For our universities, producing manpower across the board will remain a major role. We neglect this role to our national and long-term detriment. Sir, we are also moving towards using the market to price the value of academic staff. This approach has its merits, but the question is the extent to which we should allow the market to dictate prices. The market is an ideal mechanism of a rational and perfectly competitive environment. But the real world seldom fits this description. A small market also has its own constraints. There are academic disciplines with less apparent or immediate market value, but the nation may have need of such expertise at some later time, perhaps unexpectedly. How do we ensure that we have such expertise at our call? Will we be able to do so by relying on the market? Some of the issues that I have just raised may appear to contradict. They may be so over the long-term, or if the market is perfect. But the short-term effects are real, and a market is seldom perfect. Some issues already exist. In any case, I hope the concerns can be looked into and addressed, or disposed of. In an uncertain future which increasingly portends a paradigm shift, we must take risk. But we must also not abandon caution to the wind. We should calculate our risk. Moderation and balance may still be relevant words, especially in the midst of euphoria and earnesty.

Sir, the advent of the Singapore Management University augurs well for university education in Singapore. It adds an additional dimension to the landscape of management training and education in Singapore. As the Minister has said, it expands university opportunities and no doubt the collaboration with renowned institutions from abroad will act as an additional spur to domestic competition in the area and that should lead to higher quality all round. Sir, for all these reasons and many others, the Bill is worthy of this House's support and I fully endorse it. Sir, the Explanatory Statement that accompanies this Bill asserts that the main object of the SMU is to provide undergraduate business education in Singapore and it is with regard to this objective that I have certain issues of public policy to raise. The fundamental question that I have is whether we indeed might be over-providing or over-allocating public resources in the provision of business education at the undergraduate level. It is a point that my colleague, Dr Wang Kai Yuen, has also alluded to, but allow me to elaborate. Sir, the SMU would be the third institution with public funding to provide such undergraduate business education in Singapore. NUS has traditionally done so and NTU is already doing so. This, in addition to the plethora of private outfits that provide the same courses of a range in quality, also in collaboration with overseas universities, and in addition, Singapore students are known to go abroad to take up post-graduate management courses. So, one could infer that both in absolute and, most probably, in relative terms, the number of places available for university education in management has increased. The attendant concern that I have is that pertaining to the allocation of scarce talent, a perennial question that this House and, in general, Singapore policymakers address. If we have three credible institutions with resources competing aggressively, then it is undeniable that the quality of the faculty and the quality of the courses must rise and with it, their ability to attract talented students to their courses. So, will we end up with a disproportionate number of young, talented Singapore students being drawn to undergraduate management degree programmes? Sir, I have in principle no problem with a management degree but I have always felt, and I believe that many others in this House would agree, that a management degree is perhaps best applied when it is accompanied with another degree or some other foundation in a core science, engineering or other content-based subject. Especially in this era where we emphasise a knowledge-based economy and the need to acquire core knowledge in areas that would generate creativity and innovation in the future, would our resources be better applied to create additional opportunities in engineering, in the sciences and in other basic core content subject areas and allowing more private sector provision of management courses? In the light of these issues, I have a few questions to raise. The first, as I have already alluded to, is whether there is a plan for the Ministry to scale back the provision of undergraduate business programmes, if not in SMU, since it is a new institution with this stated objective, then certainly the so-called state universities, NTU and NUS. As was mentioned earlier in this debate, at one point in the deliberations leading to the establishment of the SMU, it was suggested that in fact undergraduate business education may be discontinued in some of the state institutions. Second, if indeed that is not the case, then is there going to be a policy to help NUS and NTU differentiate themselves from SMU? One thought that comes to mind is whether NUS and NTU could provide business degree programmes in conjunction with a content-based programme leading to twin degrees, in other words, a business degree would not stand on its own but together with a content degree, such as in engineering or in science, and bio-chemistry. This would naturally contribute to creating the kind of technopreneurship that we are talking about and these individuals would have both core skills that we deem necessary. Third, if that is not the case, could greater emphasis instead be placed on post-graduate management training, particularly in our state universities, allowing for undergraduate training where it occurs to be largely taken up at the SMU level? Fourth, this is a point that my colleague, Dr Wang, has raised and I would like to reinforce. If we believe that the private company model might better serve the development of university institutions like SMU, then perhaps we should go further down that path with other business faculties in Singapore. If we take the analogy of the United States, the business course is probably one of the few courses where you can put almost at the start of the course the value you would accrue as a student or as a graduate of the programme. It is one of the most likely courses to be provided on a private basis because students can do their numbers at the outset. Sir, moving on from these general public policy questions, I have some specific questions pertaining to the funding for the SMU which is mentioned in clause 6 of this Bill. I welcome the Minister's statement that SMU would be given considerable autonomy and flexibility in order to provide management training and education creatively. But it still begs the question of accountability, given that public funds would be deployed. And the questions I have on the funding principles are, first, I presume the funding formula would be pegged to that used for the Business Faculties of NUS or NTU in order to ensure some degree of a level playing field. Second, as I listened to my colleague, Dr Tan talk about the competition for talent to teach management courses, my immediate concern is one of an inflationary spiral. We are privatising the wage rates for those faculty staff for whom there is a reasonably comparable market equivalent and if we also add on to that the notion that there is going to be competition across institutions for limited talent, then some degree of wage increases is inevitable. The question then is: would funding to SMU be somehow capped, or would it rise in tandem with any projected wage increase that we can anticipate or not anticipate? The final question I have is whether, in the spirit of keeping SMU a private institution with considerable flexibility and autonomy, there is a timeframe after which such funding from the public sector would be phased out so that the institution can indeed function, as it should, as an independent, autonomous and flexible institution providing quality management education in Singapore. I support the Bill, Sir.

Resolved, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion and item 3 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.

Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. I, like many of the colleagues who had spoken before me, believe that the SMU can and will have a place in Singapore's education landscape. Before I proceed further, let me declare that I am an employee of the National University of Singapore. Mr Speaker, much has been made of the idea that the SMU is to be a private university, different from the National University of Singapore and the Nanyang Technological University. Much has also been talked about the fact that it is a public company limited by guarantee. Let me briefly explain this concept. Unlike its name, public company, whenever you mention that idea, it immediately invokes the idea that it is a listed company for private gain. A public company limited by guarantee is quite different. It is for public purpose, but in some ways, it is not part of the Government and it is ruled by the Companies Act. And in this form of structure, there are founder members who give a nominal guarantee for the financial credibility of the company. This form of incorporation has been used for several institutions such as the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), the Singapore International Foundation (SIF) and a number of other entities which are clear public in character, but for some reasons, wish to have much more flexibility and freedom. This is important in thinking about how the light management of the SMU can be done. I take the Minister seriously when he talks about this need for a lighter touch. There is a need therefore for a balance between the autonomy of this body, which by its constitution is governed by a Committee and the founder members and the accountability that might come to anybody that receives public money. With those thoughts, may I turn to the particular clauses of the Bill. My first concern is clause 4. Here, the Minister has powers to appoint the entire Board. To me, this is quite a sweeping power if we are trying to keep this a private university, in the sense of understanding it to be driven not only by the Government but by its founder members and by the community as a whole. And here, I think the role of the Minister would then obviate the role of the founder members of this institution. Secondly, when I turn to clause 5(1)(d), I am also concerned. Here, the Ministry must approve of any change to a constituent document of the SMU. For the earlier parts, (a), (b), (c), I am quite agreeable. If the company is wound up, or if the company has disposed of its properties or other major assets, I think the Government, having given it its land and money, needs to know this. But I think it is too wide indeed to require that any change receives the Minister's approval. It makes it just like a statutory body. It makes it just like amending the statute of the NUS or NTU and I think this moves away from the idea of a lighter touch that we seem to be looking for. My third concern is clause 8 and this comes to the activities of the student bodies. And here again, the activities of the student bodies in the SMU are subject to the Societies Act and the Societies Act would allow the right to refuse certain applications and the right to view accounts, etc. Why is this needed if we want to give this body a greater autonomy? The Minister has mentioned that a former Minister, Mr Lim Kim San, has accepted the appointment of Chancellor of the new SMU. I welcome this move. Mr Lim has enjoyed a tremendous reputation in Singapore, not only in the public sector but also in the governance of large public companies. However, I would like to remind us again that this is going to be a private university, and if it is truly to be private, I hope the Minister will clarify that the role of the Chancellor is clearly non-executive. The running of the SMU must be with its professional staff, such as the President and those under the Provost. I am reminded of this particularly because when the NUS started and, of course, the NUS is a state university, the then Minister and now Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan was the first Vice Chancellor. Let me move on to my last point, Mr Speaker, and this is in regard to the funding of the SMU. I take it seriously that the SMU is to be a private institution. And as a private institution focusing on business, it should be able, after a while, if it has enough reputation, to become privatised and more or less self-sufficient in terms of its funding. I would like to ask the Minister whether there are plans over time to reduce the amount of funding given to SMU and, with that, to reduce the amount of Government supervision over this new entity.

Sir, I am glad that a third university in Singapore has finally come to fruition. In 1984, the Opposition called for the setting up of a second university. When the Nanyang Technological University was formed, it called on the Government to start a third university. Now the third university is established, albeit a rather specialist one, confining itself mainly to the teaching of only disciplines confined to the subject of management. Sir, Singapore is supposed to embark on a knowledge based economy. Yet, the number of universities that we have compared to Australia or New Zealand is very low. In those countries, they have one university for about 500,000 population. By the standard of those two countries, Singapore should have about six universities now and not three, since our population is about three million. I wonder if the Government is thinking of setting up more universities in the near future. I think it should as Singapore is also embarking on the policies of globalisation and attracting foreign talents. The globalisation policy will require more qualified Singaporeans to travel abroad and thus more university graduates. We should have enough graduates to buffer the impact of foreign talent or otherwise we shall be swamped by foreign talents coming to work here in Singapore. On the question of foreign students, I understand that at present, the Government's policy is rather liberal on foreign students. I think this is a good policy. We must not shut out foreign students who qualify to be admitted into our universities. There are merits to encourage foreign students to study in Singapore. Having said that, at the same time, we must not deprive our local students from obtaining a tertiary education by making the entry point too difficult for them, or run short of places due to taking in too many foreign students. Nowadays, studying abroad is not cheap. It costs quite a lot of money for a parent to send a child overseas to study. Not all Singaporeans are that wealthy. A middle class family may be able to send one child overseas to do a university degree, but to send two for the average middle class family is not possible. Therefore, provision to make enough university places for locals to study is most essential. Recently, I saw a TV programme about a 50-year old Australian lady who is allowed to study in the NTU. I should say that we should also not put an age limit on Singaporeans who wish to pursue a university degree in our local tertiary institutions, even if they have passed the normal university entry age. We should not shut out mature students who have missed the boat in the first instance. The next issue is we should ask ourselves what type of universities we like to establish in Singapore. I do not think we should establish another strictly controlled university, one where the majority of students dare not think independently. They are mostly to become yes men, and also they dare not dissent or join the opposition, although the opposition operates strictly by the Constitution. I do not think that we should set up another strictly controlled university, but a university that will produce students who dare to think differently and who are dynamic and who have leadership and entrepreneurial qualities. I am afraid the SMU shall not be one of those types of universities. We can see that under this Bill, when it becomes law, it shall make the SMU totally controlled by the Minister. We see that the Board of Governors shall be all appointed by the Minister. If that is the case, the Minister surely shall appoint like-minded people to the Board, and like-minded people cannot promulgate new and daring ideas. There shall only be inbreeding of ideas and there is no cross-fertilisation of fresh new ideas. I urge the Minister to allow different sectors of the business community, the labour movement and other academic professionals to appoint independent trustees to the Board, so that daring new ideas can be introduced into the SMU to make it produce students who are not only technically competent but who are bold and daring to introduce new ideas and make Singapore a truly dynamic place to do business in.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be permitted to seek a clarification from Mr Chiam? He mentioned in his speech that in Australia, there is one university for every 500,000 population. That means if you look at the population of Australia which is close to 17-18 million, he is talking about a total number of 300 universities. An hon. Member: 34 universities.

34 universities. Sir, I withdraw my question.

My mathematics is not that bad.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as Members have observed, the Bill is, in fact, a minimalist one and it does not contain a lot in it. Dr Wang has asked where are the provisions governing the operation of the SMU. The provisions governing the operations of the SMU are, in fact, contained in the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company. In fact, the Memorandum and Articles of Association contain how the company should be run, the responsibilities and the roles of the Chancellor and the other principal officers of the university, including the President, the Provost, Secretary, the functions of the faculty and the departments and so on. So the Memorandum and Articles of Association, in effect, functions like a constitution of the NUS and the NTU. Since we are starting up a new university, we decided to adopt this new model so that we can leave many of the detailed issues in the governance of the university to the company rather than to incorporate them into the Act and have to come to Parliament if the company does want to change any of the ways in which it wants to govern itself. The Ministry of Education is currently having a look at university grants and funding and governance with a view to granting more autonomy but, of course, with the accountability. The university's governance and funding committee will be ready to report its findings later this year. And the experiences that we have from the management of SMU and also the experiences that we will have from the management of NUS and NTU under any new structures or governance methods that we have will, of course, be applied to improve the governance of all three of our universities. Dr Wang has also asked why we have set up the SMU in this way and whether or not this is optimal or the best solution for the university sector in Singapore. We have talked about this for quite some time and decided that if we set up three universities which were basically identical and comprehensive, then they would compete with each other to the detriment of the university sector in Singapore. Because all of them will be trying too hard to be like each other, and some would win and some would lose and that may not be the best positioning for the small number of universities that we have in Singapore. Hence, we decided that it may be a better competitive environment for the universities if each one could develop its own characteristics and niche areas of excellence, but with some overlap in the courses and programmes which each of the universities offers, so that there will be a good balance between competition as well as allowing each university to develop an area of specialisation and something which they become known for. We had initially intended to start SMU out of the NTU Business School, as a seed for which to grow the university. But as we studied the matter further and as we were able to consider very close association with Wharton School, we felt that we would have the confidence to be able to start SMU afresh, on its own, and this would allow us to introduce many more new innovations and ideas than if we were to start SMU out of part of one of the existing universities. And so we chose to go in this direction. Will SMU be too small? This is one of the questions that Dr Wang asked. We are starting SMU at a modest size with about 300 students in its first year, because we want to ensure that the intake quality is good so that SMU will start on a good solid footing. That also means that we can be quite selective about the staff that are recruited into SMU. That again will assure high quality of SMU. But we expect that SMU will grow over 5-7 years, perhaps to 3,000-4,000 students, and together with its executive programmes and its graduate programmes, that would be quite a nice size for a university already. In fact, NTU and NUS with 16,000 and over 20,000 students respectively are already quite a very large size and can be quite unwieldy to manage. So I feel confident that SMU will be able to develop into a university with enough critical mass to achieve excellence. And in the course of time, it will expand its course offerings into other areas related to business and management. I do not expect that SMU will begin to offer courses in heavy engineering or in esoteric areas in science and so forth, because that is not an area in which we foresee SMU developing its area of expertise. Hence, the name Singapore Management University. Dr Wang and Dr Tan Boon Wan have also asked about standards of the university and the degrees. One of the things that is happening in Singapore today in which Members of this House and members of the public have to understand is that there is a variety of programmes in Singapore offering a variety of qualifications. We have NUS, NTU, SMU, OUDP and many other institutions offering twinning degrees of various kinds. As the variety and number of qualifications increases, we must understand that employers will eventually be the final arbiter of whom they consider as most appropriate for the job that they are looking for a person to fill. This eventually will have to be the situation. It is not possible for the Ministry of Education to become a giant accrediting agency that accredits all the university qualifications in the world. We already have enough trouble trying to maintain standards in our own universities. It would not be possible for us to try to check on the standards of universities all across the world over which we have no control. Hence, it is really a matter for the individual employers to decide what students and what graduates they would find most appropriate for the kinds of jobs that they have. That applies to the Government as an employer as well because Government has a range of jobs open and what one statutory board may look for in an employee may be different from what another Government department or another agency does. These are things which are best left to employers to decide and to settle. Students also have to decide for themselves whether to take up particular courses, whether it suits their needs or their career aspirations. Dr Tan Boon Wan and Mr Iswaran have asked about competition for students and whether there is over provision of places for management and business students. The overall allocation of places which are subsidised and funded by the Government is settled at the National Manpower Committee chaired by my colleague, the Minister for Manpower, and in which the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Education, EDB and other interested parties are present. We try to estimate as best we can the types of manpower that we need in the future, and we will fund places in the institutions of higher learning to train such manpower. So there should be no danger of us willy-nilly increasing the training of business students way beyond what we expect the economy to be able to absorb or what the economy needs. As a matter of fact, both NTU and NUS have reduced their undergraduate intake and when SMU begins its first intake this year, we expect that we will continue to adjust the intakes of these three universities so that the numbers of business students who will receive funding from the Government in the form of subsidies to the institutions of higher learning will be within reason and within the bounds of what we expect the economy will absorb. Dr Tan Boon Wan also asks about competition for professors. If the economy has a demand or need for graduates of this type, we will have to try to train them to fulfil this need. If necessary, we will recruit professors worldwide, not just from Singapore, who can augment whatever teaching and professorial resources we have in Singapore. This has always been the approach in our institutions of higher learning. I do agree with Dr Tan Boon Wan that there needs to be a good balance between teaching and research in our universities so that one does not suffer because we have over emphasised the other. If I may move to funding. Mr Iswaran asks about funding for the SMU. Yes, Government will fund capital and recurrent expenditure of the SMU, including its start-up costs. Our intention is to fund it basically on the same basis as similar courses in NUS and NTU will be funded. Is there a time frame to phase out public funding? We have not established such a time frame. We want to give the university a good start up so that it will be able to offer courses of high quality. Of course, we will be very happy if the university proves that it can raise a lot of funding and I will be more than happy to reduce the funding to the university if it is able to fend for itself. Dr Tan Boon Wan raised a number of issues with regard to personnel deployment and management, professorial salaries and so forth. These are matters which I will leave for another time to answer when we have finished our studies on university governance and funding. Mr Simon Tay asks why clauses 4 and 5(1)(d) are needed. Basically, it is because we provide substantial public funds to the SMU and we have provided land and buildings and recurrent funding to the university for a public purpose. If I were not able to influence the direction of the university, and I am providing funds to them, one of these days Mr Simon Tay may well call me to account and ask me why I have not been running the university properly and why is the university wasting money and so forth. So the Minister for Education has a responsibility to make sure that while public funds are being provided to the university, persons of good reputation who are able to run the university well are put in charge of the university and that the funds that the university is given are well expended for the purposes which we have set out. He has also asked about clause 8. Why is it necessary to have this clause for the student bodies. This clause is also contained in the NUS Act and the NTU Act and the purpose of this clause is to ensure that all student bodies are registered with the Registrar of Societies who is granted the power to refuse to register societies if the rules of the society are insufficient to provide for its proper management and control, or if the society is likely to be used for unlawful purposes or it will be contrary to the national interest for the society to be registered. So this is not something different from NUS or NTU. We basically want to make sure that the universities do not have student bodies that are formed for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore. But within those parameters, the universities, as you know, NUS and NTU, have been organising all kinds of activities. Mr Chiam, for example, has spoken there a number of times and I am sure that if he has something new and interesting to say, the students will be happy to invite him back again. Mr Chiam also raised a number of issues. If only starting a university were as easy as calling for it to be started, but it is not easy to start a university and we have had to think very, very carefully about starting up SMU and how to start it, because a university lives and dies by its quality and its standard. You can start a university but if it does not have the quality and standard, then it is not worth starting one up. Mr Chiam also makes a mistake in comparing the number of universities to population, as though that is the most important thing. The most important thing to compare is what is the cohort participation rate for higher education, and not the number of universities. What percentage of the cohort is able to attend higher education. That is the key number. In Singapore, we have 20% going to universities today. When SMU has reached full capacity, we expect that to be 25%. We also have 40% going to our polytechnics, adding up to some 60% to 65% of a cohort going for higher education. This is one of the highest percentages in the world. In the United Kingdom, they converted all their polytechnics to universities and they have attained 35% of a cohort going to university. We have kept our university and polytechnic sector separate and we are attaining 60% to 65% already today. In Hong Kong ---

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I have a clarification?

Order. Are you giving way, RAdm Teo? RAdm Teo Chee Hean resumed his seat.

We have kept our cohort going to university at 20%. Can the Minister say that, in fact, there are more than 20% who would want to go to university in Singapore?

Sir, everyone would want to go to university if he could. So I can quite safely say that there are more than 20% who would want to go to university. It is also very easy for Mr Chiam to say that we should have more universities and it is easy for me, at the stroke of a pen, to allow 100% of a cohort to go to university and issue them with degrees. But the question that Mr Chiam needs to answer is: what are the degrees worth? That is the ultimate question when you look at the university qualification or university degree. NUS and NTU are held in high standing. Our polytechnics are held in very high standing.

Sir, can I have another clarification from the Minister? The Minister asks how much is a university degree worth. This question has been debated many, many times. In other words, do you just want a university degree? What is the purpose of a university degree? People say that the university is a training ground, not just to get a degree. But the point is the end result of going to university is not just getting a university degree. The fact that one goes through three years of training, one may do 100, 200, 300 or 400 assignments, essays, reports, what have you. Just like in the United States, they reason that a student going through such training will gain something for life regardless of what sort of degree he gets in the end.

I would not like to attend the university which Mr Chiam starts, Mr Speaker. But as I have explained, we already have 60% to 65% of a cohort going to higher education. Our polytechnics are extremely high quality institutions. If you take a comparison again, for example, Hong Kong too converted its polytechnics to universities and its participation rate in universities today is 18%. We have a very, very high participation rate in higher education, and by keeping our universities as universities, and our polytechnics as polytechnics, we have been able to provide education which is suitable for the aptitudes of a wide cohort of our students while maintaining an extremely high quality in both types of institutions. Mr Chiam also asks about foreign students and he supported the Government's policy of admitting foreign students in our institutions. I am glad that Mr Chiam does support this. As I have explained, we have increased the number of students and the cohort participation rate of our local students in higher education consistently over the years. In 1980, there were only 5% of the cohort going to universities and 8% to polytechnics, ie, 13%. In 1999, 20% were going to universities and 40% were going to polytechnics. So there is no shortage of places for students who can qualify for these institutions and who can benefit from this education even with the intake of foreign students. Mr Chiam also asks whether we would allow mature students to go to university. The answer is yes. We allow students to go to university by a number of routes today. In fact, out of the 8,600 students who were admitted to NUS and NTU last year, 900 of them came from the polytechnics. In the new university admission system, we have explicitly laid down three different routes by which students can qualify to go to the universities: (1) from JCs and "A" levels; (2) through the polytechnics; and (3) from mature students, taking into account their SAT or reasoning test results and their work experience or whatever other qualifications they have. Sir, I believe I have answered most of the questions that have been raised by Members. I would like to thank them for their interest in the subject.

If I may ask the Minister for a clarification. The Minister, in reply to me, has pointed out why clauses 4 and 5 are necessary to retain public accountability. But the other end of my question was: how does this allow SMU to indeed be autonomous, have a lighter touch and be a private university? How is it different from NUS and NTU?

It is different from NUS and NTU in the sense that it is operating in a company framework and company environment rather than in the environment of an Act of Parliament. So they have quite a lot more flexibility to manage the company in the way that they deem fit, and also it is easier to change the M&A of the company. Even though I have to approve, it is easier to change the M&A of the company than it would be to change the Act where we have to come to Parliament. So there will be considerably more autonomy and freedom of action and flexibility on the part of the Board of Trustees of the SMU than there will be for the Board of Governors or the Council of NTU and NUS.

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. - [RAdm Teo Chee Hean]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.18 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Prisons Act was last amended in 1997. Further amendments to the Prisons Act are now necessary to enhance the effectiveness of our Prisons Service and offer our penal population with more rehabilitation opportunities. Community-Based Sentences I shall first cover the main set of amendments, which are related to the introduction of Tail-End Home Detention for penal inmates. In 1998, I asked my Minister of State to chair an Inter-Ministry Committee to examine the feasibility of introducing Community-Based Sentences into our criminal justice system. Among its recommendations are the extension of the use of Probation to adult offenders, and the introduction of Tail-End Home Detention, Boot Camp, Community Service Orders and Re-integrative Shaming. My Ministry is mindful that the use of Community-Based Sentences must neither compromise the objectives of our penal regime, nor give the victim or the public the impression that our system is becoming lenient towards perpetrators of crimes. Tough penalties would continue to be meted out to deserving offenders. Community-Based Sentences complement, not replace, the traditional forms of punishment of imprisonment, caning and fines. There is scope, however, in Singapore's criminal justice system for lighter sentencing options with a greater rehabilitative element for those who commit relatively minor offences, and first-time offenders. This is especially so if there are mitigating circumstances. That is why we are amending the Prisons Act to provide for the Tail-End Home Detention Scheme. Tail-End Home Detention for Penal Inmates Tail-End Home Detention is not new. Home Detention has been implemented at the tail-end of the detention period for drug inmates and Criminal Law Detainees as well as Reformative trainees released onto statutory supervision. Countries like the United Kingdom, Sweden and Australia have successfully implemented Home Detention. It serves as an avenue for the earlier release of prisoners who are most amenable to rehabilitation. Its implementation serves a number of purposes. Firstly, allowing the offender to be closer to his family and the community will help him to better reintegrate into society after incarceration. The deterrent element is still retained as offenders will be subjected to restrictions and surveillance via electronic tagging. Secondly, as this scheme allows offenders to remain in the community, it keeps the families intact and allows offenders to be gainfully employed. Reaction to our announcement of the Scheme, especially those from families of offenders, has been positive. Clause 10 of the Bill introduces a new Part IVA in the Prisons Act to provide for the Tail-end Home Detention Scheme. The Scheme will allow selected offenders serving jail terms of six months and above to be released early on home detention up to a maximum of six months. These offenders must have served at least half of their imprisonment term before they become eligible. The selection of eligible inmates will be based on a stringent set of criteria. Only offenders who are assessed to be least likely to pose a risk to society will be considered for the Scheme. Prisoners serving life imprisonment, offenders of serious or violent crimes, and drug and sexual offenders will not be eligible. Clause 24 of the Bill provides for a new Schedule which lists the type of ineligible offenders. In addition, eligible offenders will go through rigorous assessments to determine their suitability for emplacement onto the Scheme. These assessments will be conducted by the internal Prison committees as well as an independent Advisory Committee, made up of distinguished members of the community. The conduct, attitude and response to rehabilitation and the risk factors of eligible offenders will be scrutinised. Under Home Detention, offenders will be released on licence to reside at home under strict regulatory control, which includes mandatory reporting to the authorities for counselling and stipulated curfew hours of 10 pm to 7 am, which will be monitored via electronic tagging. Offenders are also required to be gainfully employed or involved in academic pursuits. Those who violate these conditions are liable to be recalled to prison while the breach is being investigated. Those found guilty of breach will be adjudicated and punished, and have their release orders revoked. Outsourcing of Prisons Escort Functions I shall now move on to the proposed outsourcing of Prisons escort functions and the consequential extension of the necessary powers to commercial security agencies. Currently, armed prison officers escort and guard inmates during trips outside prisons and drug institutions. Such outside escort duties include hospital and security ward duty, escort for court attendance and inter-institutional prisoner transfer. Outsourcing the escorting of low-risk prisoners to a commercial security agency will free trained prison officers to take on more sensitive and higher value frontline operational duties such as the management and rehabilitation of inmates. Prison officers will however continue to escort high-risk prisoners. Clause 7 of the Amendment Bill introduces a new section in the Prisons Act to empower the Director of Prisons to employ auxiliary police officers to serve as escorts and guards while the prisoners are transported to, or from, any prison. It also defines the powers given to such auxiliary police officers. Prisons Department will take measures to ensure that the auxiliary police officers meet strict security standards. Even with the outsourcing, Prisons will continue to be accountable for the safe custody of inmates both within and outside prisons and drug institutions. Appointment of Committees of Inquiry The Prisons Act will also be amended to allow the Minister for Home Affairs to appoint Committees of Inquiry to investigate into the death of any prisoner or look into any other matters pertaining to the administration of prisons. Clause 4 of the Bill introduces a new section 7 which empowers the Minister to appoint such Committees. Among other things, these committees will be empowered to summon witnesses and to refer witnesses who lie or misconduct themselves to the magistrates' court for prosecution. Use of Weapons Against Persons Facilitating an Escape While the current Prisons Act empowers our Prison authorities to use weapons against prisoners who are escaping or attempting to escape, it does not cover situations where other persons are involved in facilitating an escape. Clause 6 of the Bill amends the Prisons Act to empower Prison officers to use weapons against any prisoner or person who attempts or facilitates an attempt to escape or attempts to damage or break open the enclosure of a prison or a prison vehicle. Removing Prisons Visit Privileges of Members of Cabinet or Parliament Let me next turn to the proposal to remove the Prisons visit privileges of Members of Cabinet and Parliament. Currently, besides members of the Cabinet and Members of Parliament, the Prisons Act already empowers every Judge, Magistrate or Justice of the Peace, to visit any prison to examine the conditions of the prison and the inmates. Visiting Justices are Justices of the Peace who have been appointed for the specific purpose of checking on the conditions of a prison and that of the prisoners on a regular basis. They forward their observations to the Prisons Authorities and to the Minister. As distinguished private citizens, they provide a valuable service in presenting reliable and balanced feedback on the state of our prisons. The Visiting Justices conduct monthly visits to all Prison institutions to inspect the physical conditions of prisons and to hear feedback from prisoners during such inspection rounds. The roles of the Visiting Justices are clearly spelt out in the Prisons Regulations. As there already exists an adequate check by neutral parties on the Prison authorities, the current provision for Members of Parliament and members of the Cabinet is hence not necessary. Malaysia removed its provisions relating to MP's visits from their new Prisons Act enacted in 1995. The United Kingdom and Hong Kong Prisons laws do not have such a provision. Hence, my Ministry is proposing that the provision be deleted from the Prisons Act. Clause 22 of the Bill seeks to do this. Let me assure the House that prisoners are not left without any avenues to express any grievances they may have. In addition to voicing their concerns to the Visiting Justices, they can also forward any complaints or requests to the Superintendent of their institution or write directly to the Director of Prisons. They are also free to let their family members know of their grievances during prison visits. Their family members may then take the matter up with the Prison authorities, who will investigate into every complaint received. Other Amendments In addition, the Bill also proposes various amendments that are essential to facilitate the management of the penal population and to allow the Prisons Department to operate more effectively. For example, clause 18(c) of the Bill regularises the existing practice that, before the offender is punished for any major breach of prison discipline, the Director of Prisons is required to confirm or vary the punishments imposed by the Superintendents. My Ministry is also taking this opportunity to update the provisions which have become obsolete and outdated since its last major review in 1985. For example, clause 14 of the Bill seeks to delete the provisions pertaining to the terms of engagement and discipline of prison officers which have become irrelevant as all terms and conditions are now in accordance with those laid down by the Public Service Division. Related Amendments to the Intoxicating Substances Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act Sir, as the Drug Rehabilitation Centres and the Inhalant Abuse Centres are also under the jurisdiction of the Prison authority, some of the amendments made to the Prisons Act will also be made to the Intoxicating Substances Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. Clauses 25 and 26 of the Bill seek to make amendments to the Intoxicating Substances Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act to empower prison officers to use weapons against inmates and other persons facilitating an escape; to appoint auxiliary police officers to serve as escorts or guards for inmates; and to convene Committees of Inquiry to look into and report on matters connected with the administration, functions, inmates of these centres and institutions. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of this Bill. This Bill is an important one relating to the running of prisons and the treatment of prisoners. It deals with several matters, but I wish to focus on two. One refers to the new Committee of Inquiry to investigate or inquire into "any matter connected with the discipline, administration or functions of any prison or affecting any prisoner ." The other seeks to provide a system and procedure for home detention.

4.35 pm I welcome the establishment of the "Committee of Inquiry" and even though a committee is usually understood as a group of persons, it is not unheard of to have a committee of one. My only query here is: would it not be more sensible to have more than one committee member? I say this because such a committee is likely to be appointed only when there is some serious allegation made concerning the running of a prison, or the treatment of a prisoner. A group of members, even of two, will add to the transparency, the credibility and the general quality of the inquiry. This brings me to my second point: who would be appointed to such committees? Or more precisely, what qualifications must they have? The Bill is silent on this. And I hope the Minister can let the House know who are likely to be appointed to such committees. Third, the proceedings of the inquiry are not open to the public unless the chairman permits or the Minister directs. I take this provision to mean that where a chairman permits, such a hearing can be open to the public, but that where a chairman does not give his permission, the Minister may direct him to do so. Can the Minister confirm that this is the position? Fourth, it is apparent that this committee of inquiry is intended to be a quasi-judicial institution, that is, it takes evidence on oath, has power to summon witnesses and the duty to keep records of the inquiry. Prison officers, prisoners and others may be affected by such proceedings. May they employ counsel? If not, why not? I refer in particular to the proposed section 7J where a prison officer who may be adversely affected by the findings of the committee has to be notified, and given a hearing during which he can give evidence as well as examine any witnesses. In such a case, counsel may be desirable. Fifth, the record of the committee is confidential and not to be released without the permission of the Minister. I am uneasy with this, not that I think the Minister will act improperly. There may be situations where he may be left in a difficult position. For example, a committee finds that a prison officer has used excessive force on a prisoner. Disciplinary action is taken and he is dismissed from the service. He seeks redress for unfair dismissal and of course the claim will be made against the Ministry. In such a situation, where the status and livelihood of a person is at stake, and where he feels that there was, for instance, bias, should he not be entitled to a copy of the proceedings that may assist him in his case? Will the Minister let him have the report, even though the report came from a committee appointed by him? I hope that there could be some procedure to ensure that the committees of inquiry and their records are available to interested and affected parties. I now move to the provisions for Home Detention. Sir, I am not one to engage in semantics, but I do feel in this case that the use of the phrase, "Home Detention" is not quite appropriate, given the spirit and intent of the scheme. I understand that this scheme was a recommendation of the Inter-Ministry Committee on Community-Based Sentences, and that its purpose is to allow prisoners to re-integrate back into society, and to his home environment. Unless we want to preserve an idea that Home is Prison or detention centre, using another term, such as "supervision" might have been more appropriate. From the point of view of the family members, it may also be more palatable than to regard their home as a place of detention. In any case "supervision" more correctly describes this process. The supervisee is allowed to go out and seek gainful employment within the period that he is allowed to be absent from home. The electronic tagging is really more like a supervisory or surveillance process - triggered only if he absents himself from home during the restricted hours. I hope that the Minister will take the first opportunity to assure Members that the intention of this scheme is rehabilitative, and not just a measure to reduce prison population. Coming to the eligibility of prisoners for the Home Detention Scheme, the Bill proposes that he has to have more than six months' imprisonment left, and not be disqualified from being considered. The disqualifications are contained in the Second Schedule. The disqualified category includes offences against the person, especially sexual offences. Curiously, however, the offences of extortion, robbery and armed robbery are not within the disqualified category. These are serious offences - robbery, for example, attracts a minimum of two years imprisonment and a maximum of ten and with caning. Gang-robbery, an aggravated form of robbery, is included in the disqualification list. May I therefore ask the Minister to let this House know why prisoners who are sentenced for armed robbery, robbery or extortion are not disqualified and therefore technically eligible for consideration for home detention? It must be remembered that even in the case of extortion, the crime involves instilling fear of injury or even death to the victims. Finally, the Bill proposes the establishment of an advisory committee to advise the Director on the suitability of the prisoner for release under the scheme. Could the Minister clarify how such a committee would work? Who would be appointed to this committee? Will it interview potential supervisees to assess their suitability for release, or will it simply rely on the recommendations of the Director? Since it is called an advisory committee, I assume that there is no substantive power of review, but can it insist that it would like to interview prisoners applying for the Home Detention Scheme? Sir, in general, the Prisons (Amendment) Bill contains useful institutions and measures that, if implemented wisely, would undoubtedly improve our system of criminal justice. As the Bill stands, I would certainly support it, but hope that the Minister would address the issues that I have raised.

Sir, I am happy that the Ministry of Home Affairs is embarking on this Home Detention Scheme (HDS) for prisoners at the tail end of their prison sentence. I assume that MHA has had considerable success in its implementation of the scheme with drug supervisees who were placed on drug supervision via this electronic tagging. If this scheme was successful, then I am happy. But if there were problems, perhaps the Minister could share with us what were the problems that they had faced in its implementation and how these problems had been overcome. For example, I have learned that in the United Kingdom some of these prisoners were placed on electronic tagging. When they came into contact with some big equipment or objects in their house, the tagging system failed and many of them had to be returned to prison. So I want to know whether we have any such problems in the past implementation of this scheme here. In respect of the present Bill, I have the following points to raise, Sir. Is this scheme being extended to prisoners as a means to alleviate over-crowding in the prisons, as was the case in the United Kingdom? If so, whether steps are being taken to expand the capacity of our prisons. I would also like to ask the Minister whether over-crowding in our prisons is because of our enhanced sentencing for many offences and whether the Minister intends to relook at the sentencing regime in place at present. Secondly, if the scheme's intention is that there are prisoners who are suitable and have shown good behaviour to deserve to be placed on the HDS, could there be a mechanism whereby such prisoners are released earlier than having to go through this HDS process? Are we too rigid in sticking to the present process whereby we give remission for good behaviour which is usually about one third of the prison sentence? Sir, if the prison authorities and the counsellors who are counselling the prisoners are of the opinion that this prisoner is one who deserves to be given a chance and that he has behaved well and should be released to society, perhaps we need to even amend the Act to provide that the Prisons Director, or even the Minister, should have the power to release this prisoner back into society so that he can be rehabilitated into society even without this HDS. Sir, the next issue is the question of who bears the cost of this tagging and monitoring system because this is something which remains unanswered in the Bill. I would like to ask the Minister whether the cost of the HDS Scheme is lesser or greater in relation to keeping the prisoner in prison at the moment. Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister the criteria applied to disqualified offenders. Paragraph (7) of the Schedule basically is too restrictive. It tries to lay down a list of criteria which basically covers sex and violent offenders. But looking at the provisions that are laid there, I think the authorities who drafted the Schedule have in a way tied down their hands. Because for a start, there are some offences which are not even specified, offences under the Vandalism Act, the Armed Offences Act, Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act. These are offences which are not specifically mentioned. On the other hand, there are offences like rioting which are mentioned. I would say that the list ties the hands of the authorities because offenders commit offences in various circumstances. For example, an offence of rioting. If five persons participate in an offence which involves violence, three of them could merely be standing there but they may have the intention, but they did not actually participate in the violent offence, beating up somebody or rioting. But by putting specifically here that such a person is disqualified, individuals who may actually qualify for the scheme may inadvertently be left out and may be disqualified under the scheme. I would urge the Minister to see whether the Schedule and the criteria for disqualification can be reconsidered and worded in a wide manner whereby individuals who may be caught under crimes, whether it is an attempt, or abetment or just merely being present, are also given a chance to go under this HDS scheme and are not automatically disqualified as the way the present disqualification has been written. Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister as to why short-term prisoners cannot be placed under the scheme. The way the Bill is drafted in the proposed section 38B specifically says that one cannot be qualified for home detention for a period exceeding six months and also that those who are given sentence must have a minimum imprisonment sentence of six months of which he may not have served three months. So basically, those who are going to qualify for this offence must have been given a prison sentence of six months or more. My question is: could this scheme be also extended to those who are given even shorter prison sentences? In Sweden, for example, Sir, short-term prisoners are given home detention as an alternative to prison sentence, that means, they do not even go to the prison in the first place. Such an alternative sentencing minimises the risks for social dislocation by allowing the offender to maintain his employment and family contacts. It also reduces the rate of new criminal behaviour being learned during periods of imprisonment. It is something which will be very suitable for young offenders who are studying or offenders who may need regular medical treatment. The way the sentencing scheme exists at the moment, for example, for a youthful offender is he either gets probation or he goes to prison. There may be cases where some youthful offenders fall in between, and I think HDS may be more appropriate for them so that they are not exposed to prison environment where they pick up bad habits and may become more difficult to turn over a new leaf. Sir, fifthly, I would also like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry would be taking responsibility and would also be exposing itself to be liable for any crimes that may be committed by such prisoners who are released under this Home Detention Scheme. For example, if a person who is under the HDS commits an offence where he causes economic loss or injures somebody in commiting another crime, then naturally, under the law, perhaps the Ministry may be exposed. I do not see a clause in the Bill itself which exempts the Ministry which is trying out this scheme from being liable under this scheme. Perhaps, we have to look at this carefully because I am quite sure that there will be some offenders who may end up committing offence and the person who is hurt or who suffers economic loss may be looking towards the Ministry for compensation. I was happy because I was concerned whether the person who is placed on this HDS scheme will be forced to go for counselling. I was happy that the Minister in his speech had mentioned that there will be mandatory counselling for such people who are placed on this HDS Scheme. Sir, I would also like to know whether, among the conditions to be imposed, there will be a condition that these offenders are to completely refrain from alcohol consumption during their period of home detention. I would also like to know whether the consent of all adults living in the same residence as the detainee would be obtained prior to placing him under the HDS. Similarly, I am also wondering whether the Minister would insist that all individuals who are placed on this HDS must be gainfully employed or must be undergoing some sort of a study programme. Otherwise, whether they would be released on this HDS scheme. Lastly, Sir, I would also ask the Minister whether he would consider extending the scheme to various types of categories of prisoners and various types of schemes. This is very interesting because there are cases where during pre-trial certain individuals who are unable to put up bail, are now at the moment placed in the remand prison. This is one option which could be experimented by the Ministry whereby individuals who are unable to raise money could perhaps be placed under this electronic tagging so they are not sent to prison and be contaminated by other prisoners while they are detained there. Similarly, whether this HDS scheme could also be considered for pregnant offenders, handicapped offenders, primary family care providers and juvenile offenders. Sir, I hope the Minister would see how the scheme could be made flexible enough to ensure that we provide various alternatives in rehabilitating our crime offenders in Singapore. On that note, Sir, I support the Bill.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak. I would like to raise one main concern on the Bill under the section on home detention order in Part IVA. I heard Prof. Chin just a while ago and I agree that maybe "home detention" may not be a good term. If the Minister ever seeks to change the term, let me add to the confusion by suggesting two other terms. One is "home supported rehabilitation order". The other is "community-based rehabilitation order". Sir, I am in full support of the Community-Based Sentences but overcrowding, as MP, Ravindran suggested, is certainly not the issue and should not be the concern and the cause for why we are doing home detention. Literature has shown that offenders recover well and best in familiar surroundings and among loved ones. But I do agree with Mr Ravindran that there should be different sentences and different durations of home detention for various categories of offenders. He mentioned, for example, handicapped offenders, pregnant offenders, etc, and some flexibility to be given for different forms of sentences. I am all for that. Before a Director may, by order, release a prisoner who is eligible for home detention for a period not exceeding six months, I would like the Minister to clarify if the authorities will do the following four things. First, to carry out an intensive in-depth interview and assessment by experts before the release to ascertain the level of readiness of the prisoner in facing the real world again. I heard from the Minister just now that this will be provided and an assessment will be carried out objectively by external consultants and internal experts including senior officers. But this is only meaningful if the baseline has first been established on the cognitive and emotive orientations of the prisoner when he first arrived so that the final assessment before the release could measure the changes in him during incarceration. I hope, therefore, findings upon arrival in prison and before he leaves prison will be gathered and that these findings be weighed against the order made by the Director. The second condition is to prepare family members on the objectives and significance of the home detention order and what they must all do responsibly if the prisoner shows signs of recidivist behaviour. A study on the after-conduct of a cohort of probationers conducted by MCD in 1999 showed that the recidivism rate for the probationers from intact families is lower than those from non-intact families. That means, in families where the parents are still married and living together, the chance of re-offence by the probationers is reduced compared to those from non-intact families or broken families. As the family is significant in the rehabilitation of the offender, an assessment of the readiness of the family in receiving the prisoner home should be carried out by specialists on family therapy. Their findings should be weighed against the order made by the Director. Third is to mandate continuing counselling sessions for the prisoner under home detention. Rehabilitation is a long process and the chance of recidivism is less if the offenders continue to receive consistent and scheduled counselling sessions. I hope the Minister would consider mandating this. Fourth, if the objective of Community-Based Sentences is to allow the community to collaborate in the rehabilitation process of offenders, I hope that the Minister, in the next Budget debate, will also commit to more resources being given to the community for carrying out this work effectively. Sir, I would like now to raise one query on the composition of the Committee of Inquiry in Part IIA. Could the Minister clarify the meaning in new section 7B that every member of a Committee of Inquiry appointed shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of the Penal Code? Please elaborate and help us understand. Second, in the event that an institution is being inquired into or the family of an aggrieved prisoner should petition for their own representation to the Committee of Inquiry, is there a provision to ensure a balanced hearing of views? Sir, with these points which I hope the Minister can clarify, I support the Bill.

Sir, I rise to speak in support of this Bill. Dangerous and violent criminals deserve to be incarcerated for long periods of time. But for less serious offenders, I see the merit in applying correctional treatment to re-integrate them into the community. I see the social value in having a home detention scheme to minimise the negative socialisation that occurs in prison. It is assuring to know offenders placed on Electronic Monitoring (EM) schemes in other countries register lower recidivism rates. But the success rate varies, and the EM may be more effective with some groups of offenders and at certain stages of the rehabilitation process. A group of American researchers found that EM works better with offenders who have had a taste of prison detention. Apparently, juveniles seem to respond better to EM than adults. EM also seems to be more effective among targeted groups of non-violent offenders, such as drunk drivers. In the light of such findings, there is merit in insisting that home detainees should be non-violent offenders and have spent at least six months in prison. Justice is upheld as they have at least been minimally punished in prison. Thereafter, they should not be mixed too often and too long with hardcore criminals. If it is bad company that led some misguided offenders into prison, why test the penitent's resolve by confining him further with proven bad company? Why suffer him to be corrupted even further while in prison? It is in the public interest to give deserving contrite hearts a second chance. We should grant them the opportunity to redeem themselves so long as they do not pose a risk to the public. It is a fact I wholeheartedly applaud the spirit of the Bill. Nonetheless, I would like to raise several points for the Minister's clarification. Firstly, can the Minister clarify the types of inmates who can qualify and benefit most from the scheme? It is in the public interest that the selection guidelines rule that violent and dangerous criminals, murderers, rapists and other inmates convicted of serious crimes should be automatically disqualified from the scheme. They deserve the full prison sentence. There should be no exception to this. But what are the other criteria - family support, good prison behaviour, age? Will these criteria be transparent to the inmates? Are there studies to indicate that certain targeted groups of offenders will benefit most from the scheme? Sir, I believe that the home detention scheme can help to steer misguided offenders back to the right path. But what numbers are we referring to here? This leads me to the second point of clarification. Can the Minister provide us with an estimate on the percentage of prisoners who potentially qualify for the home detention scheme? How many detainees, fitted with the EM device, can the community expect at any one time? Does this number affect the Government's plan on the number of prisons to be built in the future? Thirdly, what will the detainees do at home? The scheme provides the offenders with a measure of freedom. My concern is that when they are taken off the discipline of regular physical exercise, prison chores and solitude, what are they going to do with their free time at home? We cannot legislate to deny a home detainee the pleasures of his home for what is there to prevent an affluent detainee from enjoying movie after movie on an ultra modern high-tech big screen home entertainment system together with his family, or hours and hours of Internet surfing, or a nice sun tan after a leisure swim in his private pool, or a home party on Saturday night with his and his family friends. Sir, I am not exaggerating. Some years back, a son of a former Amercian Vice-President candidate was sentenced to four months of house arrest for selling cocaine. The home detention was as good as an extended resort holiday. He lived in a luxury apartment, with maid service, cable TV and many other expensive amenities. This led his prosecutor to observe that the drug felon was living in conditions that 99.9% of the people in the area could not afford. Too much free time can be bad for the less affluent detainees too. A home detainee cannot roam the streets. But in the confines of his small HDB flat, he is exposed to the temptations of the streets through his friends, family media. Some of these influences and friends may not be good for him. They may numb him to forget that he is still serving his sentence, albeit at home. While there are devices to ensure that he does not leave his home, we cannot legislate against such influences from entering his home. Sir, a new freedom can be a dangerous thing. When we feed idle minds with bad influences, they will breed crooked schemes. Restricted freedom strengthens the resolve for some, but for others, it propagates jealously, resentment and bitterness. To put it simply, home detainees should not be left to their own schemes. Thus, detaining offenders at home is only part of the rehabilitated solution. The other part involves providing structured programmes to occupy their daily routine. Meaningful activities should be included, such as skill upgrading to help the detainees to find suitable jobs later on. Perhaps, the activities also can benefit the community so that there will be a pay back redemptive effect. My third point of clarification to the Minister then is how much free time do home detainees have. What kind of rehabilitative programmes would there be? This leads to my fourth point regarding community service programmes. Community service programmes can supplement the home detention scheme and acts as an additional intermediate sanction. Any minor offender, not necessarily just home detainees, can be put on community service programmes. For example, minor offenders can be made to help out in places like nursing homes or centres for the disabled. They can be assigned simple tasks that require some degree of contact with the elderly or disabled. Minor offenders may find it to be extremely therapeutic when they are exposed to the pride, strength and character of the elderly and disabled. It may even help to change their value system for the better. But such a programme must be managed properly and discreetly. In some countries, as part of their sentence, certain offenders have to conduct talks in schools or advise troubled teens. Some convicted sports personalities conduct sports clinics followed by counselling sessions for juveniles. Along this line, is it not better for a convicted computer hacker to help non-profit organisations to create websites, design software programmes, conduct basic IT training rather than for him to rot in prison for the entire period of his sentence? Sir, if there is a corrective work order for litterbugs, why cannot there be a corrective social work order for social bugs? Not all social bugs are social menaces. Social menaces should be put away from arm's reach. Some minor social bugs can perhaps be disinfected of their ills by a dosage of corrective social work order. In this light, may I ask the Minister whether he will consider broadening correctional sanctions further to allow minor offenders to perform community services? Fifthly, should the home detention scheme always take place at home? The home environment is not necessarily the best rehabilitation centre. Some offenders are in prison precisely because of the lack of guidance at home. The lack of parental support has driven some to bad company and subsequently to prison. If the root of the problem is at home, why send them back to their homes? In such cases, putting them back to their homes is likely to be counter productive. But does this mean that the offenders must have a supportive home environment in order to qualify for the scheme? I hope not. If penitent offenders do not have a favourable home environment to return to, perhaps they can be detained in some established half-way houses instead. It is no secret that some of these half-way houses are founded by ex-convicts. They know what it takes to turn over a new leaf and want to help others to do so. The environment in these half-way houses can be more rehabilitative than the home environment. The sharing of positive experiences, bonding and encouragement can do these detainees a world of good. But there must be a review of the programmes, funding level and management practices of half-way houses. This is because the performance standards, services and facilities of half-way houses may vary too significantly. A benchmarking of the standards of half-way houses is important in this regard. Some degree of recognition and support for half-way houses is also in order. For my fifth point of clarification, may I ask the Minister whether an extension of the home detention scheme to relevant half-way houses has been considered? Finally, I turn to the family home detainees who are generally supportive. The family is one of the critical success factors for the scheme. It may not be so in the West because, given their cultural practices, it is conceivable that many home detainees there do not live with their families. But this is generally not the case here. Home detention here can literally mean being detained with the family. A family may seem to be supportive, but we have to recognise that it is one thing to express support and another to be able to deal with the difficulties and shame of living with a detainee. The family has to learn to adjust and accept the concomitant stigma, but not all family members can manage that successfully. The mother may accept but the father may resent. The sister may bear with it but the brother may find it embarrassing and disgraceful to stay at home with the detainee. And when a family dispute erupts, the detainee cannot run off to cool himself down. Not all neighbours can accept living near a detainee either. It is possible for the family to conjure up excuses to explain to their neighbours and relatives regarding the absence of the prisoner from home. But having the detainee locked up at home is altogether a very different thing. Hopefully, the spot checks on home detainees will not be conducted by uniformed law enforcers. Otherwise, the whole neighbourhood will soon know about it. When tongues are set wagging, some home detainees and their family members will fail to deal with the stigma. When this happens, the scheme will backfire and become dysfunctional. Instead of being reintegrated, the scheme may end up disintegrating the whole family. In this regard, may I ask the Minister whether any steps will be taken to minimise the stigma of home detention and to help home detainees and their family members to be prepared for the social and psychological stigma associated with the scheme?

Sir, I support the Bill and would like to raise a matter of concern that has arisen over the years in my dialogues with residents, and this relates to employment opportunities for ex-prisoners and ex-inmates of rehabilitation centres. Our Government is well-known to be tough on crimes and other forms of deviant behaviour. This is an admirable stand and has served us well in making Singapore a country safe for visitors and residents. However, there is a segment of our population, albeit a small one, who had previously served some time in prison or in various rehabilitation centres for errors made in their youth who require help. And there is also quite a high incidence of repeat offenders who have not been granted the opportunities of reintegration into society at large. We have schemes in prison and rehabilitation centres and now homes to equip some of these individuals with skills and values so that they adjust back to society. However, it is often difficult for such individuals to find gainful employment once they are tarnished with a criminal record. We run the risk of developing by default an underclass who is not given a second chance. Sir, our Singapore society is not a very forgiving one. We are very tough on failure, whether it is financial failure in the form of bankruptcy or social failure in the form of poor judgment and influence resulting in criminal activities. Ex-prisoners and ex-inmates of rehabilitation centres are often labelled and are not given opportunities that normal individuals have despite having served out their punishment. It is no wonder that often they fall back into bad company. Sir, I feel that we, as Singaporean employers and Government, are not doing enough to give these individuals a chance to assimilate back into society and become responsible citizens who have the ability to fully contribute to our nation's progress. If we are indeed attempting to be a more compassionate and gracious society which is tolerant of failure, then we have to give such individuals a second chance in life. And this is in keeping with some of the objectives of Singapore 21, as we will provide a real avenue for all Singaporeans to be the best that they can be. Sir, the Government may have to go beyond providing education and skill training to help rehabilitate prisoners or inmates. I am not advocating something as radical as what is practised in some European countries where it is illegal for employers to ask if prospective job applicants have had previous criminal records. However, I would like to ask the Minister whether he could consider using some of our Government agencies as vehicles to enable the integration of these people into society, by providing an avenue for employment for a period of, say, 1-2 years, after their release from prison or rehabilitation centres so that these ex-prisoners have a chance to start life afresh. Also, I would like to urge the Minister to ask our Government agencies, in particular, the airport and the seaport police authorities, to review their policy to allow ex-prisoners and ex-inmates of rehabilitation centres to work in their premises, with the thrust of Singapore 21 in mind as we move towards becoming a more gracious, compassionate and forgiving society.

Sir, I rise to support the Bill. It is a positive move to introduce home detention. Whilst it is new to Singapore, it is not new to other countries. It is a tested system and it can work well in the Singapore environment. I hope that with the introduction of home detention, more studies can be made to extend the scope whereby home detention could be considered as an alternative sentencing. Detention in prisons or any institution of detention should be prescribed only where the offence calls for it. Where an offender can be sufficiently punished by restriction of freedom, perhaps home detention should be prescribed. More studies should follow because I am not sure that there can be any easy answer as to whether the home environment is better for rehabilitation, or that the prison environment is preferred where the home environment is considered hostile. I think the permutation would vary and it requires studies. Home detention is a new method. It is new to Singapore. I do not think we should rush into making conclusions. Earlier speakers have suggested the possibility that home detention could be used for people who are suffering from, say, some disability or even a state of pregnancy. I would have thought that the mode of punishment should suit the offence rather than the individual's condition itself. I am not sure that it is so clear cut that one could just come out with a guideline in a moment without more detailed studies. The existing Prisons Act and amendments to the Intoxicating Substances Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act permit the use of any weapon including firearms. I am concerned that there should be adequate safeguards to ensure that weapons, especially firearms, are used only when absolutely necessary. A committee of inquiry should consider every occurrence of a discharge of firearms or where a prisoner is injured by the use of a weapon. I am not sure whether the committee of inquiry under new section 7A(2) of the Prisons Bill is intended to cover such occurrences, because it states, "any matter connected with discipline, administration or functions of any prison or affecting any prisoner .". Perhaps the Minister could clarify on this. And if it is not intended to cover such occurrences, whether there will be someone who will look into such occurrences.

Sir, I thank the Members for speaking in support of the Bill, and I shall try to answer as many of the questions as possible and as detailed as possible. First, Prof. Chin Tet Yung's question about whether it would be better to have more than one member in the committee. Certainly, it is, and it is not my intention to have only a one-member committee. Otherwise, it does not make much sense, except that the law, as it is drafted, is not inconsistent with the provisions in other laws. Who would be appointed to such committees for the committee of inquiry? As I have said in my speech, prominent citizens, non-prison officers, senior officers in Ministries and the Government, and people who can help us to inquire into a particular matter. All expertise would be sought where necessary. This is not the first time that we have committees of inquiry for matters that happen in the prison. We have appointed a few of them and, invariably, the committees have members who are not from the civil service, like Justice of the Peace, for example, or someone who has been involved as a Visiting Justice. Since the proceedings are not open to the public, and if the chairman decides not to open it to the public, would the Minister decide? Certainly, I will so decide if there is a public interest to do so. If there is not, then I think we should leave it to the committee to do its work. Otherwise, the committee will feel encumbered and its job is to get to the root of the problem. It is not a prosecutorial agency, neither is it an agency to decide what sort of charges to make out against people who commit any particular offence. That should be left to the proper prosecutorial authorities. Whether a person who may be implicated adversely arising from a committee of inquiry may employ counsel? Yes, to be fair to him. If the person is likely to be implicated, he may engage counsel to represent him. Eventually, if the committee's report adversely affects him and his career, eg, it involves a prison officer, as Prof. Chin says, then, of course, we will look at the grounds for a request for the committee's report. There were three suggestions on the term of "home detention", eg, why do we not try something else like community-based detention and home supervision and so on. Of course, there are various alternatives that we can consider, but the term "home detention" is not an original term that we have coined. Rather, it is a term used by other countries as well including the United Kingdom. So I see no particular reason why we should favour one term over another when that particular term is easily understood by the rehabilitative or prison authorities in other countries. Both Mr Ravindran and Prof. Chin asked whether this home detention scheme is more rehabilitative or perhaps merely a measure to reduce over-crowding in prisons. We know, of course, that there is an over-crowding situation in the prisons, but that is because many of our prisons' capacities are designed based on the old norms and we do not have many new prisons lately. So there is some aspect of over-crowding, but that is not the reason why we are providing for home detention. The reason, as I have said earlier, is that it arose from a study that I have asked my Minister of State to make together with other interested parties on what are the other alternative sentencing options that could be made available in our criminal justice system. We found that this tail-end home detention is one of them. Mr Ee and Mr Noris Ong also asked whether we should not consider that as an alternative instead of having the person served a prison sentence and then put him on home detention. The Committee that my Minister of State chaired did indeed consider such an option, but I think we should take things one at a time and we should not rush into implementing every recommendation that has been put up by the Committee. Prof. Chin also asked why some offences which we consider to be serious such as armed robbery or extortion are not included in the disqualification list. We can have an exhaustive list which can run into many pages or we can consider some of those offences which we think are very serious and which we should exclude them. For the others, they could be included provided they satisfy the criteria that I have made out. The criteria being that the inmates are amenable to re-integration and rehabilitation and the family members are prepared to support them in the re-integration effort, and the good behaviour of the person and so on. So it is not an exhaustive list and we will review the list from time to time and, if necessary, update or include or exclude other offences which are currently not in the list. Prof. Chin also asked about the Advisory Committee for Home Detention, how such a Committee will work and who will appoint the Committee and whether the Committee will be appointed by the Minister and whether it will have its own internal procedures. Of course, the internal working will be such that the internal Prisons Committee will review all eligible inmates for home detention and those who are considered suitable or even not suitable, but if they are eligible, they will be put up periodically to the Advisory Committee who will then make its recommendations. In the process of making its recommendations, the Committee can call up the inmates and ask questions and review their records. That power is given to the Advisory Committee. In the end, a decision has to be made and that will be made by the Director of Prisons. Mr Ravindran asked specifically whether the overcrowding in our prison is the result of the strict sentencing guidelines that have been imposed for offences. There are a number of reasons which I have explained earlier. We always look at the sentencing regime to see whether they are adequate or not. Of course, if they are not, we will review them. On whether we could release prisoners in the process earlier instead of just having the standard remission period, I think the remission of one-third of the prisoner's sentence is already quite generous. Now we are providing the balance of up to six months for the person to serve his sentence at home and I think for a start we should just go for that and not do anything more. The prisoners need not pay for the cost of the electronic tagging and the cost of monitoring because this will be borne by the prison authorities. Home detention with electronic tagging is not a new thing that the prison has implemented. As I have said, it has been implemented for criminal law detainees, reformative trainees as well as those detained under the Misuse of Drugs Act. So Prisons Department already has enough experience in dealing with such people, including the process of examining, assessing and investigating whether a person is suitable for home detention or not. That process will be quite exhaustive, including talking to professionals and counsellors if necessary, and, in particular, for home detention, family support is very important. Without family support, there is no purpose in releasing that inmate back to society because we need the family to also play its role in rehabilitating the inmate. Getting the half-way house to do the job is not good enough because we should not just pass the responsibility to the half-way house. But we can get the half-way house to help. For example, in counselling, we can get SANA, VWOs, the Singapore Aftercare Association to help in the counselling. Counselling would indeed be one of the conditions that the prison would impose on anybody who is on home detention. Of course, by not incarcerating the prisoner, it will be cheaper in the process to put a person under home detention. So indeed the answer is yes, it is cheaper to put a person under home detention. Mr Ravindran also asked whether the Ministry or the prison authorities or the Government will be liable for any offence committed by an inmate who is on home detention. The prison authorities will be liable if it is shown that there is criminal negligence on its part. If there is criminal negligence in releasing the person, yes, certainly they could be sued. But in the end the whole process has to be examined and see whether prison has indeed been criminally negligent in releasing the prisoner. The final decision on that will be, of course, the courts which will take that case into consideration and decide whether there is any criminal negligence based on evidence and facts. One condition which Mr Ravindran asked the prison authorities to consider is whether we can prohibit such home detainees from consuming alcohol. I think we should only have conditions which can be enforced or seemingly possible to enforce. It is very difficult to enforce a condition which requires a person to be a teetotaler at home unless, of course, if a person is out on a drink driving charge, and an offence is committed, that person will be in deep trouble. Among the other suggestions Mr Ravindran talked about in extending the scheme to the different categories of offenders, indeed those he mentioned would be covered except those who are on pre-trial or pre-sentencing. Because, if the case has not been heard yet, how could we put a person on home detention? What power do the prison authorities have? If he cannot post bail, then he goes on remand. That is it. I cannot imagine a person who cannot post bail but at the same time commits a serious offence and there is no way of assessing the bahaviour of the person, the prison authority is called upon to decide whether that person should be on home detention. I think that is an impossible task. Mdm Claire Chiang asked about different home detention periods for different types of prisoners like, for example, a person who is handicapped. The prison authorities will look at all eligible inmates and release them for up to six months on home detention if they are suitable. That is the kind of flexibility that we should have. We should not put too many conditions and criteria into the assessment process, otherwise it will complicate the whole running of the scheme. Even for intensive interviews, that will be done. As I have said, counsellors will be used. We will talk to the right people, including the family members, to make sure that the person is indeed amenable to home detention. But the more money we invest in this, the less we will have for other purposes, including rehabilitation in the prison. Mr Noris Ong asked what is the potential number of prisoners who will qualify for home detention. I do not have the numbers but I believe it will be a significant number. Of course, not the majority of them, because many of them are in the medium and high security prisons. So we will have to consider all those eligible cases and then take a look at them. Offhand, I would say that prisons will start off with 30 to 40 a month. It will try this out and see the pace of it. If it can cope with it, and if our Advisory Committee can deal with it, then more can be released. We have to take it one step at a time. The person who is on home detention is not likely to be wasting his time. If he wants to do that, I do not know what else we could do. We could recall him. One of the conditions for home detention would be that the inmate be gainfully employed or studying. We will try our best to find him a job. But that may not be easy. There could be a time when a person may not be able to find a job. That does not mean we will recall the inmate back from home detention immediately. We ought to have some flexibility on that. As to whether we can help them to reduce the stigma and their friends knowing them as prisoners or not, I think the moment he goes to prison, the neighbours will already know. The prison authorities have been quite discreet in designing the tag. The tag is a little item that is put on the leg and if he wears long pants, it can be covered. Unless he wants to go for a swim, that is a different matter. I think the person has to take a chance. Mr Chew Heng Ching asked whether we should be more compassionate to ex-prisoners. That is a view which we will try to encourage people to have, particularly employers, to employ these people. Of course, some employers are wary of employing ex-prisoners. What SCORE and ISCOS, which are MHA statutory board and company, have done is that they have been helping these people to find jobs. If employers are prepared to employ them, we will be happy to match the prisoners or those under home detention for jobs. In certain places, like airport and seaport, security is very important. Therefore, the standards that the authorities expect of people with criminal records are much higher. We should not be too lax about that, otherwise we will bring ourselves more trouble by being too lax over security standards in the airport and the seaport. Finally, Mr Gerald Ee asked about the use of firearms, and whether firearms would only be used when absolutely necessary. That must be the case. I do not think our people are trigger-happy to shoot whenever somebody attempts to escape. They will employ all measures to restrain the person and to stop the escape from happening and if that is impossible, then orders to shoot will be given by a superior officer. If firearm is actually used, and it is necessary to have a Committee of Inquiry, we will inquire into it. In any case, the right authority to investigate into any discharge of firearm is the police. If there is a discharge of firearm, even innocently or accidentally, by an officer on duty, the matter will also be investigated by the police. Members can be rest assured that we do not just shoot unnecessarily. Sir, I believe I have dealt with all the questions.

I seek an answer from the Minister on the status of the members in the Committee. What does he mean by "being deemed public servants"?

I have not looked at the particular provision in the Penal Code, but from my recollection, I believe that it applies to people who are not civil servants who help us and we consider them to be public servants in the performance of their duties as members of the committee. Therefore, we assume that they do their job in good faith and whatever decisions, recommendations or actions that they take would not be subject to any suit.

Two points of clarification for the Minister. The first point is on the issue of imposing a condition on the offender for not consuming alcohol. Sir, I am quite sure, as part of the condition for release, the prison authorities will be imposing certain conditions. Similarly, one of it will be that he cannot consume drugs. Naturally, the officers will be making surprise visits to meet this offender. By imposing a condition that they do not consume alcohol imposes on them a condition that they stay sober and also makes sure that this is not a luxury which they enjoy at home but it would be monitored. So I would urge the Minister to impose it as a matter of condition because this is something that is even introduced in Sweden and they have found that it can be successfully monitored if your officers are keen. If the condition is there, I think the offender will know that there is such a condition. If he infringes it, he goes back to prison. So I hope that the Minister would include this condition into the terms. Sir, the second issue is on the question of pre-trial option to go on electronic tagging. My concern is that there are cases where individuals, who come from poor families, before they are determined whether they are guilty or innocent, because they are unable to raise the bail money, they end up being in the remand prison. And these are instances which I consider sad cases. An option can be given to them to opt for electronic tagging, so that they avoid going to prison. I think it is an option that can be considered, and it is also being considered in the United Kingdom in certain districts. So perhaps this is something that the Minister could consider implementing, so that people who are determined subsequently to be innocent would not end up serving in the remand prison just because they are unable to raise the bail money.

Sir, the prison authorities will look at whatever condition that is necessary to be included in the enforcement of this home detention scheme. It is easier to detect drug consumption than, say, alcohol. When you take alcohol, whatever drink it is, and overnight, it can be washed away. But as for drugs, you can actually do a urine test, and you can determine whether the person has drugs. But we will still look at the Member's suggestion and see if it is necessary to have the condition. On pre-trial cases, I think right now it is definitely beyond the scope of this particular review, and it is a totally different thing altogether. I am not ruling it out completely, but right now we have other considerations that we have to take into account in implementing this particular scheme.

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.

Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed.

5.34 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the long title of my motion is "Issues related to the liberalisation of the Singapore Stock Exchange in the midst of the boom of Internet Stocks". I would like to declare my interest as Director of several listed companies, including I-one.net. Until the departure of Mr Koh Beng Seng from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the Singapore Stock Exchange used to be a bastion of conservatism. After the Pan-Electric episode, the SES had adopted a regulatory mindset and attempted to protect both the gullible investors and the reckless speculators in essentially a buyer-beware market. From time to time, rules for listed companies were made even more stringent with new requirements such as the requirement of an independent Audit Committee and full disclosure of directors' fees. Listing requirements of Initial Public Offering (IPO) were very stringent, especially those seeking to list on the main board. These companies must have proven track records of profitability. As a result, the SES became a comparatively calm equity market where speculations were minimal. It acquired a reputation of being a safe market, in so far as an equity market could be made safe. The collective memory of the public is that SES is a strict taskmaster. When a company obtained the approval from the SES to list, the public assumed that someone had done the due diligence and the company's fundamentals had been certified sound. This public image has remained unchanged today, even though in the post-Koh Beng Seng era, the SES, recently renamed SGX, has modified its stance, moving away from its regulatory role and becoming more a stock exchange like the New York Stock Exchange. Companies seeking IPO no longer need a track record of proven profitability. In fact, MediaRing, when it was being listed, had projected to continue its multi-million dollar losses for the next few years! In essence, any company with a market capitalisation of more than S$80 million post-IPO and could find a merchant banker prepared to underwrite the IPO exercise, could tap the market for funds. In principle, I believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these relaxations are appropriate if SGX were to remain viable and relevant in an increasingly dynamic equity market. Otherwise, more and more market players will bypass SGX and invest in other stock markets in the world, an undertaking made easier because of Internet trading. Unfortunately, as the liberalisation has been quite recent, the fact that SGX is now a less regulated market and hence a more risky place has not yet dawned in the collective memory of the public. Concurrently, in the liberalisation process, a new kind of companies has burst onto the scene worldwide: the Internet companies. High-tech companies and Internet companies have been the darlings of the US capital market for several years now. Companies, which lose money consistently, continue to see their share prices appreciate. Traditional indicators of company's performance no longer seem to be relevant. For instance, the P/E ratio has become meaningless or non-applicable. The famous example is Amazon.com. This fever has spread to other major stock markets in the world. In Japan, Softbank and Hikari become investment companies with the Midas' touch. With the success of China.com and Pacific Internet in the NASDAQ market, the Internet fever has spread to Hong Kong Stock Exchange, SGX, KL Stock Exchange, and even the Bombay Stock Exchange. In Hong Kong, Pacific Century Cyberworks almost single-handedly leads the charge into the brave new world. Sir, in Singapore, taking advantage of the relaxed listing requirements, three dot.com companies were listed one after another since June last year, namely, I-One.net, MediaRing and Horizon.com. All these three IPOs were spectacularly successful with prices peaked at multiple times of the issue prices. The scramble is on. Let me quote from Hock Lock Siew column of 19th February issue of the Business Times: "There is big money to be made from the Internet craze in Singapore. The window of opportunity could be closing as more and more Internet firms get listed. Time is of essence. The faster to market, the higher an Internet startup's valuation." There are indeed many dot.com companies in the pipeline vying to go IPO. Gotcha, Nececity, iProperty, GeoAsia, just to name a few. Many companies, in fact, with very little to do with Internet are now frantically transforming themselves into dot.com companies. Of course, we are not alone in this. The scene in Hong Kong is even scarier as traditional brick and mortar companies scramble to join the bandwagon. Mr Li Ka-Shing has just launched his Tom.com hoping to raise HK$762 million. I am quite sure many of those dealmakers do not really know the difference between "bytes" and "bites". As the valuations of dot.com companies in the US continue to escalate, the dot.com phenomenon is beginning to look like an asset bubble. The Internet sector in the US has a valuation of around US$550 billion or 4% of the total market capitalisation. As an indication of the lofty height NASDAQ has reached, it is pertinent to note that Microsoft alone has a market capitalisation of around US$600 billion, a figure larger than the GDP of Canada! The danger of this asset bubble is that all the stock markets in the world are now pegged to the fortune of NASDAQ. It also means that if NASDAQ crashes, this would bring about a simultaneous crash worldwide. The scenario is indeed very scary. In recent days, while Dow Jones has been declining, the NASDAQ has continued to power ahead moving in the opposite direction. Despite all the talk of the new economy, nothing can defy the law of gravity ultimately. What goes up must come down. Yes, we shall embrace the new economy. Senior Minister in his Chinese New Year's speech at the Tanjong Pagar Community Club urged that young men and women in Singapore with bright ideas should be encouraged to take risks to ensure that their ideas could be brought to fruition. The investing public must be encouraged to give their support to the risk-takers so that a new entrepreneurial group could be produced that would give Singapore's economy that extra zip. The question, Sir, is how Singaporeans can participate in the Internet boom without being sucked into the asset bubble. Had our market been known for its high-risk investment environment where investors go into the market with their eyes open, I would be less inclined to be alarmed. As it is, most people still believe that so long as SGX approves an IPO, the company would have been vetted by one of the toughest regulators in the world. As such, sometimes I feel great unease standing by as the speculative fever sucks in the wise and the worldly as well as the greedy but ignorant. I am sure that in our environment, if things ultimately go wrong, our Government will be blamed. And scenes of the Taiwanese speculators petitioning the Government for assistance to recover their lost fortunes flash in my mind. Moreover, should the current Internet boom burst, and burst it seems to be sooner or later, would the investors be turned off by all dot.com companies, including those deserving ones, thereby depriving the young and the promising entrepreneurs the lifeline for success? My own preference is for the Government to express stronger words of caution regarding new IPOs of dot.com companies. Perhaps we can follow the practice of cigarette companies printing words like "Smoking is hazardous to your health." But in this case, maybe words like "Profit stream of the company is uncertain. Invest at your own risk." On the other hand, on a more realistic note, I would prefer to see that companies with unproven track records, such as dot.com companies, be confined to SESDAQ, our secondary market, rather than be listed on the main exchange. Even though this is an unenviable and difficult task, I would like to urge the Minister to strike a balance between liberalisation of our stock exchange and the protection of our retail investors, especially in view of the bull run of high-tech and Internet stocks.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Dr Wang Kai Yuen for his intervention. It is a timely reminder of the risks of investing in the stock market. Over the last two years, we have liberalised and modernised our capital markets. We have changed the listing rules on SGX to allow a wider range of companies to be listed, including start-up companies with short but strong profit records, and companies which have not yet made any profits at all because of heavy reinvestment needs. The new rules are comparable to the rules in other established stock markets in the world for their main boards. The changes have been necessary to enable capital markets to fund the new economy, because the main purpose of the equity market is not to enable investors to make a quick buck, but to be an avenue for channelling funds and resources as equity to invest in companies and enable companies to draw equity in order to be able to grow. So the changes have been necessary to enable the capital market to fund this new economy, particularly including companies in high-tech and knowledge-based industries. If we do not allow high-tech companies to list on the Stock Exchange, then either they will be choked off from equity capital and we will miss out on their growth, or they will list overseas, for example, on NASDAQ, and our stock market will wither. So we are in this business. This is again for professionals. At the same time, we have changed the regulatory philosophy - from a merit-based one, what Dr Wang called Koh Beng Seng's approach, although it was not just Mr Koh Beng Seng, it was the Government's approach, or what the Business Times called "the Confucian approach", to a disclosure-based one. Previously, we would assess the merits of a proposal and decide whether it is a good or a bad company. Now, we have basic criteria and as long as there is full disclosure and all the facts are put up, we allow the company to be listed and allow investors to go in. This has been necessary because finally, investors have to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for them. No merit-based regulator can guarantee that only successful companies will be listed and that investors will definitely make a profit. We changed the listing rules last September. Since then, five companies have been listed under the new rules which would not have qualified under the old rules. Only two are dot.com companies, as Dr Wang pointed out, MediaRing and Horizon.com. The other three are China Toll Bridges & Roads Ltd, ST Assembly Test Services Ltd and Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing Ltd, of which STATS and CSM are also listed on NASDAQ and are by no means start-up companies. Our changes coincided with the great effervescence in the technology sector and tech stocks in the US markets. There is a new frontier, there is a gold rush mentality. Some people have made it big, others hope to make it even bigger. They are going in, they are trying as if the last train is about to leave the station. Not all will succeed - many will certainly fail. The excitement is for real reasons because the Internet is a dramatic breakthrough in technology which is going to change the lives of billions of people. But, of course, in all this excitement, we start with a good thing and get carried away by its momentum. There is the psychology of a speculative bubble, particularly in the US, in tech stocks. And this has buoyed other markets in the world, including Hong Kong, Bombay, KL and to a lesser extent Singapore. At some point, the American market will come back to earth, the law of gravity will reassert itself and which will affect markets everywhere else. How or when, nobody can tell. If Dr Wang could be quite confident that this is going to happen within this year, contrary to what many other people expect, he could become very rich by shorting the market. On the other hand, if he misjudges, he might not be rich at all. So I cannot comment whether the Singapore market is too high or too low, much less on the merits of individual stocks or companies which are listed on the Stock Exchange. But I can tell you that not every company that calls itself dot.com is naturally and automatically an Internet company or destined for fabulous success. Investors have to decide whether to buy the shares in these companies, or in any other companies. You have got to know the risks. You have got to be prepared for the downside. And you have got to judge what your risk appetite is. If you are an investment fund, picking winners for your portfolio, with many potential winners in a big portfolio, that is fine. One goes sour, another one will turn out right. But if you are a widow investing your last CPF dollar, and you put it on a single company in the hope that you will get rich, then maybe you are better off keeping that money in a fixed deposit in a bank instead. I think overall, our new rules and philosophy are correct. The Government cannot stop companies from being listed on SGX because we think that their business is too risky, or because we think their shares are priced too high. Risk taking is the essence of business and particularly in the new economy. But we will educate the public on the risks so that people know what they are doing and go in with their eyes open. Whether they are actually looking or not, that is another matter. But we will not spare any effort to explain and to point out, and speeches by Dr Wang, MPs and other leaders will also be helpful. Of course, even with tight rules, as in the past, you must remember that companies are not guaranteed to succeed. Whatever our rules, they can fail either for business reasons or because of fraud or crime, as Pan-El failed and Amcol ran into trouble. And even if a company is sound, its share price can still be inflated and not justified by the company's earnings and prospects. And indeed, Microsoft itself, which is undoubtedly a very good company with its share price at about $100, that is about 70 or 80 times its price earnings ratio. And Steve Balmer himself, who is now the CEO, had said, "My price is inflated, over-valued." As a result of which, it came down three or four dollars, but it is still over-valued. So I do not think it is possible for the Government to make sure that the Stock Exchange is a safe place. Anyway it is difficult to prevent people from taking risks, by keeping what we think are risky companies off the Stock Exchange. People who want risky investments find many ways to make them. They can invest overseas. In the old days, when the Malaysian stocks were listed on CLOB, they invested on CLOB, which is a different environment from the Singapore stock market. Or sometimes, if they cannot invest on the stock market, they put money on horses or many other things, or football, or even watch two raindrops on the windscreen and see which goes faster. That is their instinct. Our job is to encourage a more professional and sophisticated share market, not controlled by people looking at the screen through the window and hoping to guess the next move that the share price will make, but people who analyse the fundamentals, understand the business, know the way the industry is going and put bets in for the long term. So if you do not know about stocks, do not buy and sell based on the latest rumour or rely on hot tips from friends. Better entrust your money to a reliable fund manager, buy a unit trust, or leave your money in the bank. It is not as exciting, but it is much safer. Not totally risk-free, but much safer. What the Government can do is to enforce the rules of the market - have proper disclosure, have tight market surveillance, have quick action against any price manipulation, any monkey business means severe penalties for offenders. Recently, we changed the law to introduce a new civil penalty for insider trading, to make it easier to punish or to obtain compensation from those who make improper use of insider information to trade and benefit themselves at the expense of others. Investors cannot just invest in a company based on the name of that company. They have to know what the company's business is, how the company is doing, what its prospects are, how much the company is realistically worth. For IPOs and share issues, all this information should be in the company prospectus. We will change our requirements for prospectuses to ensure that they contain all that investors reasonably expect to find it. And this will include information which is known to the directors of the corporation, or known to the persons performing a professional or advisory function in relation to the issue or proposed issue of securities. This is a move away from a "one-size-fits-all" prospectus. We will accommodate the greater diversity of companies being listed on SGX, and create an environment for intermediaries, like stockbrokers, investment bankers, accountants, even lawyers, are expected to play their part in ensuring that proper disclosure is made. But of course, while we can print a good prospectus, this will only help if people actually read the prospectuses, and do not just blindly subscribe to IPO shares confident that they will make a profit on the first day. And in fact, it is known in some markets, you go to the stockbroker's office, you get the application form with the prospectus, you go out, you throw away the prospectus in the dustbin and you just take the form and hope that the shares are worth some money. Sometimes, even the form is worth some money. But that is not the way. I have explained the Government's approach towards liberalising and regulating the stock market, and set out what the Government can and cannot do. It is in the nature of stock markets and human psychology that the markets will go up and go down through cycles. These cycles are linked to the real economy, but often overshoot. They last seven years, 10 years, sometimes, like now in America, a bit longer. My suspicion is they are driven by young people who are seeing the cycle for the first time. They have never lost before, they have never seen the blood on the ground. It is exciting and exhilarating. It is their last chance to get in. They ramp it up. And then something goes wrong, it comes down again. And they have learned their lesson. But in 10 years' time, a new generation of greenhorns is born. So we should know this. We have been through this before. The stock market will not always go up. Sometimes, it will come down. So Singaporeans who want to invest on the stock market should know this and invest prudently.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes to Six o'clock pm.

asked the Minister for Information and the Arts if he will show separately the utilisation of the paid TV and the Internet-access services provided by Singapore Cable Vision by the following categories of households, namely Housing and Development Board apartments, private apartments and condominia, terrace houses, semi-detached houses, bungalows and others.

Subscription rate for SCV As of 31st January 2000, the overall subscription rate of SCV has increased to 23% (or 214,000 households). The subscription rate is highest for private residential homes, with landed property showing a 43% (or 27,000 households) take-up rate. MITA is unable to provide more detailed information as this is trade information of commercial value. SCV's Cable Modem Service SCV's Internet access service is made available by its cable modem service which was commercially launched on 29th December 1999. Subscription figures for SCV's cable modem service for different housing types are not available. There are currently 5,000 subscribers for its existing cable modem trial service, which was started two and a half years ago. SCV has estimated that an additional 2,500 subscribers have signed up for its cable modem service since its launch in December 1999. Subscription rates for the cable modem service are currently modest because cable broadband access is still in its infancy in Singapore. SCV targets to register up to 100,000 households for its cable modem service within the next 3 years.

asked the Minister for Manpower if he will give (a) an update on unemployment figures in 1999 based on age, education, gender and job sector; (b) the nature and duration of retraining programmes which have benefited women workers in 1999; and (c) the effectiveness of such training in matching the needs in the job market measured in terms of immediate job placement and work productivity levels.

Singapore's unemployment rate is traditionally low averaging around 2%. However, along with her regional neighbours, Singapore was not spared from the downturn triggered by the currency crisis in mid-1997. The impact of the economic slowdown on the labour market was, however, only largely felt in the second half of 1998 with unemployment reaching a high of 4.4% in the later half of the year. By 1999, the labour market began to show some signs of recovery, with the unemployment rate declining throughout most of the year. The 1999 unemployment figure will be available on the 24th February 2000 when the Annual Economic Survey is released. Full details on the unemployment profile will be available in the quarterly Labour Market Report to be released in mid-March 2000. All workers, regardless of gender, age and race are given opportunities to retrain and upgrade their skills and knowledge. Female workers can benefit and have benefited from retraining programmes such as the Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP). Among the 21,700 workers who have been trained or are undergoing training under the SRP, 40% are females. In fact, during the early stages of the SRP when it focused primarily on the manufacturing sector, an even greater percentage of females were trained. Most of the trainees were female production workers. Today, the SRP has expanded into many other sectors such as childcare, healthcare, banking, travel and tourism, telecommunications, etc, so female workers of many different occupations are being trained. The courses being offered by national training programmes are varied. They include preparatory courses such as Basic Education for Skills Training (BEST) and Worker Improvement through Secondary Education (WISE) which aim to raise the workers' proficiency in language and numeracy. Other courses include Certificates of Competencies (CoC), National Technical Certificates (NTC) levels 2 and 3, as well as other certificate courses offered by the polytechnics and the ITE. These courses are relevant to various different industries in both the manufacturing and services sectors. The duration of the courses also varies. For example, the duration of a CoC course or 1 module of NTC course is usually 120 hours. The duration of an NTC 3 course is 480 hours. In 1999, MOM started a scheme to improve the employability of retrenched workers through skills upgrading. This was done under the SRP and spearheaded by the self-help groups, which acted as surrogate employers. Under the scheme, retrenched workers who were unable to secure re-employment went for skills upgrading under the SRP. 139 sponsored retrenched workers graduated under the scheme between August and November last year. Of the 114 whom we managed to contact during a recent survey, 89 (78%) have found employment and 25 (22%) are still unemployed. Training is not only relevant to retrenched workers. It is just as important in raising the skill levels and productivity of those who have a job. In a study conducted by the Skills Development Fund in 1998, about 90% of the companies surveyed indicated that training had significant impact on the level of service quality, followed by productivity growth and level of product quality of the organisations. The extent of increase in the level of service quality ranged from 11% to 20%; and 1% to 10% for productivity growth and level of product quality. As for the impact of training on individuals, 80% of the companies surveyed indicated that there was an enhancement in employability after an employee had gone through certifiable training. More than 60% of the organisations also said that employees who had undergone training received a wage increase ranging from 1% to 10%.

asked the Minister for Community Development (a) what is the rationale for fixing the minimum age for criminal responsibility at seven years old; (b) whether in the past 10 years the Court has convicted any child between 7 and 10 years old and for what offences; and (c) if he will consider reviewing this issue, including seeking expert and community opinions on this, by organising a public and private forum. .

The Penal Code has made it clear that nothing is an offence which is done by a child under 7 years of age, or committed by a child aged between 7 and 12 years who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his/her conduct on that occasion. This minimum age of 7 years is inherited from the common law of England. This minimum age provides a safety net for young offenders and protects them from exploitation of unscrupulous adults who may want to make use of children to carry out illegal activities. It also allows for early intervention by social and other authorities before a child progresses into a hardened offender. Although the minimum age of culpability is 7 years old, children are not subject to the same justice system as adults. The juvenile justice system adopts a restorative model that emphasizes the best interests of the child. In addition, there is an inherent safeguard as children between the ages of 7 and 12 years who do not have adequate understanding of the crimes they have committed will not be held criminally responsible. Criminal sanctions can therefore be applied only to young children who are aware of the nature of their conduct, while protecting those of a similar age who have not yet reached a sufficient level of maturity, from prosecution. Not all persons arrested for committing offences will be charged in court. In many cases, Police, at the direction of the Attorney-General's Chambers, administer stern warnings to juveniles or refer them for community-based programmes to help the juveniles and their families, instead of prosecuting them. Table : Juvenile Offenders between 7 and 10 Years of Age Charged in the Juvenile Court from January 1993 to January 2000* Year No.of Offenders Offences Committed 1993 5 -- Cheating by impersonation -- Theft -- Theft in dwelling -- Fraudulent possession of property -- Lurking, trespassing or housebreaking 1994 4 -- Negligent conduct with respect to any fire or combustible matters -- Theft -- Theft in dwelling 1995 2 -- Theft -- Lurking, trespassing or housebreaking in order to commit an offence -- Fraudulent possession of property 1996 2 -- Theft in dwelling -- Voluntarily causing hurt in a robbery -- Attempt to commit robbery 1997 1 -- Theft in dwelling 1998 3 -- Theft -- Theft in dwelling -- Fraudulent possession of property 1999 2 -- Theft -- Theft in dwelling -- Housebreaking Jan 2000 Nil NA TOTAL 19 * Of the nineteen cases, fifteen were 10 years of age and only one was 7 years of age for cheating by impersonation. No data is available for earlier years. The Ministry, in its review of the Children and Young Persons Act recently, consulted various organisations and advocates on the minimum age of culpability. There are therefore no immediate plans to initiate another review. The Ministry is prepared to reopen discussions on this question in future should the need arise.

asked the Minister for Community Development if he will give an update on (a) the number of applicants appealing for the various financial assistance schemes under its charge between 1997 and 1999; (b) the number of offences filed under the Maintenance of Parents Act against unfilial children between 1997 and 1999 and the number of convictions; and (c) the nature and duration of follow-up programmes adopted by welfare officers in monitoring the well-being of the families in question.

Applicants for the various financial schemes under MCD between 1997 - 1999 are as follows: Table 1: Number Of Applications for Financial Assistance Year PA* SJF* SFIS* BTW* Total % increase 1997 1,718 116 157 8 1,999 - 1998 2,333 117 211 8 2,669 34 1999 2,615 125 190 10 2,940 10 *PA - Public Assistance Scheme SJF - Silver Jubilee Fund (Special Grant) SFIS - Small Families Improvement Scheme BTW - Back-to-Work Child Care Scheme Number of applications for maintenance under the Maintenance of Parents Act from 1997 to 1999, the number of applications for enforcement of the Order of Tribunal, and the number of convictions for breach of the Order of Tribunal are as follows: Table 2: Applications Under Tribunal For The Maintenance Of Parents Number of applications filed under MPA and at Family Court Number of Number of Number of Year applications applications convictions+++ filed under for MPA+ enforcement filed at Family Court++ 1997 138 24 - 1998 134 59 - 1999 127 78 2 Total 399 161 - + This refers to the number of applications filed by an aged person under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA) for an order that one or more of his children pay him maintenance. (These applications do not refer to "offences" filed against "unfilial children".) ++ This refers to the number of applications filed by an aged person for enforcement of the maintenance order issued by the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents. This is done when a Respondent (the child) defaults payment of the maintenance ordered against him and the aged person decides to take up enforcement proceedings against him. Section 10 of the MPA stipulates that the Order of Tribunal may be enforced in the same manner as maintenance orders for wives and children are enforced under the provisions of the Women's Charter. Applications for enforcement of Order of Tribunal are filed at Family Court. +++ This refers to cases in which the respondent in an enforcement proceeding heard at Family Court is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for breach of the Order of Tribunal. The Family Court does not maintain such statistics. The data for 1999 cases has been prepared by file search. Outcome of applications as at 15th February 2000 for cases registered from 1st January 1997-31st December 1999 is as follows Outcome of Number (%) applications 1997 1998 1999 Maintenance order 110 103 95 made (79.7%) (76.9%) (74.8%) Maintenance/Dismissed/ 28 31 20 Withdrawn etc (20.3%) (23.1%) (15.7%) Pending - - 12 (9.5%) Total 138 134 127 (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) The Ministry makes available mediation or family counselling services, either from the Ministry or the community (such as in family service centres), to help families who cannot agree on the maintenance for their elderly parents resolve any family disputes or differences even before they approach the Tribunal for assistance, and during and after the Tribunal's proceedings. The Ministry takes a holistic approach in dealing with families who approach us for assistance. We look into the essential needs of the family, (eg. help with waiver of medical fees and school fees), provide counselling services to deal with their emotional or social difficulties as well as arrange admission to a nursing home for elderly parents who are in need of such care. If necessary, short-term financial assistance will be given to help the families get back on their feet. The Ministry networks closely with other Government agencies and Community Development Councils to secure the necessary supportive assistance for families in need. Cases may be referred to family service centres to ensure that dysfunctional families receive the help they need to resolve their social or emotional difficulties and appropriate counselling and casework follow-up.

asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the total number of children under 6 years old who are in pre-school, including those in childcare centres under the Ministry of Community Development; (b) what are the basic academic qualifications of early child educationists; (c) what is the total number of such qualified teachers in Singapore; and (d) what measures are being taken to enhance pre-school teachers' quality and classroom teaching.

The total number of children under 6 years old in Ministry of Education registered kindergartens and Ministry of Community Development registered childcare centres is 104,000 and 43,992 respectively. The minimum academic qualifications of these kindergarten teachers and childcare teachers are 3 `O' level credits, including English or the Mother Tongue (for MT teachers). For a childcare teacher, he or she has to successfully complete training in childcare recognised by MCD at the intermediate level. There are 2050 kindergarten teachers and 3767 childcare teachers registered under MOE and MCD respectively, who have such minimum academic qualifications. A Steering Committee on pre-school education chaired by Dr Aline Wong, Senior Minister of State for Education was set up in November 1999 to oversee the necessary changes which will help to raise the quality of pre-school education in Singapore. This Committee will look into teacher training and also review the guidelines for the accreditation of training programmes. For childcare centres, MCD has also developed guidelines for diploma courses in early childhood care and education (ECCE). The higher requirement was announced on 1st October 1999 to give the industry sufficient lead-time to prepare and upgrade. The raising of childcare personnel's qualification was widely welcomed by early childhood practitioners as it recognised the importance of childcare personnel in the lives of the young children in their care.

asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the rationale and special justification for the recent upward salary revision for the teaching profession despite the current need for wage restraint in both the public and private sectors; and (b) whether his Ministry has introduced any new or innovative measures other than salary increases to enhance the status, working conditions and job satisfaction of the more deserving school teachers so as to attract the right individuals to join the teaching profession as a long-term career.

The revisions made to the Education Scheme of Service since 1st January 2000 was not a general salary revision. Instead, new intermediate salary grades were added to the scheme of service. The objective was to improve the structure of the service to allow enhanced promotional opportunities and more timely promotional opportunities to improve retention. These changes were part of civil service-wide changes to the structure of Division 1 services. New salary grades were introduced for both the General Education Officer (GEO) and the Senior Education Officer (SEO) salary schemes. Previously, classroom teachers were only eligible for one promotion to the career grade of GEO 1A and GEO 2A. With the new intermediate GEO salary grade, they now have an additional promotion opportunity, ie, 2 promotions, before they reach the career classroom teacher grade. GEO officers can also look forward to faster and earlier first promotions. The new SEO grade was introduced to offer better salary progression in the Upper Timescale levels before officers reach the Superscale levels. The Ministry agrees that we need to provide an overall conducive environment to help attract and retain teachers. It is not salaries and promotions alone that determine retention ability. We have a strong focus on training and development. The Ministry encourages and supports its officers to upgrade themselves professionally. The National Institute of Education has recently announced a comprehensive framework for continual training of teachers. We have also implemented various schemes such as the Study Leave Scheme and the Professional Development Leave Scheme to enable officers to upgrade themselves academically through full-time graduate and postgraduate programmes. Financial assistance in the form of sponsorships, half-pay leave and interest-free study loans are available. Since 1998, an average of 230 teachers per year have been granted study leave to pursue a first degree or a Master's degree. In recent years, various awards have been instituted by several organisations and the nation to recognise outstanding teachers. These awards, viz the Outstanding Youth in Education Award, the Caring Teacher Award, the Inspiring Chinese Language Teachers award and the pinnacle award, the President's Award for Teachers - are reflective of the community's recognition and nation's regard for the important role that teachers play. There is no greater affirmation for our many dedicated teachers than when the community seeks to recognise their good work. MOE has also implemented several measures to alleviate teachers' workload. These include the creation of School Administrator and Operations Manager posts at all schools to perform administrative support functions, the streamlining of work procedures (e.g. payment of school fees by GIRO, central issuing of student identification passes), and leveraging on IT to improve work efficiency. Since 1998, MOE has allocated more than 1,500 additional teaching posts and more than 380 administrative and support posts to schools.