Hansard, 2000-02-22

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: FromTo NameName(2000) Mr Lee Kuan Yew 22 Feb22 Feb Mr K Shanmugam 25 Feb25 Feb TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the reason for discontinuing the use of restricted passports for travel to Malaysia.

Sir, the reasons for phasing out the Singapore Restricted Passport have been widely reported in the local newspapers and broadcast media. In brief, the Restricted Passports have been phased out due to falling demand, and because it is not cost-effective to continue issuing them.

Did I hear the Minister say that it is not cost-effective because there was a falling demand? I thought that a great many Singaporeans were crossing the Causeway. That is what we hear every day. Is the Minister saying that the number has dropped to an extent that it is no longer productive for the Ministry to produce the Restricted Passport?

Sir, I gave two reasons. First, it was the falling demand. Second, it is not cost-effective to continue issuing them.

The Minister keeps repeating his answer. May we have an answer to my question? Is there a drop in Singaporeans crossing into Johore every day or weekly to justify discontinuance of the Restricted Passport? May we have an answer to that question?

Sir, there has been a falling demand because, based on the 10-year period, from 1988 to 1998, the number of SRPs issued annually has dropped by 56%. So, it is a very clear indication, and not by the number of Singaporeans crossing the Causeway, because you can cross the Causeway by using also the SIP. But by the actual number of passports that have been issued over time, there is clearly a falling demand.

May I ask the Minister whether money was an important factor? The Singapore International Passport, I am told, costs $70, whereas the Restricted Passport used to be only $30. Was that a factor - that the Government could get more revenue?

Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam knows that the Government does not operate this way. We do not raise fees just to get more revenue. The cost-effectiveness part comes in due to the new security features which have made our passport so much more secure. If we had continued producing the Singapore Restricted Passport, then the cost of production for both the Singapore Restricted Passport and the Singapore International Passport would have been equalised. In other words, we would have to charge Singaporeans something similar, whether we issue them a SRP or SIP, and that does not make sense because now, for $60, if a Singaporean applies by post, he gets a passport (96 pages) that would enable him to travel to more than just one country and with added security features at a one-time cost.

For those regulars travelling between both sides of the Causeway, either for work or business, is the Government considering issuing a Smartcard to facilitate travelling?

This is already being done. A pilot has been done to issue those who are regular travellers with a Smartcard.

Can the Minister tell us whether the use of the Restricted Passport is a unilateral initiative on the part of Singapore or do we need an agreement with Malaysia to use our Restricted Passport?

Sir, the issuance of a passport is a sovereign act, so we need not, for example, get the permission of the Malaysians for us to take this move.

The Smartcard is being used in the airport, but is it also being used at the Causeway?

A pilot has been done for frequent travellers, for example, for those Malaysians who work in our factories who come across regularly. In fact, it is an advanced technology where you just use your fingerprint. So over time, travel between Singapore and Malaysia would definitely be facilitated.

Would the Minister of State tell us how much it cost the Government to produce a single Restricted Passport? What was the cost per passport?

Sir, I do not have the figure here.

asked the Minister for the Environment whether fast food outlets like McDonald's will be allowed to continue to sell toys like Hello Kitty dolls.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry does not regulate what can or cannot be sold by McDonald's, or any other shop for that matter. We are only concerned with the hygiene and safety of food sold at food retail outlets. During the large gathering at McDonald's, we stepped in to deal with the littering problem that occurred.

Sir, I am surprised to hear from the Minister that his Ministry does not regulate this matter but I read in the newspapers that the Ministry's spokesman was quoted as saying that it was all right for McDonald's to sell dolls at the same time. Can I take it to mean that other shops, for example, a shop selling dolls can also at the same time sell McDonald's food?

My point is that we are basically concerned only with the hygiene and littering. In fact, when the question was directed to me, I was wondering which Ministry really decides what to be sold and where. If it is in HDB shops, I suppose HDB will have a say and Building Control Division will say where you can have retail sale and so forth. But really it is not under my purview.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs what steps the Police will take to prevent ugly scenes from happening again in respect of people queueing for Hello Kitty dolls.

Sir, after huge crowds and long queues formed on the first 2 launches on 1st and 6th January 2000, McDonald's, on Police advice, employed CISCO and private security guards to regulate queues for subsequent launches. However, these proved to be inadequate. McDonald's was particularly ill-prepared for the large crowds which turned up overnight for the 27th January 2000 launch. Some radio stations regularly reported the size of the queues, leading to even more Singaporeans rushing to join the queues. Following the 27th January 2000 launch, on Police advice, McDonald's came up with a system that extends the period of sale, and which ensures that all demands for the last pair of Hello Kitty dolls would be met. The final launch on 3rd February 2000 under this new system took place without incident. Organizers of promotional events that are likely to attract large crowds should act responsibly by putting in place arrangements and procedures to ensure that their event does not lead to law and order problems. They should also be adequately prepared for the various contingencies that may arise and be ready to handle them properly. They should hire security guards to maintain public order. Police would consider charging the organizers for the cost of deployment should the private event lead to severe law and order problems due to a lack of careful planning and despite Police advice that they should hire adequate security guards for the event. The general public participating in such events also have an important role to play. They should queue in a patient and orderly manner, and not breach the peace. The mass media can also play their part by not creating a sense of panic among interested participants. The Police takes a serious view of any breaches committed by individuals and will not hesitate to take action to arrest and prosecute persons who by their behaviour incite public disorder or break the law.

Sir, did the Police anticipate that law and order could be a problem with the sale of Hello Kitty dolls at McDonald's?

As I have said, the first two launches were relatively incident-free. The first launch had one incident where a doctor and three other persons were involved in the queue, but that was within the premises. After the two launches, Police, in fact, spoke to McDonald's and advised McDonald's to hire security guards at the five drive-in outlets. But, of course, ultimately, on the fifth launch on 27th January, nobody anticipated that the crowds would swell up to about 200,000. But I think along the way, McDonald's, on the advice of Police, had taken precautions.

I wonder why the Police failed to anticipate the law and order problem created by the McDonald's sale of Hello Kitty dolls. But I understand that the Police could well anticipate that any public speeches made by Opposition Party members may cause social law and order problem and thereby it denies the issue of permits. Would the Minister of State explain why the Police had failed to anticipate in this case, but yet could anticipate what will happen if an Opposition politician makes a speech in public?

Does an Opposition party member who makes a speech in public also sells Hello Kitty toys that would arouse that passion? I think the point here is that the two events are quite different. In the Hello Kitty sale, it was a promotional event and queues were anticipated. But in Singapore, we do have long queues and other events where large crowds gather, but if there is adequate security, there are no problems. In this case, McDonald's, in fact, employed about 150 security guards for the outlets but despite that precaution, problems still arose.

Sir, when there are big crowds of course it is good publicity to a commercial firm but I think the issue here is whether or not such an event would breach the peace and cause disturbance and hurt to members of the public. The breach of peace in fact ---

Order. Mr Chiam, can you ask your supplementary question? You are making a speech.

All right. Did the Police advise the commercial firm causing these problems to change their method of distribution of the Hello Kitty dolls to prevent breach of peace and injury to members of the public?

Sir, in fact, this is what exactly happened. It was because of Police's consultation and advice that the final launch on the 3rd of February was done differently. Otherwise, it would have been done the same way and there would have been problems.

asked the Minister for Manpower, in view of the many fatal accidents happening to foreign maids, whether he will consider making it compulsory for employers to provide safety harness, similar to that worn by construction workers, when the maids are asked to do cleaning work in high-rise buildings.

Sir, my Ministry had studied various options to check the spate of accidents involving foreign domestic workers (FDWs) falling from high-rise windows. While the use of safety harness was a possibility, we concluded that it is not the best way to resolve the problem of foreign domestic workers falling while cleaning windows in high-rise buildings. Safety harnesses are used when workers have no option but to work in places where there are no secure foothold or handhold and the risk of falling is high. Foreign domestic workers should not be required to carry out any work under such risky conditions at all. If they are required to clean windows, they should use appropriate cleaning equipment with extended handles to reach the difficult spots. They do not have to stand on chairs or stools or climb out of the building to clean windows. The requirement for the use of a safety harness is also not a fail-safe measure as evidenced by the number of construction workers who suffered injuries or died from falls. A safety harness must be worn and secured properly in order to be effective. Employers and foreign domestic workers, unfamiliar with the use of safety harnesses, may endanger themselves. In fact, its use may create a false sense of security with more employers asking their foreign domestic workers to do dangerous work leading to accidents. Sir, the problem is best addressed through proper public education and raising awareness among employers and their foreign domestic workers of the danger of cleaning windows in high-rise buildings. Most foreign domestic workers come from rural areas and are thus not familiar with working and living in an urban environment. Employers should ensure that their foreign domestic workers are properly oriented and trained when performing household duties. Singaporeans who employ foreign domestic workers have a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that their foreign domestic workers work safely and securely in their homes, free from unnecessary risks, harassment or physical abuse. Employers should not compromise on the safety and welfare of their foreign domestic workers. Sir, to help raise the awareness of our employers of the likely hazards of household work, my Ministry had in October last year, sent a circular to all employers of foreign domestic workers to remind them to exercise greater care when assigning household cleaning duties to their foreign domestic workers. Early last year, we had issued an information kit to all employers of foreign domestic workers. The information kit highlighted the employers' role and responsibility and includes a training checklist for employers to discuss potential safety hazards that the foreign domestic workers may encounter while performing household chores. My Ministry has also produced an orientation video for new foreign domestic workers coming to Singapore for the first time. Amongst other things, the video advises foreign domestic workers to lock the window grilles before cleaning high-rise windows, and not to climb out of the window to clean the windows or to retrieve objects that may have fallen onto the window ledge. We will continue to educate and raise the awareness of employers and their foreign domestic workers. The Work Permit Department is currently working on a new information kit that will be issued to foreign domestic workers in their own language. The kit will also draw the attention of the foreign domestic workers to the precautionary measures that need to be taken when they perform various domestic chores. We believe that our effort will minimise risk and accidents involving foreign domestic workers.

Sir, does the Minister really expect that just by educating the employers so that they could teach their maids how to clean high-rise windows, it would be effective? Secondly, the Minister said that the maid is not supposed to do such a dangerous job. But I think we all know that we cannot prevent employers from instructing their maids to do such a chore. Thirdly, the safety harness is not really that difficult to use. Apart from a safety harness, can the Minister suggest something concrete, apart from just advising the employers to ask their maids to be more careful? Is there any other way that can ensure the safety of the maids?

Sir, the answer to the Member's first supplementary question is yes, we believe that public education will be effective in minimising such accidents. It will raise the awareness among employers that in fact there are safer ways to clean windows, and there is really no need for them to ask their foreign domestic workers to put themselves in such a dangerous situation. As to whether foreign domestic workers are supposed to clean windows, I think cleaning windows is, of course, part of domestic chores. But it is the way they clean the windows. As I have said in my answer earlier on, most windows in high-rise buildings and, in fact, in HDB apartments where most of our people live in, the HDB has assured us that the windows can be cleaned using the right cleaning implements without having to climb out of the window or to expose yourself to any danger of falling out of the window. He said that the safety harness is not difficult to use. It still requires a certain amount of training. It requires the installation of the appropriate anchor points for such safety harnesses. Safety harnesses have got to be inspected regularly to ensure that they are not subject to damage through wear and tear. I am just quoting to the Member what we have to do in the construction industry, and despite the elaborate and very massive efforts, we still do encounter accidents of foreign construction workers falling from heights. In fact, it is probably one of the biggest causes of accidents in the construction sites. So, let us not assume that just by requiring the foreign domestic workers to use a safety harness, we would have eradicated the problem completely. In fact, my fear, shared by the officers in the Ministry when we considered this problem last year was that if you require a safety harness, it would give people a false sense of security. They would just give the foreign domestic worker any old safety harness they come across, tie it to any anchor point and say, "Now, you climb out of the window and do this dangerous work." Let me say that cleaning a window from the outside of a building is not a domestic task. It requires specialised window cleaners who are trained to do such work. Any employer who does so and force the maid to climb out of the building to clean the windows is obviously out of his mind. Would the employer himself or herself do such a thing? And if you are not prepared to do it, why would you get somebody else, who is totally untrained and unfit for this task, to do so? Our job is to educate our people and say that you must not adopt such a callous attitude towards the foreign domestic workers. They deserve your care and your protection. They have come from a far off country to work in your home. You should look after them. I also like to point out that every case of a foreign domestic worker falling from a high-rise window and getting injured or dying as a result will be thoroughly investigated by the police. I just want to repeat that the police will, in fact, investigate thoroughly into the cause of death, including whether there was any criminal negligence involving the employer or any other person. If there is evidence that criminal negligence is involved - I understand that criminal negligence is an offence in the Penal Code - then I can assure Members that the police and the Attorney-General's Chambers will not hesitate to act according to the law. So it is not as if we are totally powerless against unscrupulous employers who deliberately, wilfully and unfairly force their foreign domestic workers to undertake such a dangerous and hazardous task. There are already laws which cover such a situation. If the investigation reveals such evidence, we can already proceed under the existing laws.

Sir, it is life that we are talking about, although they are foreign maids. And I am surprised that the Ministry of Manpower is not taking any concrete steps, as Mr Kenneth Chen has said. I disagree that ---

Mr Chiam, can I ask you to ask your supplementary question?

Sir, could the Minister ask his Ministry to think over and implement the use of a safety harness for foreign maids when they clean windows? Instead of giving them a false security, in fact, it will make both the employers and the maids aware that it is a dangerous task and to take precautions. The fact that a safety harness is to be used, they will probably be aware of the danger at that point of time. As regards criminal law, as far as I know, no employer has been prosecuted for criminal negligence for asking the maid to clean windows. I am not aware of any case where an employer had asked his maid to climb out of the windows. Normally, they clean the windows at the edge. Do they require the maids to climb out of the window? If an employer requires his maid to climb out of the window, then there is probably a case of criminal negligence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to belabour the point about the use or misuse of safety harnesses. We have been through that already. We have examined this proposition. We have concluded that it is not the best way to deal with the problem. We will proceed on the basis that continuing education of the employers of foreign domestic workers is the best way of tackling this problem at source. If we require the use of safety harnesses, then we are telling the employers that, in fact, please go ahead and put their maids into all kinds of dangerous situations. Just have them use a safety harness and they will be fully protected. It will be all right for them to do so. I think it is totally unjustified for us to expect these women coming from a village in Indonesia or the Philippines to suddenly climb out of a window or to stand on the window ledge on the 25th floor of a building to clean the window. It is out of this world. How can we imagine that they should be put in such a position just because we have given them a safety harness? I think it is wrong to take such a position. We should take the position that no employer on his own would want to ask the maid to do such a task. There are already existing equipment. One can walk into any supermarket or department store and maybe for $10 or even less, he could buy himself a cleaning device that allows him to reach every part of the window. Then why are we talking about having to have safety harnesses and so on and so forth? On his other point, I thank the Member for his contribution that if there is evidence of criminal negligence, then a prosecution can be sustained. Even though no employer had been prosecuted in the past, it does not mean that no employer will be prosecuted in the future. If, in fact, police investigations reveal evidence of criminal negligence, as I have assured Members earlier on, I have no doubt that the police and the Attorney-General's Chambers will proceed according to the law.

Sir, can the Minister consider publicising the punitive measures which can be taken against employers? Sometimes the maid has no choice when she is instructed by the employer to clean windows. But if the employers know that if they do that and the penalty is very severe, then they will not ask the maid to do it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will certainly ask my Ministry to do that and to continue to reinforce this message. We have been doing so, as I have mentioned in my earlier answer, and we will update the information kit that we issue both to the domestic workers and to the employers to caution them on this particular aspect of domestic work.

Maybe the Ministry should consider conducting a short course to educate foreign domestic maids on the proper ways of cleaning windows in high-rise buildings, because there are certainly other safer ways to clean windows. But I think many a time, these maids, on their own initiative, climb out of the windows.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the training of foreign domestic workers, whether it is before they come to Singapore or after arriving in Singapore, is a matter that is best left to the private sector. There are already, if I remember correctly, nearly 1,000 employment agents involved in recruiting such domestic workers. I think we can leave it to them to provide the appropriate level of training for these domestic workers. In fact, some of the training is done in the home country before they actually leave the country. In some other cases, community organisations, such as the Marine Parade CDC had offered such training for domestic workers. This is all to be supported. We can leave it to the employment agents and the community organisations to run such courses rather than asking my Ministry or the Work Permit Department to conduct such courses. I think it is more appropriate for a wide variety of suppliers for this service to run the courses and to train the maids according to the needs of the employers. Members have to understand that some people employ foreign domestic workers not just to look after children or clean windows. Some employ them to look after the aged. So what particular aspect of the training should we focus on? I think we should leave it to the private sector. They know what the customer wants the foreign domestic worker for. Therefore, they would provide the right level of training.

I understand that there are about 50,000 maids in Singapore and that 86% of Singaporeans live in highrise flats and many of them employ foreign maids. I would think that probably, taken from just pure statistics, there will be one or two more maids falling from the windows. Under what sort of circumstances will the Minister do something concrete for maids?

Sir, we are already taking concrete measures to improve the situation by way of educating the employers of domestic workers. Mr Chiam is quite wrong there. There are more than 50,000 maids. We have more than 100,000 foreign domestic workers in Singapore. As to whether another accident will happen or not, my sincere and earnest hope is that it will not happen again as a result of this widespread publicity on the dangers of such window cleaning, and our educational effort to get the employers to be more careful and conscientious in the way they treat their domestic workers and the way they assign duties and chores to them. But accidents may still happen. We cannot rule out accidents completely.

If the Minister is not going to do anything concrete, maybe I would ask the Minister to provide the information kit and the video that he talks about to Town Councils so that Town Council staff could study or look at them, and maybe pass the message over to the residents.

Sir, all our information kits are sent directly to the users. The video is sent to the employment agents because they are the ones responsible for bringing in the foreign domestic workers into Singapore in the first instance. Their responsibility is to show the video to the foreign domestic workers upon arrival to orientate them. All our other information materials are sent to the employers of the domestic workers or to the foreign domestic workers themselves at their place of work. If the Member for Potong Pasir wants to have a set of it, I see no difficulty. We will be very pleased to extend a set to him.

I am trying to find out why Mr Chiam wants to blame the Ministry for the problem because it is a problem of human failing. The Ministry is trying to educate the families in terms of how to deal with the maids as humanely as possible. I do not understand why he wants to impose on the Ministry. It is a personal problem. It is a problem dealing with the families and the maids.

Order. Dr Vasoo, what is your question to the Minister?

My question is: why is Mr Chiam blaming the Ministry for a family's problem?

I do not think that is your question for the Minister.

asked the Minister for Manpower how many Singaporean workers have opted out of the MediShield scheme, and what steps his Ministry is taking to help workers understand the benefits of the scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as at 31st December 1999, the total MediShield membership was 2 million, of which 1.6 million CPF members and their dependants are insured under Basic MediShield Scheme, and 400,000 are insured under MediShield Plus. The total number of CPF members using Medisave to pay for coverage under the IncomeShield or Managed HealthCare System was 200,000. Since the inception of the Basic MediShield Scheme in 1990, about 230,000 members had opted out and did not participate in any health insurance schemes using CPF savings. Such persons could have their own health insurance coverage or felt that they were adequately covered under their employers' healthcare benefits. Another 337,000 members had opted out of the Basic MediShield Scheme in order to join MediShield Plus, IncomeShield or Managed Healthcare System. The CPF Board recognises that there could still be some members who may not have healthcare coverage. Therefore, the Board carries out regular programmes to promote MediShield cover. These include sending to all new CPF members an information package on MediShield, and providing information on MediShield in the CPF Newsline in all the four major language newspapers regularly. The CPF Board also jointly organised talks on MediShield with the trade unions, community clubs, public libraries and schools to help members of the public understand the benefits of the Scheme. In addition, the CPF Board has been actively promoting the MediShield/MediShield Plus Schemes to households and to parents through schools. Since 1996 a total of about 420,000 direct mail packages have been sent out to households and through schools. We have received a good response of about 130,000 applications as at 31st December 1999. The Board will continue in its efforts to educate the public and its members on the MediShield/MediShield Plus schemes.

Sir, would the Ministry allow for all those who have opted out of the scheme to opt in again? Would the Ministry also take action to help the public to understand the risk that they take by opting out from such a scheme?

Sir, we will consider the request of members who had previously opted out and now want to opt in. Of course, you must understand that MediShield is an insurance scheme. Therefore, once you opt out, to rejoin, you will have to satisfy the conditions as a new applicant, which may well include medical examination and a ruling out of coverage for prevailing or pre-existing illnesses. That is why it is beneficial for CPF members to remain a member of MediShield or some other insurance, such as Managed Healthcare System or IncomeShield or MediShield Plus right from day one. In which case, as a young and healthy worker, he would be fully covered. In most cases, there will be no pre-existing ailments to be excluded. So they could remain covered for the rest of their lives. We are continuing to explain this to all CPF members and MediShield members to ensure that they stay insured throughout their working life time.

asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there has been a review on early education for the young under 6 years of age; (b) what are some of the critical findings; (c) what areas in our pre-school education require improvement; and (d) whether the Government will set up an Inter-Ministry Research and Action Task Force to identify changing needs and programmes in safeguarding quality and consistent standards among all pre-schools, irrespective of whether they are run by the Ministry of Community Development or by the Ministry of Education.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a Steering Committee which is chaired by myself was set up in November last year to study how the quality of pre-school education in Singapore can be improved while retaining its provision in the hands of the private and the community sectors. As part of the review, a study will be conducted to ascertain the long-term impact of pre-school education on the future learning outcomes of a child. The review on pre-school education has only just begun, and no findings are available yet. There are a few high-leverage areas in pre-school education that have a significant impact on future learning outcomes. These include defining clear objectives for pre-school education, research, curriculum development and teacher-training. The Steering Committee will examine how MOE can make judicious investment in these areas to help improve pre-school education. The Steering Committee on Pre-School Education is an inter-Ministry Committee, comprising representatives from MOE, MCD, as well as the National Institute of Education (NIE).

Two supplementary questions. Looking at the figures that were given to me in a written answer by the Minister yesterday, the teacher-student ratio in MOE kindergartens is 1:51. In the MCD childcare centres, it is 1:12. Is the Minister addressing this uneven ratio? What measures can be adopted to improve the quality of care? My second question is: MCD has announced a higher requirement for childcare personnel in October last year. Is this requirement applicable also to MOE kindergarten personnel? The Minister has said that she has just led a Steering Committee on teacher training programme and accreditation matters. Why are there two sets of guidelines? For the purpose of efficient management and consistency of standards in pre-school education, is it not possible to envisage setting up an agency with an over-arching authority to look into matters of child education so that all the childcare centres, whether it is under MOE or MCD, will have a consistent standard? Why set up an Inter-Ministry task force? Why not have one agency that is the over-arching body?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are aware of the teacher-student ratio in pre-school centres being not at the optimal. One of the tasks of the Steering Committee is to look at how to improve pre-school education, where possible, by reducing class size. But I must emphasise that class size is not the only factor that goes into what defines good quality pre-school education. We will take a holistic picture of the problem. Yes, MCD has announced higher qualifications for its childcare centre supervisors to be effective within five years. So part of the Steering Committee's work is also to look into how we could raise the qualification requirement for kindergarten teachers and supervisors. As to her question whether there should be one single agency to be in charge of childcare as well as pre-school education, for the moment I cannot think of an agency that should have such a narrow portfolio. It is best for us to work closely in coordination with MCD to see how the two sectors can be interlinked in a much more satisfactory or seamless manner. But I must also say that the requirements for childcare, even the training requirement, the philosophical and develop- mental aspects of children aged from 18 months to 3 years, are somewhat different from the requirements of children aged 3 years to 6 years. At the moment, these are under two different Ministries. We are looking into how we can coordinate and synchronise matters better.

Sir, with regard to pre-school education, has the Ministry found the need to establish neighbourhood libraries for pre-schoolers to teach them to read at an early age? Secondly, is there a problem in the teaching of English to children from non-English speaking families?

Sir, I think the question of neighbourhood libraries has been raised by Mr Chiam over and over again in the House. These are an extension of the National Library, and they are not exclusively for pre-school children. They are the combined effort of the National Library together with the Community Development Councils. So it is not really within the purview of the Ministry of Education. To answer Mr Chiam's question whether there is any problem of teaching English to children coming from non-English speaking homes, given the linguistic background of the population, where some children come from English-speaking homes, and others from non English-speaking homes, there will always be a problem either way. As I said, one of the terms of reference of the Steering Committee is to look into the curriculum development. So we will see how our bilingual teaching can be improved in pre-school centres.

Sir, I am not bringing up this issue of neighbourhood library to score a political point. I am talking strictly from the educational point of view. Has the Ministry discovered from the educational point of view whether there is a need to establish libraries that are close by and accessible to pre-schoolers to teach them to read? Is there such a finding? Secondly, I understand that many children from non English-speaking families still do not master the English language at the end of their education in school. So this is a problem. Has the Ministry found out such a problem?

From the Ministry of Education's point of view, libraries, of course, are good things for children. We have not found out, in the sense of making in-depth studies, the language learning difficulties faced by children at the pre-school age. Hitherto, this sector has been under the private sector and the community sector. But this is also one of the issues the Committee will be looking at, through a pilot research study, and if Members are interested to know about this study, they could file some questions during the Committee of Supply.

asked the Minister for Education whether the increased intake of foreign students will in any way reduce the absolute numbers of the intake of local students.

Mr Speaker, the intake of foreign students into our schools and junior colleges does not reduce the absolute numbers of the intake of local students. All eligible local students are assured of a school place in our educational institutions. For primary, secondary and pre-U institutions, local students are given priority in placement over the foreign students. All Singaporean students who qualify for admission to our institutes of higher learning (IHLs) will also not be deprived of a place at our IHLs. The increase in the intake of foreign students constitutes part of the IHLs' expansion plans, and is not at the expense of our local students. Between 1990 and 1999, the number of university places given to local students for undergraduate study increased from 6,600 to 8,600. Similarly, the number of polytechnic places given to local students rose from 9,100 in 1990 to 15,900 in 1999. By 1999, there are sufficient places for 21% of the age cohort to enter university and 39% to enter the polytechnics. Between 1990 and 1999, we were able to create another 1,500 university places and 1,200 polytechnic places for foreign students over this 10-year period. These foreign students were admitted on top of the local student intake. The IHLs have been careful to ensure that the quality of the foreign students admitted is on average higher than that of the local students, so that their presence adds to the vibrancy of the academic environment and increase the quality of education at the IHLs.

Sir, I would like to find out for the institutes of higher learning, what percentage of these foreign students come from the first world and the rest of the world. That is the first question. The second question is this. I understand that the Minister of State said that 60% of the cohort go to institutes of higher learning. I want to find out if we include our students that go overseas, what would that percentage be.

I am sorry I do not have the figures or the breakdown of the country of origin of the foreign students. But I would say the majority of them are from countries like China, India and the ASEAN countries. As for his question about the cohort participation rate in our institutions of higher learning, if we include those who go overseas, I think the figure would be anything between 25% and 27%. But please note that we do not have the exact figures on those who go overseas to study because they are not obliged to tell us.

asked the Minister for the Environment (a) whether Singapore's low ranking in the pilot environmental sustainability index (PESI) devised by a group of environmentalists picked by the World Economic Forum is a fair and accurate representation of Singapore's environment; (b) what is his Ministry's response to the findings under the PESI; and (c) what programmes and measures, if any, will his Ministry implement to improve our scores under the various indicators used in the PESI.

asked the Minister for the Environment (a) what is his response to Singapore being ranked "lower than expected" in a "pilot environmental sustainability index" (PESI); and (b) what measures will be taken to improve on the range of environmental indicators in the index.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have permission to answer Questions 8 and 9 together?

Yes.

The "Pilot Environmental Sustainability Index" or PESI has been designed to measure environmental sustainability on a pilot basis. It attempts to measure the ability of economies to achieve environmentally sustainable development. The inaugural report on the index was released at the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland on 31st January this year. The index comprises five components: (i) Environmental systems; (ii) Environmental stresses; (iii) Human vulnerability to environmental impacts; (iv) Social and institutional capacity; and (v) Global stewardship. The score for the `environmental systems' component is determined largely by urban air quality, water quality, surface and ground water resources and biodiversity. We are strong in urban air quality and water quality, but as a small city state, we are not endowed with plentiful surface and ground water resources nor able to support wide areas of biodiversity, and was rated below average in this component. The score for the component on `environmental stresses' is determined by the amount of air and water pollutants discharged, waste production, consumption and population growth relative to land area. With our high degree of industrialisation and high population density, we do not expect to be rated highly for this component. The score for the `human vulnerability to environmental impacts' component is determined by the success in providing basic sustenance such as safe drinking water and a high standard of public health. Singapore has fared well in this component, coming in third after Iceland and Germany. The score for `social and institutional capacity' component is determined by the science and technical capacity, environmental regulation and management, the means to track environmental conditions and eco efficiency in terms of energy efficiency and the use of hydroelectric and renewable energy. Our score for this component was above average. The score for the last component `global stewardship' is determined by our contribution to international cooperation such as our membership in Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the status of national biodiversity strategies and action plans. The FSC is an international non-governmental organisation that promotes sustainable forestry management. The component also includes an assessment of forest areas certified by the FSC as well as carbon dioxide emission. The low score given to Singapore for this component is attributed to factors such as our relatively high carbon dioxide emission as we are fully dependent on fossil fuel, and our lack of forest areas that could be certified by the FSC. The inaugural report released in Davos took care to highlight an anomaly in the case of Singapore, namely, that we scored far lower than expected in the `environmental stresses' component. The report explained that the anomaly for Singapore was: `probably a function of the fact that, as a city state, it possesses a qualitatively different environmental context than the other economies, all of which possess more conventional mixes of urban and rural areas and a greater diversity of ecosystems'. The variables for the `environmental stresses' component are largely based on land area. For example, for air pollution, the variables express industrial emissions and the number of vehicles in terms of per unit of land area of a country. Likewise, for water pollution, the variable for industrial organic pollutants is expressed in terms of per unit of land area. This puts countries such as Singapore with small land areas and intensive use of land at a disadvantage under the system. The inaugural report stressed the preliminary nature of the pilot effort and added that the methods used are experimental. It also added that considerable work is needed to produce a more refined index. My Ministry will provide the originators of the pilot index with more information concerning our environment protection efforts to assist in refining the index so that it is more applicable to small, industrialised countries like Singapore. I would like to assure the House that over the years, Singapore has received many international accolades for having managed our living environment well in spite of our limited resources, and considerable pressures from urbanisation and industrialisation. My Ministry's programmes will ensure that Singaporeans will continue to enjoy a quality living environment with clean air, clean water and high standards of environmental public health.

Sir, does the Minister see the Environment Council playing a collaborative role in designing and implementing some of these measures that the Ministry is looking into?

Yes, my Ministry welcomes contributions from the Council as well as from other interested individuals.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will give an update on the privatised scheme for enforcement of vehicle parking traffic violations.

Sir, a total of 12,135 parking violation notices were issued in November and December under the Traffic Warden Scheme, which has been in operation for about three months now. Traffic Police assesses that the illegal parking problem in the 38 locations covered by the Scheme has improved. Traffic flows better in most areas, as many motorists are deterred from waiting and parking in these areas by the presence of the traffic wardens. Sir, public concerns, when the Scheme was first launched, over the competence and objectivity of the traffic wardens have been allayed. The traffic wardens, who were trained by Traffic Police, have performed up to expectations. They are responsible for serving parking violation notices. Traffic Police continues to issue the summonses, determine the fines and hear appeals. Traffic Police will continue to monitor the performance of the wardens closely and conduct monthly audits of the scheme with CISCO to ensure that high standards are maintained. The Traffic Warden Scheme will be extended to more locations if it sustains its promising start. This will help free up precious Police manpower and enable Traffic Police to devote more resources to act against moving traffic offences, which pose a greater threat to public safety than static offences such as illegal parking.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Government intends to pass laws giving protection to consumers such as the Fair Trading Act 1986 and the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 of New Zealand, and, if so, when.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's approach to consumer protection is to educate consumers while enabling the market to operate as efficiently as possible, regulating only where necessary. Encouraging competition and increasing access to a range of goods and services enable consumers to make their own decisions from a menu of choices. This is the best way to increase consumer welfare. The policy has served us well. In areas where protection is necessary, for example, to safeguard health, safety or public morals, there are already existing legislation. Specific offences of cheating and certain forms of fraudulent trades are also covered in the Penal Code and other legislation. We must avoid over-regulating. First, legislative and regulatory requirements on businesses carry with them compliance costs. This will increase business costs generally that would ultimately be passed on to consumers. Second, we must also avoid excessive dependence by consumers on Government regulation. Otherwise, legislation would have to keep expanding in scope and coverage to cover all possible cases of cheating and unfair trade practices. In the end, the best principle must be let the buyer beware - this is the caveat emptor principle. We believe that --- 1.30 pm

Order. End of Question time. [Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Written Answer to Question No. 11 on the Order Paper is reproduced in the "Oral Answers t Questions Not Reached" (Cols 1051-2). Question Nos. 12 to 27 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 25th February 2000.]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, globalisation has produced immense benefits and rapid development to countries around the world. However, one side effect is that serious crimes are no longer confined within national boundaries. The reduction of trade restrictions, the increasing ease with which people and goods cross national borders, the global reach of telecommunications and financial systems, all of these present opportunities to criminals to extend their activities beyond national borders. The same forces that make possible today's rapid international trade can be exploited and are exploited by criminals to extend their criminal activities and influences across countries. Without an effective network of international cooperation in the war against transnational crimes, criminal organisations will be able to exploit the differences and dislocations caused by national borders to their advantage and defy the individual efforts of national authorities to deal with them. This Bill before the House today signals Singapore's commitment to be part of the wider international network of cooperation in combating crime on a global scale. This is not the first time that we have enacted legal provisions for international mutual assistance in criminal matters. In 1993, we enacted the Drug Trafficking (Confiscation of Benefits) Act with mechanisms for mutual assistance built in to help in the fight against international drug money-laundering. Last year, Members will recall we extended that legislation scope to cover laundering of the proceeds of other serious crimes and we renamed it the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act. With that extension, we widened the scope of the mutual assistance provisions in the Act to cover mutual assistance in the context of serious offences other than drug trafficking. The Bill before us today builds on these previous efforts by consolidating the existing mutual assistance provisions and providing for more forms of assistance currently not available under our laws. It follows closely on the heels of the amendments last year, as part of the Government's progressive move towards building a wider framework for international legal assistance in the fight against crime. There is an increasing international trend towards enacting comprehensive mutual legal assistance legislation. We see this in the laws of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong, to name but a few. In fact, during the Plenary of the Financial Action Task Force last year, Singapore was encouraged to enact a dedicated mutual assistance law. It is in keeping with our role as a member of the Financial Action Task Force to act on this suggestion and to propose this Bill to this House. This Bill not only facilitates the provision of legal assistance by Singapore to foreign authorities, it will also enhance the legal arsenal at the disposal of our law enforcement agencies in fighting transnational crime. For example, our law enforcement agencies have in the past faced problems in getting witnesses from other jurisdictions to come to Singapore to give evidence. This has hampered their investigations in some cases. The Bill before us will allow them to receive such assistance. It will help to facilitate the work of our enforcement agencies. Overview of the Bill Sir, let me now take the House through the main provisions of the Bill. The Bill has four parts. Part 2 deals with the requests for assistance made by Singapore to foreign countries. Part 3 deals with the requests for assistance to Singapore by foreign countries. Parts 1 and 4 deal with general issues which are common to both requests by Singapore to foreign countries and foreign countries to Singapore. The Bill marks out the extent and forms of assistance which Singapore is prepared to give, the pre-conditions to be met before such assistance is given, and the conditions governing the rendering of such assistance. It also provides the legal framework for Singapore to request and receive assistance from other countries. This Bill does not deal with extradition. All requests for extradition and assistance leading to extradition, will continue to be handled under the provisions of the Extradition Act. Clause 5 of the Bill makes that very clear. The Bill will also not affect the system of informal cooperation currently existing between our law enforcement agencies and other law enforcement agencies as well as international organisations, such as Interpol. Assistance under the Bill may be obtained or provided for criminal investigations, criminal proceedings in court, and seizure or confiscation of proceeds or instrumentalities of crime. The Bill imposes no restrictions on which country Singapore may request assistance from. When it comes to the provision of assistance to foreign countries, the Bill distinguishes between assistance involving coercive measures, such as, for example, search warrants and those not involving coercive measures, for example, service of documents. Assistance which does not involve coercive measures may be provided to any country. On the other hand, assistance which involves coercive measures may only be provided to a country which has a mutual legal assistance treaty with Singapore. For these measures, the Bill merely lays down the framework for Singapore to enter into a mutual legal assistance treaty with other countries for the provision of assistance. Therefore, whether assistance can be provided will depend on the existence of a treaty. Just as extradition is not automatic but is conditional on the existence of an extradition treaty, it is also consistent with international practice to condition the use of a State's coercive powers on the existence of a mutual legal assistance treaty, sometimes referred to as MLAT in short. The requirement for a treaty will allow Singapore to set conditions for giving of assistance and provide safeguards against abuses by other countries. Let me point out at this stage that there is one exception to this distinction between coercive and non-coercive measures. This relates to the provision on taking testimony in Singapore courts for use in foreign proceedings (clause 21). This is because this form of assistance is already currently available under section 43 of the Extradition Act, without the requirement for mutual legal assistance treaty and we do not wish to upset a practice which has been in place for many years. Sir, the list of offences for which assistance may be obtained or provided for under the Bill is the same as the list currently applicable under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (or CDSA for short). The Bill provides that the Attorney-General will be the authority for requesting assistance from other countries and receiving requests for assistance from other countries. Request by Singapore As far as requests by Singapore are concerned, under the Bill, Singapore can ask for a number of different forms of assistance from a foreign country. The first form of assistance involves obtaining of evidence - that is, asking a foreign country to take evidence in that country, including obtaining the testimony of witnesses as well as seizing physical evidence, photographs, documents, and transmit them to Singapore for use in legal proceedings. The second form of assistance is in arranging for the voluntary attendance of persons in Singapore as witnesses in legal proceedings or to assist in criminal investigations. Clause 11 gives the assurance that a person who comes to Singapore under this provision will, during the period of his stay in Singapore for the purpose requested, be immune from prosecution or civil suit for anything which he has done before leaving the foreign country to come to Singapore. The third form of assistance is to request a foreign country to enforce a Singapore confiscation order. Fourthly, a request could be made to a foreign country to assist in locating or identifying a person who could be of assistance in criminal investigations or proceedings or who could be affected by such investigations or proceedings. Finally, a request can be made to a foreign country for service of Singapore court documents in that country. However, the existence of these provisions in our law does not mean that any foreign country will be automatically obliged to accede to our requests. Whether the foreign country will accede to our request will depend on the provisions of that country's laws. Just as we require the existence of a mutual legal assistance treaty before providing some forms of this assistance, the country to which we make a request may similarly impose a condition of rendering assistance upon the existence of prior arrangements or understanding with Singapore concerning mutual legal assistance. Essentially, Sir, what these provisions do is to establish that the Attorney-General has the legal authority to make such requests on behalf of Singapore. Request to Singapore Turning to requests which may be made by foreign countries to Singapore, the forms of assistance which Singapore can request are also the forms of assistance which Singapore can provide under the Bill. As I explained earlier, some of these provisions of giving assistance by Singapore, like those concerning search warrants and production orders, are only enabling provisions. Whether assistance can be invoked in any particular case will depend on whether there is a mutual legal assistance treaty between Singapore and the requesting country. Of the various forms of assistance which Singapore can provide, assistance concerning production orders, search warrants and enforcement of foreign confiscation orders are already provided for in the CDSA. As I mentioned just now, these mutual assistance provisions in the CDSA will be repealed and moved into this Bill. Assistance in the taking of evidence is also not new, as it is now provided for under section 43 of the Extradition Act. Similarly, section 43 will be repealed and moved into the Bill as clause 21. This consolidation will now provide a convenient one-stop source of reference of the provisions for mutual assistance in criminal matters in our law. Safeguards built into the Bill Let me turn to the safeguards which have been built into the Bill. While we are willing to provide assistance to foreign authorities in appropriate circumstances, obviously there must be safeguards in place to prevent abuses of our willingness to assist and to prevent unnecessary intrusion by foreign authorities into the privacy of our businesses and individuals. Many safeguards are therefore built into the Bill. I shall briefly explain the main safeguards. The first safeguard of course is the limited list of offences for which assistance is available. As I mentioned before, this list is tied to the list of offences under the CDSA. Limiting the list of offences for which assistance can be provided ensures that assistance is given only for the offences which are considered to be sufficiently serious in nature. The second safeguard is the requirement for mutual legal assistance treaty for certain forms of assistance, which I have already mentioned, and can be described as coercive in nature. A related safeguard is that a request will be declined if it does not comply with the conditions laid down in the applicable treaty. To ensure that requests are not made unnecessarily, it is provided that the Attorney-General will not honour a request if the thing requested is not of sufficient importance to the investigation of criminal proceedings, or could reasonably be obtained by other means. To avoid information or evidence obtained pursuant to a request from being used subsequently for other purposes, it is provided that a request will be declined if the requesting state fails to give an undertaking that the thing requested will not be used for purposes other than those for which the request was made. Finally, there is a general power to decline a request if the provision of assistance could prejudice a local investigation or criminal proceeding or would prejudice the safety of any person or if it is not in the public interest to provide the assistance. Miscellaneous amendment to CDSA Before I end, I should mention that the Bill also seeks to insert a new section 39A into the CDSA. This will empower Suspicious Transactions Reporting Officers in the Commercial Affairs Department to share information with foreign financial intelligence units. Safeguards have been built into section 39A such that the sharing of information is conditional on there being an arrangement between the financial intelligence units of Singapore and the foreign country. Conclusion Sir, in conclusion, let me say that this Bill will enhance the legal arsenal at the disposal of law enforcement agencies. It will also enable Singapore to play its part in the wider international efforts to combat transnational crimes. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Sir, I rise to support the Bill. In preface to that, I am sure Members of this House will remember that the whole world was waiting with bated breath on the eve of the New Year, 31st December 1999, when we thought that if the millennium bug did not get us, the other viruses will. In the end, happily, it was a non-event, though many, especially those in the computer departments must have thought that there were better ways to spend the millennium eve than to sit in one's office, watching computer screens. Sir, this example shows how we entered this new millennium, this new century, feeling very vulnerable. Crime knows no borders and criminals these days are as much into globalisation as any self-respecting industry. It is the same for those who are engaged in other crimes and who use computers, for example, to facilitate their nefarious affairs, such as money laundering and the like. It is therefore imperative that we have in place legislation that would allow our prosecutors to cooperate with their counterparts in other countries. Indeed, such legislation is not just timely, but overdue. Be that as it may, we observe the rule of law and once this Bill is passed, we will have in place the legislation needed for us to seek assistance from others in a variety of ways - to collect evidence, to look for witnesses, to enforce confiscation orders and so on. Sir, I have several issues that I hope the Minister can clarify in this debate. The first has to do with the effect of this Bill on the process of extradition. According to clause 5, the Bill does not authorise extradition, and any arrest or detention associated with it. At the same time, Part III of the Bill, which the Minister has referred to, deals with requests made by other countries to Singapore for assistance. This may conceivably be used to request the attendance of a person from Singapore and if that person were to go, he may find himself subjected to other charges that neither the Attorney-General nor he was informed about. I should like to ask the Minister to confirm to the House that the safeguards provided in this Bill would not be used as a back door to extradition, and that adequate safeguards are indeed in place to prevent this. Would he also confirm that extradition remains the main process through which alleged criminals are extradited to other countries?

The second issue I have concerns the use of evidence, once obtained from abroad. Clause 8(3) allows evidence from abroad to be admitted, subject to the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. Such evidence may include, according to the clause, things or photos or copies of things. However, unlike statements contained in things, there is no provision on how to authenticate and evaluate this evidence. If a statement is involved, then the Court is under a duty to see whether it is possible to challenge the statement by questioning the maker. It is also to take into account whether legal representation was available to the maker at the time the statement was made. One example of the problem could be in relation to the case of things or objects. It is usually required in Singapore that the person adducing any thing or object should show the "chain of evidence" from the time the object was seized to the time it was produced in Court. Thus, for example, if a packet of heroin was seized, say, in Jakarta, and if that packet were to be used in evidence here in Singapore, there should be a record from the time it was seized to the time it was produced in Court to avoid the danger of fabrication or misuse of evidence. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Attorney-General and other prosecuting authorities would take the utmost care in using evidence obtained from abroad in Singapore courts. It must satisfy the rules of production in Singapore courts, and that this clause does not, without more, justify the admission of evidence without proper authentication. My third issue relates to the immunities and privileges of a person whose presence is requested through the Bill. It is whether the immunities and privileges go too far in certain respects, and not far enough in others. Under clause 11(a), the person whose presence is required shall not "be detained, prosecuted or punished in Singapore for any offence that is alleged to have been committed, or that was committed, before the person's departure from the foreign country.". So a person who has committed a crime in Singapore flees to another country, and then requested to come back to give evidence, say, against his accomplice, would not be prosecuted while he is returning under this provision. Could the Ministry clarify that this is indeed the position? I now refer to clause 11(2) which withdraws the protection under subclause (1) if the person has left Singapore or the person has the opportunity to leave but remained in Singapore for a purpose unrelated to the purpose for which his presence was required. Thus, if after the case, the person were to stay back a day to catch a later flight, and at the same time, do a bit of shopping, it seems that technically, it would be regarded as having had the opportunity to leave, but has remained in Singapore for another purpose, and therefore, the immunities no longer apply. I bring out this somewhat casual example to ask whether in such instances, we intend to stick to the letter of the law, or its spirit. Could we expect other countries to be also flexible in their approach, and not apply such technicalities when it comes to Singapore persons who voluntarily go to the country requesting their presence? Next, I refer to the wide authority of the Attorney-General to request the presence of a person in Singapore from a foreign country. Clause 9 states that the Attorney-General may make a request to secure a person's attendance if "there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person in a foreign country is capable of giving evidence or assistance relevant to a criminal matter involving a Singapore offence." Does this broad authority extend to helping defence counsel, for example, in procuring alibi witnesses? Or is it the case that the procedures under this Bill would only be used to aid in prosecutions? Finally, Sir, I refer to the wide discretion given to the Attorney-General to delegate his powers under the Bill to any public officer under clause 43. I wonder whether in relation to such serious matters, the discretion should be so wide. Surely, it would have been more appropriate to limit the delegable authority to someone who is in a senior position in the Legal Service.

I wish to reiterate that I do support the Bill, and that it marks a significant step in the fight against international crime. I hope, however, that the Minister can assure the Members of this House that such powers, as are conferred by the Bill, would be properly used, and that care will always be taken when the life, liberty or property of an individual, whether foreign or local, is at stake.

Sir, I thank you for allowing me to seek clarifications from the Minister. Firstly, I support the Bill and since there is globalisation, crime has also globalised, I think this Bill is very useful. However, I just want to ask whether this Bill will be used in the case of trafficking in people, especially women and children. There is an increase in these crimes worldwide and will this Bill address that problem. And secondly, will this Bill be used even in cases where there are unscrupulous employment agents who, we know that happens in Singapore, also bring in foreign workers illegally on promises of employment here? Will these be classified as serious crimes and will this Bill be applicable?

Sir, I thank Prof. Chin Tet Yung and Mr Thomas Thomas for their support of the Bill. Let me take the questions which they pose. First, I will deal with the questions raised by Prof. Chin Tet Yung. Prof. Chin asked about extradition and whether this could be used as a back door route of extradition. He is right in pointing out that this Bill does not deal with extradition, as I have stressed in my speech. All requests for extradition and assistance leading to extradition would continue to be handled under the provisions of the Extradition Act. This is made clear in clause 5. In fact, let me point out that in respect of requesting the assistance of people to come from foreign countries and foreign countries regarding assistance from Singaporeans to go there to give evidence, the Bill makes it clear that it is dependent on their consent. So, this Bill therefore does not deal with compulsory handing over of witness or person who can give assistance. And it also has not got anything to do with charging a person for any offence in this country or the other country with respect to mutual assistance. Prof. Chin asked if we could compel the attendance of a person as a way of obtaining extradition by the back door. I do not think there is any scope for achieving extradition by the back door. Under clause 26, it makes it clear that the Attorney-General would not arrange for the attendance of a person overseas unless the foreign authority gives adequate undertakings to the Attorney-General. One of these undertakings, and it is spelt out in clause 26(3)(a)(i), is that that person will not be charged for any offence which he may have committed before he leaves Singapore for a foreign country. This will ensure that a person who travels overseas and has agreed to travel overseas under clause 26 would not be charged for any pervious offence while he is in a foreign country. That is an important safeguard. Prof. Chin asked about immunity. If you look at clause 11, it is clear that for the whole time that a person is here in Singapore, pursuant to a request under clause 9, he cannot be charged for any offence he had committed before he left the foreign country to come to Singapore and I confirm that that is the intention. Let me give an example so that Members will understand the purport of such a safeguard. A person may have committed an offence in Singapore some time ago and may be living in a foreign country. If we need him to come to Singapore to help with the investigation of another crime, or to give evidence in a trial concerning some other accused, naturally, he will be reluctant to do so, for fear that he would be prosecuted for his previous offence once he comes to Singapore. This may not serve the interest of justice as this witness' evidence could be valuable and another criminal could walk free if we fail to get his assistance. When the Bill becomes law, the witness will be willing to come to Singapore as clause 11 will give him immunity if he comes at the request of the Attorney-General, but the immunity is only temporary. Once a witness leaves Singapore, the immunity ceases to apply and we could prosecute him if he comes back again on his own volition. Of course, if there is an extradition arrangement in place, we can also ask for his extradition at a later time. The key is that during the period, he is here for the purpose of which assistance was sought and he had agreed to come. I should also clarify that the immunity only applies to offences committed by the person before he begins his journey to Singapore. If he commits a crime when he is in Singapore during that period to give assistance, it is a different story and the immunity will not apply. Prof. Chin also asked a related point, about the point of time when the immunity is deemed withdrawn. He gave examples. He is supposed to leave but he goes shopping and so on. Let me say that all these provisions on mutual assistance will work only if the countries concerned exercise them in good faith and some common sense. Because if we apply these provisions in a very unrealistic and unreasonable manner, then, of course, since these matters depend on reciprocity, we can expect that other countries also not to act in good faith. So, international assistance and cooperation in legal and law enforcement matters is predicated upon countries working in good faith. Otherwise, international cooperation will break down. So I guess if it is one day's shopping, our law enforcement authorities are not going to unreasonably pounce on him for his previous offence. Prof. Chin also asked a point concerning the reliability of evidence received from overseas, and the example he gave about scrutinising chain of evidence, packet of heroin seized in another country and so on. I think it goes without saying that all evidence received under clause 8 will have to be assessed by our court for relevance, admissibility, reliability and weight. All evidence received from overseas, therefore, will have to be subject to the same rules of evidence as evidence obtained locally, a point which Prof. Chin was concerned about. It is not the intention that evidence received from overseas authorities will be scrutinised any less critically than evidence obtained locally. Let me add that a statement can be used against a witness only if it is inconsistent with the testimony of the witness. If the statement is inconsistent with the testimony of the witness and the intention is not to use the statement against the witness, then the Bill neither authorises nor prohibits its use. He spoke about the ambit of the Attorney-General's discretion to make requests to other countries, and he asked whether this would include accommodating requests by defence counsel in various cases. He is right that the Bill provides that only the Attorney-General can make a request to a foreign country for assistance. Let me say that the primary intention of this Bill is to facilitate criminal investigations and the prosecution of offenders. In fact, this is so for legislation enacted by other countries also. That is the primary intention. Having said that, let me say that there is, of course, nothing in the Bill to prevent the Attorney-General from making a request to obtain evidence in the aid of the defence in a particular case. In answer to Prof. Chin's question, let me say that I am sure the Attorney-General will give due consideration to any request from defence counsel to invoke the Attorney-General's discretion to request assistance from a foreign country. But I do not wish to give the impression that defence counsel should be freely making such requests, or that the Attorney-General will frequently agree to all these requests to approach foreign countries. Why do I say that? It is because I foresee that even requests in aid of the prosecution will be made very sparingly, because in mutual legal assistance arrangement, such requests are not routinely made. They are made in very serious cases, because a lot of effort on the part of the law enforcement authorities and quite a lot of resources have to be spent to accommodate the request of a foreign country. So, each request which Singapore makes to a foreign country does impose a strain on the resources of a foreign country and vice versa. Just as we have given the Attorney-General the right to decline to deal with trivial, unsubstantiated or unnecessary requests from foreign countries, I should think that we ourselves would not want to make such a request in a routine manner. Otherwise, we may lose credibility and goodwill internationally, and other countries may not deal with our requests promptly or seriously. Prof. Chin also dealt with power of delegation. It is obvious that there has to be a power of delegation. And if we look at the destination table of the different models from which we have borrowed some of these provisions, the Australian legislation has power of delegation. Let me say, in answer to his concern, that delegation will be made only to officers of sufficient seniority to make appropriate decisions. As to why it is not confined only to senior members of the legal service, as he knows, in our system, we have the legal service, the police, the CID, maybe CPIB and others. Many law enforcement agencies are involved and I think we should give the discretion to the Attorney-General in a particular case to harness the resources of the appropriate department, other than the legal service itself. Finally, in answer to Prof. Chin's request for an assurance, I do wish to assure him that the powers under this Bill, of course, will be properly used, and that is our intention to do so. Our main objective of this Bill is to facilitate obtaining of evidence and testimony from overseas with the objective of assisting the efficiency of our own law enforcement and criminal investigations and prosecution. In doing so, there is no intention whatsoever of lowering standards or to allow unreliable evidence to be used. Just as we are interested in securing the conviction of a criminal, it is equally important that we avoid wrongful conviction of innocent people. I would also like to thank Mr Thomas for his support of the Bill. He had two questions. First, whether this Bill would enable us to request mutual assistance from other countries in tackling offences on trafficking in women and children. Upon perusing the list of offences namely, the list in the CDSA, I note some of these offences are clearly listed, such as offences relating to prostitution, trafficking in women and girls, importation of women or girls by false pretences, causing and encouraging prostitution, intercourse with indecent assaults. They are covered. His other point is whether the Bill also enables mutual assistance in prosecuting unscrupulous foreign agents with respect to foreign illegal workers. My quick perusal of the list does not show that this specific offence is covered. Why? I think the answer is that our Penal Code and our other legislation have hundreds of offences. Usually, when we devise a list of offences for the purposes of extradition, confiscation orders or mutual assistance, we will have to narrow them down to offences which are very likely to be considered as serious offences in other countries. This does not mean that we view the offence of exploitation of workers by foreign employment agencies to be any less serious, but we have to be selective. I think not all other countries view the problem with the same gravity as Singapore. So they may not list it as an extraditable offence or as an offence in their mutual legal assistance. Of course, these matters are not cast in stone. Situations may vary. More and more countries may face the same problem and it could well be that this could be a candidate for mutual legal assistance at a later date.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 2.15 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill before the House seeks to establish a Developmental Investment Fund to facilitate developmental investments by the Government. It also seeks to make consequential amendments to the Development Fund Act and the External Loans Act. Rationale The Government has identified the need to strengthen Singapore's competitive position to meet the challenges posed by a rapidly changing global competitive landscape. Towards this end, capabilities in the more knowledge-intensive parts of the value chain have to be developed. Our human resources must be enhanced and our science and technological capabilities upgraded to allow us to achieve our objective of becoming an advanced and globally competitive knowledge economy within the next decade. The Government has, over the years, been undertaking a host of developmental investments aimed at enhancing, either directly or indirectly, the economic growth, employment opportunities and general welfare of Singapore. An example of such developmental investments would be the US$1 billion Technopreneurship Investment Fund (TIF) announced in April last year. Currently, only investments made with the primary purpose of deriving some interest, income or profit are permissible under the Financial Procedure Act. As a result, investments with developmental objectives such as the TIF have to be funded under the Development Budget and therefore treated under the Government's cash accounting system as expenditure, rather than investments. The Government has thus decided to establish a new fund, the Developmental Investment Fund (DIF) to finance developmental investments. This would allow the investment nature of these developmental investments to be properly reflected. The investments will not be treated as straight expenditure, which would be the case if the investments continue to be funded through the Development Fund. This would allow the better accounting and management of public moneys invested by the Government for developmental purposes. The DIF will be limited to investments where returns are clearly required and expected. Normal development expenditure and development loans will continue to be funded through the Development Fund. Specific provisions of the Bill I shall now proceed to explain the specific key provisions of the Bill, which are: Clause 3: Sources of funds for the DIF The DIF shall receive capital sums mainly out of transfers from the Consolidated Fund which are approved by Parliament, or through loan proceeds. Clause 4: Purposes of the DIF The DIF can only be used to form companies, acquire securities in public authorities and corporations or otherwise invest, for any developmental purposes. Section 7(3) of the Financial Procedure Act will not apply to the developmental investments made under the DIF. Clauses 5 and 6: Responsibility for the DIF The general responsibility for the DIF will rest with the Minister for Finance. Other Ministers may be assigned responsibility over accounts within the DIF, but the Minister for Finance will remain overall responsible for the control, supervision and management of the DIF. All the Ministers will have to establish and adhere to investment policies and standards that a reasonable prudent person would adopt to reduce risk, ensure reasonable returns and the achievement of specific developmental objectives. Clause 10: Raising of loans The Minister for Finance will be empowered under the DIF Act to raise loans of a sum not exceeding in the whole S$10 billion. Parliament may by resolution, and with the President's concurrence for the resolution, raise this loan limit. Clause 18: Financial Statements Annual financial statements of the DIF will have to be prepared at the end of each financial year, and submitted to the Auditor-General. The audited financial statements and auditor's report will be presented to Parliament. Clause 21: Consequential Amendments The Bill also makes the following consequential amendments to the Development Fund Act (Chapter 80 of the 1995 Revised Edition) and the External Loans Act (Chapter 102 of the 1985 Revised Edition): Amendment to the Schedule to the Development Fund Act (Cap.80) With the amendment, investments in securities for developmental purposes will cease to be annually appropriated from the Development Fund by Parliament as expenditure in a Supply or Supplementary Supply Bill. Funding for such activities will instead be met from the new Developmental Investment Fund. Amendment to the External Loans Act (Cap. 102) This amendment will allow loans to be raised outside Singapore for purposes of the Developmental Investment Fund. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

I would just like to have some clarification from the Minister. Would the Minister explain what does he mean by "developmental purpose" and what sort of investment is considered investment for developmental purpose?

As I have explained, we have special funds assigned to the Economic Development Board, the Cluster Development Fund, and the Technopreneurship Investment Fund. These are monies invested in companies or individuals which have a purpose of developing new industries or new companies to generate future profits for Singapore. These are monies which will be spent for the purpose of developing a particular activity which is expected to generate returns. Under the normal Development Fund in our Budget, the development expenditures would be monies which are expensed in the current year, like expenditures in building up infrastructure, buildings and so forth which have value but not spent specifically for purposes of generating profit. So we want to separate the two types of development expenditures. The development investment type would be financed over a period of time depending on the nature of the activity. On the other hand, development expenditure for basic infrastructure, such as monies spent on reclamation of the foreshores of Jurong Island, is expected to provide basic infrastructure for use in Singapore in the future and these would be charged against the development fund and expensed the year in which it is spent. That is the basic difference.

A further clarification. In other words, we would be expecting a reasonable return from the developmental investment.

Yes, indeed.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 2.24 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Trade Unions Act (Cap 333) and its Regulations provide for the registration of trade unions and the regulation of their activities, including prudent management of union funds and the free and fair election of union officers. The Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill before the House today seeks to amend the Trade Unions Act to improve and update its provisions so that unions can carry out their roles and responsibilities more efficiently. The amendments and new provisions in the Bill will enhance unions' decision-making procedures to enable delegates in unions with large membership to make prompt decisions and also ensure that union appointments will better safeguard the interest of members. Recognising the widespread use of Information Technology, provisions will also be introduced to enable trade union records to be submitted and maintained electronically. The last major review of the Act was carried out in 1982. The 1982 amendment created the framework for trade unions to play a more constructive role by working closely with employers and the Government towards the raising of productivity and the promotion of economic growth. This has benefited our workers, employers and the economy of Singapore. The active engagement of trade unions in strengthening our economic competitiveness has brought enormous benefits to workers and contributed to their high standard of living and a better quality of life. Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, 2000 The views of the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore National Employers' Federation have been sought and, where appropriate, they have been incorporated into the amendments in this Bill. Sir, the details of the proposed amendments are covered in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill. I will now address the key features of the Bill. Delegates System Let me begin with the delegates system. Sir, the trade union movement in Singapore has bucked the worldwide trend of declining union membership by being able to maintain a steady growth in membership throughout the years. Over the last 10 years, union membership rose from 212,874 in 1989 to 289,707 in 1999, an increase of 36%. This increase did not come about by chance. The trade union movement under the leadership of the National Trades Union Congress works very hard to ensure that it stays relevant to meet the changing needs of the workforce, and to recruit and retain members through its vigorous recruitment campaigns. Smaller unions have reviewed their ability to expand membership and to serve the changing expectations and needs of members. Many have decided to merge with other unions to achieve critical mass and be transformed into more effective organisations to better serve the needs of their members. For example, the merger of the Jurong Shipyard Employees Union and Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Employees Union. As companies merge or restructure to enhance their competitiveness, their unions will also have to take similar actions. For example, when the Post Office Savings Bank was merged with DBS, the Post Office Savings Bank Employees Union and the Development Bank of Singapore Staff Union merged into one union. This trend of mergers is likely to continue in order to expand membership base and to better serve workers in related industries. Trade unions with large membership often provide in their union rules for the delegates to decide on various matters, as it would be inefficient and cumbersome for every such decision to be taken by all the members. These delegates are elected by the members of their union through a democratic process and have the confidence of members to safeguard their interest and well being. In these unions, decisions such as the election of union officers and the amendments to the union rules are taken by the delegates. Larger trade unions face administrative difficulties in the implementation of existing sections 33, 34 and section 47(2) of the Act. Under these provisions, the trade unions are required to seek the consent of their union members on a change in the name of the trade union, which is covered by section 33; amalgamation with other registered trade unions, which is covered by section 34, and the change in the use of union funds, which is covered by section 47(2). There is no provision in the law to allow decisions on these matters to be made by the delegates. In other words, the existing law requires that these three areas be decided upon by the general membership of each trade union. As the system of empowering delegates to make decisions on other affairs has worked well, we propose to extend the delegates' power to include decisions in the three areas which I have just mentioned. Hence, clause 2 of the Bill provides for a delegate system, including the definition of a "delegate" and how "requisite consent" can be sought to allow the delegates to make decisions on such matters. When a decision is made by the delegates, the number of union members involved in the process would inevitably be much smaller than having to convene a general meeting of the members of the unions. Hence, it would not be too onerous on the trade unions to require two-thirds majority when a decision is made through a vote by their delegates. Accordingly, clause 8 of the Bill repeals and re-enacts sections 33 and 34 of the Trade Unions Act to allow a trade union to seek the requisite consent from its delegates to change its name or to amalgamate with other unions. Clauses 9 and 12 will introduce consequential amendments arising from the introduction of the new provision to allow decisions to be taken by delegates. There are similar provisions in clause 2 of the Bill governing decisions made in these areas by a person, who is elected or appointed as a delegate to attend and vote at a meeting of a federation, on behalf of any of the constituent trade unions. Appointment of Union Officers Mr Speaker, Sir, over the years many trade unions have built up strong financial reserves as a result of prudent investments of surplus union funds in union co-operatives and other investments that are authorised by law for the investment of trust money. Trade union funds and assets actually belong to the members of the trade unions and it is important that they continue to be managed prudently by officers of the unions. It will therefore not be desirable for an undischarged bankrupt to become a union officer and manage the financial affairs of the union. Clause 7 of the Bill amends section 30 of the Trade Unions Act to disqualify an undischarged bankrupt from acting as a union officer. Appointment of Union Trustees Under the Act, all union properties, either movable or immovable, have to be controlled and vested in the trustees for the use and benefit of the union and its members. The appointment or election of the trustees and the filling of these vacancies are determined by the union rules. As unions accumulate financial reserves and other assets, the responsibilities of union trustees have become heavier. Clause 13 of the Bill amends section 43 of the Trade Unions Act to disqualify an undischarged bankrupt and a person convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty or any other offence, which renders him unfit from being a union trustee. We should ensure that only persons of unimpeachable character and integrity hold such important position in the unions. Freeze on Union Funds Sir, under the existing Act, the Minister is empowered to direct in writing a freeze on union funds during an investigation by a public authority into the improper use or misapplication of the funds of a trade union under section 16. However, the existing provision does not take into consideration funds that are kept in other financial institution besides banks. Clause 5 of the Bill addresses this inadequacy by amending section 16 of the Act to replace the word "bank" with the words "financial institution". The term "financial institution" has been defined to mean "a bank, a finance company or any co-operative society carrying on the business of managing and investing funds." It will ensure that when the situation calls for a freeze, all of a union's assets will be protected. Purchase of Land and Building Section 46 of the Trade Unions Act allows a trade union to purchase or lease in its trustees' name any land exceeding 4,047 square metres in size provided it has obtained the approval of the Minister. There is no compelling reason today for us to restrict purchases of land based on its plot-size. Hence, clause 14 of the Bill will repeal and re-enact section 46 of the Act to remove the requirement for Minister's approval in the purchase of land where the plot-size exceeds 4,047 square metres. It will also allow trade unions to purchase or lease any land or building outside Singapore provided the union has obtained the requisite consent of its members or delegates. It is necessary for the union to obtain a clear mandate before the purchase of an overseas property as such a purchase may carry a certain amount of risk due to economic and political uncertainties apart from foreign exchange fluctuations. Application of Union Funds Mr Speaker, Sir, section 47 of the Act prohibits a union from using money received from its members or (in the case of a federation) its constituent trade unions, for a purpose other than the purpose for which it is given. Clause 15 of the Bill amends section 47 of the Act to provide that it can do so where the requisite consent has been obtained from its members or delegates. This will provide greater scope for a union to utilise its reserves without compromising the interest of its members. Penalties Mr Speaker, Sir, it may sound a bit jarring in the light of peaceful industrial relations climate and the close co-operation prevailing between the tripartite partners, namely, the trade union representing the workers, employers and the Government, for us to talk about enhancing penalties imposed under the Trade Unions Act. However, we feel that it is timely for a thorough review so that the penalties imposed under the Act would reflect the severity of the offences. Those who have lived through the difficult periods of the 50s and 60s would recall that strikes were prevalent then. This resulted in the loss of thousands of otherwise productive man-days. The social disorder crippled the economy and caused tremendous hardship to the people. Although we have been almost strike-free for more than two decades, we should constantly guard against this brand of trade unionism so as to avoid its damaging effects. The penalties imposed under the Act had remained unchanged for many years and are now no longer comparable to those for offences of a similar nature found in other laws. Take, for example, the offence under section 27(3) of the Trade Unions Act where any union member who takes part in an illegal industrial action shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be fined a sum not exceeding $1,000. This offence is no less severe when compared to the offence under section 5(1) of the Trade Disputes Act (Cap. 331). Under this provision, ie, the Trade Disputes Act, any person who participates in an illegal industrial action can be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both. So you can see the discrepancy - a union member taking part in an illegal industrial action only faces a penalty of a maximum of $1,000, whereas any other worker, meaning a non-union member, who takes part in an industrial dispute illegally faces a much more severe penalty which may or may not include a term of imprisonment. Hence, we have to rationalise these differences. Clause 6 of the Bill therefore increases the fine for this offence from $1,000 to $2,000 and also increases the fines for other offences under section 27 of the Act. Likewise, clauses 10, 16 and 18 to 21 of the Bill seek to increase the amount of fines spelt out in sections 37, 53 and 56 to 59 of the Act respectively. Clause 22 of the Bill introduces a new section to grant discretionary powers to the Registrar to accept from any person or the trade union reasonably suspected of committing an offence a compound fine for a sum not exceeding $200 for every offence. The offences where a compound fine can be imposed will be prescribed by regulations. Electronic Register and Electronic Filing of Documents Under section 7 of the Trade Unions Act, the Registrar of Trade Unions is required to maintain a register of trade unions. Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 7 of the Act to enable the written copy of the register to be replaced by an electronic register kept on the computer. For the purpose of maintaining and updating the electronic register, the Registrar may call for information that is deemed necessary. Clause 17 of the Bill seeks to amend section 55 of the Trade Unions Act to empower the Minister to make regulations to allow for the manner in which applications, forms, notices, requests or returns required under the Act can be filed electronically. It will also provide for the payment of the prescribed statutory fees by electronic means. This amendment will facilitate the submission of such information by electronic means and enable unions to move to a paperless mode of record keeping. Conclusion Sir, in conclusion, the amendments proposed in the Bill will ensure that the Trade Unions Act will continue to promote the development of an effective and responsible trade union movement in Singapore. They will also enable our trade unions to respond to changing environment and to take advantage of information technology to better meet the needs of their members. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past one year, from the newspapers and the television, we read and heard a lot of news of companies involved in mergers, restructuring or buying over. These mergers, restructuring and buying over will affect not only the workers but also the structure and operations of the unions. Over the past one year, many trade unions were also amalgamated or in the process of amalgamation. As a result, these unions will have to change their names to reflect their new status, otherwise the old names may no longer be relevant. Mr Speaker, Sir, the NTUC supports this amendment, particularly the repeal and re-enactment of sections 33 and 34 of the Trade Unions Act. Under the existing provisions, the consent of two-thirds of the total membership of the union is required if it wants to change its name. Just imagine, if you have a union with 6,000 members, you will need to have 4,000 members voting in favour of the proposed change. With so many workers needed to go to the ballot, the factories may have to shut down, and many production hours will be lost. At the same time, if the unions were to be amalgamated, you need 50% of the members to vote, of which 60% must vote in favour. So if you have 6,000 members, you would need 3,000 people to vote. This is certainly a waste of resources. Nowadays, many unions have adopted the delegates conference system whereby the ordinary members are represented by their branch leaders as delegates in the unions' conferences where resolutions can be carried by a simple majority for decisions to be made. As such, with the new sections 33 and 34, the delegates can attend the meetings on behalf of the general members, and decisions such as amalgamation or change of name can be made by a simple majority of votes. The amendment to section 43 of the principal Act concerns the appointment of the trustees of trade unions. We all know that the trustees of the trade unions have to safeguard not only the interest of the workers but also to protect the assets of the trade unions. Under this amendment, undischarged bankrupts are not allowed to become trustees. The National Trades Union Congress supports this amendment. I do not think anyone would oppose this amendment. Those who are undischarged bankrupts are unable to resolve their own financial problems. How would they be in the right frame of mind to safeguard and protect the assets of the union? In addition, under the amendment, anyone who has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty shall be disqualified as a trustee of the union. This is obvious. The NTUC supports the spirit of this amendment because firstly it safeguards the assets of the trade unions and, secondly, it upholds the reputation of the union leaders.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at present, undischarged bankrupts can hold office in trade unions. Apart from the requirement of age and nationality, the only other restriction imposed on any office holder is that he should not have any prior criminal conviction, especially those involving criminal breach of trust or criminal intimidation. I support the amendment of sections 30 and 43 to disqualify undischarged bankrupts from holding office in trade unions or being appointed as trustees to the union. This is in line with other legislation, such as the Companies Act and the Societies Act, which impose similar restriction on office bearers. Our trade union movement supports this amendment which arose partly because of our own request made in the past. It gives greater protection of trade union funds. Sir, under the current provision, any union that wishes to buy or lease any land which is more than 4,047 square metres must first obtain the consent of the Minister for Manpower. With the new amendment, there is no restriction imposed on unions on the purchase or lease of local land of any size. However, for purchase or lease of overseas property, the consent of the union members or delegates is now required. Although this is a new restriction, it will accord better protection to members from risky overseas investments. On behalf of the labour movement, I also welcome the amendment on change in application of union funds. This amendment allows the trade unions to use the money received from compulsory contributions for purposes other than those originally intended. To make such a change, unions need only to seek the consent of their delegates, instead of having to get all members' consent as is currently provided. This amendment was made at the request of NTUC as it is administratively more convenient. The amendment also allows unions to change their financial year to coincide with the calendar year rather than stick rigidly to the current financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The labour movement supports this change as it affords more flexibility into the system. The amendment also allows for the register of trade unions to be kept and maintained in an electronic form. The labour movement supports the change as this facilitates the global trend towards data entry and captured in electronic form rather than in paper form only. Sir, the review of penalties is long overdue as the existing fines imposed have not been reviewed for more than 30 years. However, by looking at purely the rate of increase, which in some cases by 100%, it is a significant jump. And I hope the Minister could clarify. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the whole, these proposed amendments merely make technical modification to refine the system. It provides greater flexibility for unions with these changes and should therefore be supported.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.15 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.50 pm until 3.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm

Debate resumed.

Sir, this Bill updates the regulation of trade unions. I agree with the Minister that this Bill will make it easier for unions to operate. Unionists must therefore welcome the amendments as they reflect changing times and ensure the quality of the movement. Examples of changing times are the use of IT to maintain records and union register; reflecting the new investment climate of opportunities in the greater flexibility in the application of union funds, more leeway in the purchase of land and building; and also to make it easier for unions to change names or amalgamate, just as corporations do. This Bill will enable unions to respond more quickly to changes in their operating environment. I would also support the increase in fines, because it also reflects changing times, and it is just like keeping up with times. The quality of the movement would also improve the imposition of additional disqualifications on those who want to hold union office or become trustees. I do not intend specifically to go through the details of the Bill, because it was adequately covered by the previous two Members. Globalisation has increased the power of management relative to labour on a world scale. Management seems to have more options whilst labour has a smaller voice globally. Unless trade unions can remain an effective voice for the small man, frustration in the workplace can threaten social cohesion in the long run. Strong trade unions are therefore good for the country. In this context, I wish to thank the Minister for acknowledging the contribution of unions in the economic and social progress of Singapore, as well as saying that in the long run, he supports the growth of a responsible and strong trade union movement in Singapore. I therefore support these moves that would strengthen the trade union movement and therefore also support the amendments in the Bill. However, my only complaint is that I wish there were more amendments, which reflect the changing employment patterns. In the past, a "normal" employment relationship involved a full-time job with a specific employer and usually had some long-term stability. We saw attempts in the past to promote company loyalty, a closer nexus between workers and employers, and even a shared common destiny. Therefore, this "normal" worker was also a normal union member or a normal potential union member, and he was a full-time employee whose employment relationship was not casual. Today, things have changed so much. It is recognised that atypical employment situations are increasingly becoming typical. Part-time work, short-term and casual employment, agency work, self-employment, work from home, contract work and, of course, unemployment, are all now more common. Down-sizing and structural shifts in sectoral and occupational distribution, changing technologies and increased use of IT have added to these changes. The net result is increased uncertainty and ambiguity for the worker. The contract of service, which is used in the Trade Unions Act, to define a worker is more and more being substituted in the workplace with contract for service, as employers seek to lower cost with less manpower, to save on CPF contributions, fringe benefits and other benefits. Allow me to illustrate this point. The New York Times of 16th February carried an article entitled "Who is the boss? Who is a worker?", reported some interesting cases. One was of temporary workers successfully suing and getting benefits of full-time workers. Another was that the New York State Attorney-General is trying to force Manhattan food stalls to pay minimum wage to delivery people employed from another company. There is even debate on whether health and safety standards for offices should apply to home offices. These cases, as illustrated, show that United States laws have not kept up with changes in the workplace. In Singapore too, there are many workers with a contract for service instead of a contract of service working for one employer. The work they do can be considered an integral part of the business and the employer is able to discipline, dismiss and give them incentives. In the United States, non-governmental organisations, with the support of trade unions, are emerging as champions for the cause of workers in atypical employment. The question I ask is: who in Singapore should represent this growing group of workers? Should they bring their problems to Court and let Judges decide? In that case, do we want to see an increase in litigation, or do we want to see NGOs agitating on their behalf? In view of all these, I would therefore like to ask the Minister to take some proactive steps to enable the trade union movement to cover this type of workers. By bringing them within our existing industrial relations system, it will reduce social tensions and enhance social cohesion. This would also ensure that our tripartite system, which has served us very well in the past, will stand the test of time and continue to serve in the best interests of workers, the employers and their unions.

Sir, I join my former colleagues from NTUC in supporting this Bill. As the Minister had pointed out earlier, a major review of the Trade Unions Act was carried out way back in 1982. Although this Bill should have been introduced some years ago, it is, nevertheless, timely that the Ministry has brought to the fore some major amendments to the Trade Unions Act, especially because in the last few years, there have been significant changes and this changed circumstances in the administration of trade unions in Singapore. Sir, I just want to touch on two or three key points in this amendment Bill. First, the delegate system, as pointed out in sections 33 and 34. As Mr Seng Han Thong has pointed out, many unions, for many years now, have been facing this problem of having annual ordinary members meeting, particularly unions like AUPE, UWEEI, SMMWU, SEAHSU and many others. They have as many as 30,000 members, and to have 30,000 members to come for a meeting is an impossible thing in Singapore. Even the World Trade Centre conference halls cannot hold these people. Therefore, they had to work within their union constitution to come out with this delegate system, and I am very pleased that the Ministry now recognises this delegate system and has actually empowered more provisions through this delegate system. Looking broadly, globally there have been tremendous changes, particularly in the corporate world - company globalisation, corporate restructuring, together with some of the changes in Singapore, for example, corporatisation of statutory boards and other Government bodies, going from corporatisation to privatisation like PSA. All these have led to major impacts on the way the unions organise themselves and has therefore made it a necessity to have a major union restructuring through either dissolution of some of the older unions, or having amalgamation of unions, new statutory board employee unions and also the registration of new unions. It is therefore appropriate that the delegate system is being recognised and extended to simplify vote taking by allowing decisions on the change of union names, amalgamation of unions and in the change of use of union funds. I am confident that the larger unions particularly will find this a more efficient and effective means for decision-making. The only question I have in this regard to ask the Minister is: why is there a provision to say that there is a need for a two-thirds vote delegate system, while a simple majority is needed for an ordinary members' meeting? I recognise that it is a form of safeguard, especially in today's context where most unions are well-run, but you never know something in the future. But I want to know why this magic number of two-thirds. As I have said, all these changes have come about because of the changing corporate manpower landscape due to globalisation, technology and corporate restructuring and so on. But these changes and response, while it is necessary, I think it is not sufficient. I feel that corresponding changes that relate to the unionisation of a wider range of employees to join rank-and-file unions may be necessary and the Nominated Member of Parliament, Mr Thomas Thomas, has touched on this point. I think the Ministry needs to examine, for example, section 16(3) of the Industrial Relations Act and look at a major review of this section. And the reason is as follows. As Mr Thomas has pointed out, changing job designations, job re-designs, job enrichment and many other changes for employees necessitate a complete review as to who can be a union member. Sir, with the advent of the knowledge economy, or knowledge-based economy, as we call it in Singapore, it has blurred the distinction between a worker and a manager in today's context. I remember the Trade and Industry Minister, BG George Yeo, had some two or three years ago, at a NTUC Ordinary Delegates Conference, made a keynote address. He had said that in the knowledge economy, everyone, including managers, and even the CEO, is a knowledge worker. So, everyone is a worker. So, who can join a union? And in this context of a rapidly changing knowledge economy, and it is something that we ourselves are very much involved through Singapore 21 and many of the moves that Dr Tony Tan and his committee are looking at, we would certainly need to take it a step to the unions to see how union membership has to be extended. Sir, I may still sound like a unionist who had spoken for workers many times in this House, though I have now returned back to the corporate world. This is because of the impact that NTUC had made on me during my stint there, a certain sense of passion for helping workers and unions. I want to use my personal experience, both in the union and management, to contribute in whatever small way to building a stronger tripartite model in the new knowledge-based economy. Sir, the point that I want to make here is that union membership and collective bargaining rules have to be revamped in this context, and union membership has to be broadened through legislation, not just by convenience through union constitutions or rules. I therefore call for further amendments to the Trade Unions Act, as well as the Industrial Relations Act, if necessary. I remember some years ago, the Secretary-General of NTUC had made this call to broaden union membership by proposing a 80-20 rule, meaning that in any organisation, 80% of the employees should be unionised. This point has been brought up many, many times in various forums where even the Minister himself was present and he felt at that point of time that there was no need to legislate. But some years have passed and I think with these amendments and with the change that is taking place in our economy, I think it is time to look at the legislation. Sir, I would like to move on to some other amendment in this Bill - purchase of property. Section 46 has been repealed and re-enacted to give greater flexibility to trade unions to directly purchase properties while also making possible for decision making through the delegate system. This change will certainly be welcomed by the unions, I believe, for at least two reasons. Firstly, it gives them the direct opportunity to own and develop their own buildings, to give unions a status symbol and a public recognition that they truly deserve. Secondly, it also gives all their members more facilities within their own premises for their members and their members' families to use. Therefore, it takes away the need to work through other labour institutions or labour foundations to achieve this. Sir, finally, in conclusion, I am generally pleased with the amendments put forth by the Minister for Manpower on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, though I feel more can be done. Some time ago, I made a call to the then Ministry of Labour, the new Ministry of Manpower, to play a more pre-eminent role in labour related issues as NTUC had done. I am very happy to note and acknowledge that during the past year or so, the Ministry of Manpower has launched major initiatives and charted new directions for Singapore through Manpower 21 and Construction 21 and many other initiatives like that. These have become blueprints for our workers' future and for the future of all Singaporeans. Sir, I congratulate the Minister and the Permanent Secretary and his team for a job well done. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just one simple clarification to seek from the Minister. This is on the amendment to section 43. This amendment excluded two classes of individuals from holding office of trustee of a trade union. One group is undischarged bankrupts. The second group is individuals convicted of fraud, dishonesty or any other offence which the Minister considers them unfit to be a trustee. Yet, for the second group of individuals, there is a clause which says, "with the approval of the Minister." My question to the Minister is: why are undischarged bankrupts considered more undesirable than other individuals who have been convicted of fraud, dishonesty or other offences which render them unfit to be trustees?

Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang].

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken, in particular, Mr Seng Han Thong, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Mr Thomas and Mr Sinnakaruppan, for their strong support of the amendments introduced in this Bill. As I have said in my Second Reading speech, this Bill had gone through a long process of discussion with the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore National Employers' Federation. So it is not a unilateral decision on the part of the Ministry to make these amendments. The amendments were arrived at after a thorough discussion and in consultation with all the parties that are involved in forging a stronger, more cooperative, more productive, more fruitful industrial relations in Singapore. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked for some clarifications with regard to the penalties. He generally supported the review of penalties. He said that the review of penalties is long overdue, but he saw the increases in some cases going up to 100% and he felt that there is a need to clarify why we actually have to make such a steep increase in the penalties. Let me reiterate that most of these penalties in the existing Act were set long ago, even before the 1982 review of the present Trade Unions Act. Some of them date back to 1952. I have given an example in my Second Reading speech about union members participating in illegal industrial action paying a much smaller fine of $1,000, compared to another worker who participates in illegal industrial action and being charged under the Trade Disputes Act having to pay a much heavier fine. Let me give Members some other examples of why this long overdue review of penalties justifies raising some penalties by more than 100%. For example, the penalty of giving false information relating to trade unions. This is under existing section 53(6). It is a fine not exceeding $200 or an imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both fine and imprisonment, in other words, basically, $200 fine and maybe imprisonment. But in the case of the existing Societies Act, the fine for furnishing false information is $1,000. In the case of the Employment Act, an employer who furnishes false information would be subjected to a maximum fine of $1,000 and/or up to six months of imprisonment. In the case of the Factories Act, a similar offence of giving false information carries a maximum fine of $2,000 and/or 6 months of imprisonment. So we have to look at the review of the fines in totality of the legal framework. We have to look at other legislation and see what level of fines are being imposed, and not just look at a particular offence in the Trade Unions Act and see whether this penalty of $200 has now been increased, as in the case of giving false information. We are proposing under clause 16(c) of this Bill to raise the fine from $200 to $2,000. It looks like percentage-wise, it is a very steep increase indeed, but we have to look at it historically. The $200 fine was set way back in the 50s and today, the overall climate and the overall level of fines in other legislation would justify such an increase to $2,000 for giving false information to the Registrar of Trade Unions. Mr Thomas supported the amendment including the increase in fines which reflects the changing times. I agree with him. That was what I have just been explaining. But he asked whether we could, in fact, make more amendments in order to widen the reach of the Trade Unions Act, a point which Mr Sinnakaruppan also made. Specifically, Mr Thomas mentioned that in the past the trade unions drew its members from the pool of perhaps mainly full-time blue collar workers, and this is changing. There is emerging in the workforce part-time workers and there is increasing highly skilled technical and also more white collar work being generated. I agree with him that there is a change in workers' profile. As to whether we should, in fact, now widen the Trade Unions Act to cover non-employees, in other words, people who are not working under a contract of service, this is something that at this juncture, we feel that it has not reached the stage and it is not necessary to extend the coverage in this manner. The Trade Unions Act will, as it stands, cover persons who work under a contract of service. In other words, there is a direct employer/employee relationship. Mr Thomas referred to a group of contract workers because companies are increasingly out-sourcing some of their services to outside providers of labour. While there is no existing contract of service relation between the worker and the ultimate employer, there may well be a contract of service relation between the worker and the organisation that provides the out-source service. So, in fact, such workers can also be covered if they have an actual contract of service with their employers in the first instance. It is not as if this group of workers is completely omitted. The other point is on part-time workers. Part-time workers can also become union members, as long as they have an actual contract of service. For instance, there are many part-time workers in the catering and food service industry. There are part-time workers in the departmental stores and supermarkets. There are even part-time workers in hospitals. As long as they have a contract of service, there is an employer and employee relationship between the employer and the worker, they come under the ambit of the existing Trade Unions Act, and they can become a full member of a trade union. Mr Sinnakaruppan's point is about expanding the outreach and who can be a member. The answer is that, in fact, all workers, as I have just explained, who have a contract of service with the employer can be a union member, and that covers nearly everyone, including executives. Executives can become members of a trade union. The only restriction is the restriction which exists in the Industrial Relations Act, which seeks to avoid a conflict of interest where executives or management staff of a company join the rank-and-file union of the same company. In fact, executives can all form unions of executives and be full members of unions of executives. We have to be careful when executives join the rank-and-file union, because there is always this potential of conflict of interest. In fact, this is an area that my Ministry is actively studying. We have established a committee to work together with NTUC and the Singapore National Employers' Federation to look into how we can widen the definition, how we can amend section 16(3) of the Industrial Relations Act to ensure that we only exclude that group of executives who genuinely face the possibility of a conflict of interest, and that we do not just bluntly exclude a large group of the middle level executives from joining the rank-and-file union. The committee is, in fact, in progress. They are studying this issue. I hope that they will be able to reach a consensus and make their recommendations for consideration by my Ministry. And in due course, we may well have to amend the Industrial Relations Act. On the 80:20 rule, we have discussed this before. It depends on the nature of work of the company. If we are talking of a company that is very labour intensive, then it may well go beyond 80:20. It may well be 90:10. But in a company that is less labour intensive, more knowledge intensive, we may end up seeing a situation of 40:60. So fixing it at 80:20 is introducing an element of rigidity, my view has been that we will continue to assist NTUC to reach out to all workers and companies and assist NTUC in its effort to seek recognition, and to represent as many workers as possible without having to adopt a fixed rule of whether it is 80:20 or whatever it is. I think we have to look at each company on its own, the profile of its workforce, and therefore try to recruit as many of the workers who are eligible as possible to join the union, rather than set ourselves a target, which may not be representative or reflective of the profile of the workforce in that particular company. Finally, I would like to refer to Dr Wang's query. This is clause 13 which amends section 43 to exclude an undischarged bankrupt from being appointed or serving as a trustee of a trade union. In the case of a person who has been convicted of an offence, there is a provision here that allows the Minister to exercise judgment. In some cases, some people may have a very old conviction and in the intervening years since his conviction he has shown himself to be an honest, upright citizen, somebody who has been reformed and who can now be trusted to serve a trade union and its workers in this capacity as a trustee. It is a provision to ensure that we do not just bluntly adopt a position against people who have an old criminal conviction for dishonesty or fraud. So we give people a chance. If he makes a genuine effort to reform and not commit further offences in the intervening years, we may not want to hold it against him, unless the offence, in the first instance, was a very serious offence which raised strong doubts about the person's character. So we will need to have this flexibility, otherwise it is too rigid. Somebody with an old offence going back 25 years and we say, "No, you cannot be a trustee." In the meantime, he has risen through his effort. He has become a successful and prosperous businessman and contributed both to union and community work. And now you say he cannot be a trustee because of this old offence. I think that will be a bit too rigid. Whereas in the case of a bankrupt, of course, we are saying, he is a discharged bankrupt. The moment he has discharged his bankruptcy, he is no longer caught by this particular section 43(1A). I hope that clarifies the position for Dr Wang.

Sir, can I just clarify as well as seek clarification? When I talked about expanding the definition of workman, in the present Trade Unions Act, "workman" is somebody who enters or works under a service of contract or apprenticeship. That is all. But before the 1982 amendment, the definition was slightly wider. It talked about any workman who had entered or worked under a contract with an employer, whether the contract was a contract of service or a contract personally to execute any work. In other words, during those times, around 1982, most of the regular sort of employment relationship existed but before that, there were many people who were self-employed but actually worked for just one employer. I am trying to say that in downsizing and outsourcing, there are also many people who actually just work for one employer, and who are not in a position of bargaining and they sometimes need the collective power of the trade unions to ensure a bit of equity in the labour market. There are such categories of people. It could be the couriers and taxi drivers, and we also need to reach out to those groups of people. I ask the Minister to understand this position as well as to look at the law to bring these people in.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is correct that prior to 1982, the Trade Unions Act allowed non-employees or the self-employed to become members of a union. Precisely, this situation was not tenable that in 1982 the law was amended to define a workman as a person who has entered into a contract of service with an employer regardless of how this contract of service was written up and what are the terms. As long as there is employer/employee relationship, he is a workman, he can join a union or form a union. During the 1982 debate on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, the reason was provided for this exclusion. I think the reason still exists and it is still relevant in today's situation. In the absence of an employer/employee relationship, there is no collective bargaining between the employee and the employer, between this worker who is actually a free agent working on a contract for service with a particular company. Mr Thomas mentioned the example of a taxi driver. Who is the employer in this instance? Is it COMFORT? Is it TIBS? There is no employer/employee relationship in that sense because the taxi driver hires the taxi from the company. Is the taxi driver himself an employer? It could well be, by his definition, because part of the time he gets a relief driver to drive his taxi. So does that mean he is an employer? We can see that if we adopt that approach, we will reach very difficult and unsustainable positions. So we have decided that, as a rule, as long as he does not have a fixed contract of service, where there is no clear employer/employee relationship, he should not be covered. The other point is this. Even if we want to include the self-employed, they would not be able to avail themselves of a conciliation on any trade dispute or reference to IAC, because there is no employer/employee relationship on which they can refer the matter to the Industrial Arbitration Court. Each one is a free agent working on his own and with his own terms and conditions. The employer exercises very little supervision or disciplinary proceedings over the worker. So it is very difficult to try to attempt to cover this group. In fact, it confers upon them no advantage to bring them in. Hence, in 1982, it was argued that we should exclude them. We have since then maintained this position. I do not think the situation has changed so much between 1982 and now that we should go back there and re-examine this area to bring in the self-employed within the coverage of the Trade Unions Act.

Point of clarification, Sir. First, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply to my questions. I am very pleased to hear from him that he would look at reviewing the Industrial Relations Act and that a Review Committee has been formed in his Ministry. Sir, I am, as he has said, fully aware of executive unions and executives are able to form and join unions. All I am saying is that because of the change in ---

Mr Sinnakurappan, you are embarking on a new speech. Could you ask your question?

The question is this: in his Review Committee, I would like them to consider the executives being part of the rank and file union. The leadership question is an important question to unions because today's trade unions in Singapore are a model for the world because of the leadership that we have in our unions. I think this should continue and, therefore, I would like to request that this Review Committee ensures that there are sufficient executives who are part of this rank and file union.

Precisely. In fact, the Committee that is working on it is looking at the ways of enabling executives of companies to join rank and file unions. As I said earlier on, we have to address not just the concern of NTUC in wanting to reach out to a wider group of workers but also the concerns of employers over this potential conflict of interest. The Committee will certainly consider, where there is no real potential for conflict of interest, allowing executives to join the rank and file unions and even, if necessary, where they have sufficient support, to serve the union in a leadership position.

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 Lee Boon Yang]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.58 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Government has decided to introduce a new endowment fund to finance operating subsidies to nursing homes run by Voluntary Welfare Organisations, or VWOs. This Bill is to repeal the Medical Endowment Scheme Act and re-enact it as the Medical and Elderly Care Endowment Schemes Act, to set up this new endowment fund. Need for step-down care increases as population ages Our population is rapidly ageing. Today, we have about 220,000 people aged 65 years and above, making up about 7% of our population. By 2010, we will have about 312,000 elderly persons, comprising 8% of our population. Most elderly persons will remain healthy and independent. However, it is estimated that about 3% of those aged 65 and above do acquire severe disabilities and are unable to go about their daily lives without considerable nursing care, medical attention or assistance. Yet, at the same time, their conditions are not severe enough for them to be warded in acute hospitals. These elderly persons should be looked after in their own homes, or if residential care is required, in "step-down" facilities such as nursing homes. As our population ages, the demand for nursing home care will rise. Currently, some two-thirds of our nursing home beds are in VWO-run facilities. VWO nursing homes receive assistance from the community, in the form of volunteers and cash donations. Community assistance thus supplements the patients' payment for their share of the cost of care. At the same time, the Government also provides financial assistance to keep nursing home care affordable to those from lower income households. Nursing homes that are funded by Government now receive capital funding of up to 90% of the cost of building and equipping the homes. In addition, Government also provides full subsidy for land rental and input GST. At the same time, Government also funds 50% of the recurrent cost of providing care to patients with immediate family incomes of less than $2,000. Patients on public assistance receive 75% subsidy. Higher proportion of Singaporeans will be eligible for subsidy The Inter-Ministerial Committee on the Ageing Population, in its report released late last year, had recommended that the Government consider expanding its operating subsidies to VWO-run nursing homes. The Government has considered this recommendation and decided to implement a three-tier subsidy of 75%, 50% and 25% for VWO nursing homes this year. The highest quantum of subsidy will be given to those with the least ability to pay. To ensure that subsidy goes to those who most deserve them, the introduction of the new subsidy structure will be accompanied by refining the means test conducted in VWO nursing homes. In addition to the financial means of the immediate family, it will also take into account the size of the immediate family. This is fairer because larger families would necessarily require a larger income to live on. VWOs will also continue to take into account the patient's assets in evaluating his financial circumstances. The three-tier subsidy will result in higher funding support by the Government to the VWO nursing homes. In addition to patients on public assistance, those with immediate family per capita incomes below $300 will receive 75% subsidy. Those with per capita incomes between $300 and $500 will receive 50% subsidy. Further, those with per capita incomes between $500 and $700 will receive 25% subsidy, where they now receive none. Under this three-tier subsidy framework, therefore, a higher proportion of Singaporeans will be eligible for subsidy. The financial burden on low- and lower-middle income households supporting disabled elderly family members who require nursing home care will be considerably lightened. Need to safeguard affordability of care in future, against shrinking tax base Having decided on this subsidy framework, we need to consider how best to finance it. Sir, our population today is still relatively young. Many of us are able to contribute actively to the economy and help generate tax revenue to finance Government programmes, including health care subsidies. However, this will change. Not only will a rapidly ageing population require more step-down health care services such as nursing home care, it will also result in a shrinking tax base where a smaller working population will find it harder and harder to pay for health care subsidies consumed by a larger ageing population. Without these subsidies, health care for the future elderly may not remain affordable to individuals from low and lower-middle income households and their families. Yet, at the same time, we need to preserve our economic competitiveness in an increasingly globalised economy, where countries maintain competitive tax rates to attract investments. Hence, it would not be realistic for us to continually count on taxpayers to pay for the subsidies to our nursing homes. We need to ensure the affordability of nursing home care in future years. Instead of continuing with today's practice of paying subsidies to the VWO nursing homes directly out of the Government's budget, the Government will establish the alternative mechanism of an endowment fund. Purpose of ElderCare Fund The proposed endowment fund will be called ElderCare Fund. We will gradually build up a large enough capital sum in the ElderCare Fund, so that the interest income can be used to fully finance the subsidies for patients who are cared for in VWO nursing homes. By setting aside funds now while we can afford it, we will ensure that funding of subsidies for step-down care facilities for the elderly of the future can be sustained in the long term. Top-ups of capital sum during budget surpluses The ElderCare Fund will start off with an initial capital injection of $200 million. During years of strong economic growth, the capital sum can be topped up with budget surpluses, so as to generate more interest income. Only the interest income can be used to finance the nursing homes. In the initial years, subsidies to VWO nursing homes will be partially funded from the interest income of the Fund, and partially funded direct from the Government's budget. The goal is for the Fund to reach a capital sum of $1 billion by the year 2010. By then, the capital sum should be large enough for subsidies to VWO nursing homes to be completely financed from its interest income. For a start, ElderCare Fund will provide subsidies only to VWO nursing homes. Other kinds of step-down care provided by VWOs and supported by the Government, such as community hospitals, will continue to be funded from the Government budget. However, when ElderCare Fund has more resources, extension of its coverage to other kinds of step-down care services can be considered. Endowment fund will not replace community support Sir, I have mentioned that VWOs fund their operating expenditure through community donations, patient fees and Government subsidies. The introduction of ElderCare Fund will not displace the role of community donations in helping the poor to pay for VWO nursing home care, as this is part and parcel of the community support structure. This spirit of community help must be preserved and encouraged. Hence, VWOs should continue to raise funds from the community and do their part in helping the needy and indigent patients foot their share of the charges using the donations raised. No change to administration of Medifund Sir, this Bill also proposes some amendments to the existing provisions on Medifund. Today, each approved hospital sets up a Hospital Medifund committee, comprising persons of standing with grassroots or social work experience, to consider and approve applications from needy patients. Funds are then paid out from the hospital's Medifund Account to defray the charges incurred by the applicant. Although this system has worked well, we need to build in greater flexibility for the administration of the scheme to adapt to changing circumstances, so that patients' needs will continue to be well served. For instance, instead of setting up one Medifund committee for every approved hospital, it might be more desirable in future for community organisations to be responsible for disbursing Medifund to needy residents living in the community. The proposed amendments to the existing provisions on Medifund will allow for such alternative arrangements to be made, if necessary. At present, however, no changes will be made to the administration of Medifund. Singaporean patients in B2 and C class wards of public hospitals and subsidised outpatients who face financial difficulty, and are unable to pay their charges, can continue to apply for Medifund assistance at the hospitals. Their applications will continue to be considered by the hospital Medifund committees. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to support the Medical and Elderly Care Endowment Schemes Bill. In fact, I am very glad that the Government has come up with yet another provision to cope with our fast-increasing population of elderly and an ever-increasing ratio of non-working to working individuals in the near future. It is good that there is now a scheme that gives Singaporeans further peace of mind in their golden years. I would, however, like to add that this Government must continue to promote and encourage some of the very basic values that have served us well all these years. Sir, the need for self-sufficiency and looking after one's own kin and families in our Asian values should be emphasised. Otherwise, the two endowment funds which are to serve only as safety nets for those really in dire need, will be found lacking through callous and overwhelming demand. The ElderCare Fund, like the Medifund, will be for the nursing care of our needy elderly in future. As announced by the Minister for Health in his introductory speech, the Government will build up the ElderCare Fund with an initial capital injection of $200 million. Further capital injections will be made when budget surpluses are available. Only the interest income of the ElderCare Fund will be used to fund the operating subsidies to VWO nursing homes and extension to other kinds of step-down care services will be considered when the ElderCare Fund has more resources. Sir, in order to build up the ElderCare Fund faster so as to extend the other services sooner, would the Government consider accepting donations from private organisations, philanthropists or even grassroots organisations? Would the Government also encourage donations with an incentive of three-to-one matching grant, similar to that given to the CDCs? I would like to suggest that the Ministry of Health devise a plan for the approval and disbursement of the Medifund and ElderCare Fund via "local councils". Such "local councils" could be the CDCs. The authority to assess eligibility and to approve the use of these Funds can then be devolved. The Ministry will, hence, need less administrative manpower. Each CDC could be made to raise some of the money so that it will have more authority to disburse the funds. It is likely that the CDC, through its closer rapport with the constituents and with the liberty to decide whom to help in its ward, will allow for more effective disbursement of the funds. The CDC will also become more relevant to the people. Sir, as Members of Parliament have closer contact with their residents and also have the help of the grassroots workers, they would know the needs of the residents better. They could be advisers to these "local councils". Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like now to comment on the following clauses of the Medical and Elderly Care Endowment Schemes Bill. Clause 6 The Act to be repealed specifies that the Advisory Council should contain not less than five and not more than nine members. The Bill does not provide for any minimum or maximum number and is left to the discretion of the Minister. Is there any reason for this? Clause 25(6) Where there is any suspension, the approved provider shall not be regarded as one. What happens to its patients in the interim? I hope the Minister for Health could enlighten me on these points. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill although I would like to propose an amendment to one clause of the Bill at the Committee stage.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on the Ageing Population headed by Minister Mah Bow Tan presented its report to the Government in November last year. One of its key recommendations is that community based step-down care services need to be strengthened to support the family in its role of caring for elderly members. Thus, the Elderly Care Endowment Scheme to be introduced and the ElderCare Fund to be established under this Bill can be seen as Government's response to the recommendations. It is in line with the principle of promoting individual responsibility. The Singapore 21 Committee, launched by Prime Minister Goh in 1997, was tasked to look into the challenges faced by Singapore in the 21st century. One of the dilemmas the Committee dealt with is that of taking care of the needs of senior citizens versus the aspirations of the young. The idea is that we need to promote strong family ties so that the needs of the elderly can be taken care of by the family. But the community and the Government will help if the family is unable to handle the problem. The ElderCare Fund is in line with this idea. Sir, while I support the setting up of the ElderCare Fund, may I seek clarification from the Minister as to the interpretation of the step-down care. Clause 2 of the Bill defines step-down care as "accommodation, personal care and health care for persons suffering or recovering from any sickness, disability or injury." Could the Minister clarify whether the elderly who are "frail" and need some form of supervision but not sick, disabled or injured, fall under the category and can qualify for step-down care? We know the figure of Liang Po Po. Just imagine that one day Liang Po Po gets older, cannot even "ho, ho, ho", and becomes frail but she is not sick, disabled or injured. As our population ages, there will be more of such groups who are able to carry out their daily needs or daily routine but are frail. In fact, the majority of the NTUC Day Care patients are frail but not sick, disabled or injured. Sir, the Minister may also clarify whether the provision of elderly services at the space designated for such communal services at the HDB apartments qualifies for approved provider premises status under clause 22 of the Bill. I raise this because it is foreseen that there will be a need to provide such services at the void decks of HDB flats in future as our population is ageing. Sir, clause 26(4) refers to "relevant patient" to be a person who, in the opinion of the Minister, requires step-down care and is assessed by the Minister to be "financially disadvantaged". May I propose that in arriving at the definition, the Minister will consider the predicament of the elderly who belong to the "sandwiched" group, that is, the middle income group who cannot afford the fees charged by the private organisations and, at the same time, not eligible for any subvention. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Firstly, I would like to declare my interest as the Chairman of the Medifund Council since it was set up. Over the years, the Medifund has helped many thousands of people to meet their hospital and medical expenses. It worked well because of the flexibility built into the rules for the Medical Endowment Fund. With a basic set of rules supported by guidelines, Medifund committees were able to exercise judgement, especially in border line cases, to balance between the resource available and the help that can be provided. And I am happy to see that even more flexibility is being considered under the reconstitution. The same spirit of flexibility is being suggested for the ElderCare Fund. It is certainly timely to establish such a fund to provide subventions to approved providers of step-down care. It will be a great help to existing providers of step-down care who qualify as well as encourage the establishment of newer facilities. I have two areas that I would like to seek clarification. One in particular relates to the ElderCare Fund. The definition of "step-down care" suggested means "accommodation, personal care and health care for persons suffering or recovering from any sickness, disability or injury; personal care and health care during the day for any such persons; or such other forms of health care or care arrangements". If I look at the definition of "step-down care", I do not see it as something that is strictly restricted to the elderly. It could well be something beneficial to someone that is young. So I am not sure why we are restricting ourselves to the elderly. It could be just to start it off and as the Fund builds up, maybe it will be expanded. In which case then, by calling it the ElderCare Fund, are we placing a mental ceiling and whereby even if the Fund builds up, we will continue to restrict step-down care only for the elderly? Perhaps, the Minister could let us know the rationale for this. My next concern is the sweeping exclusion from the definition of "step-down care" of medical or health care provided in any maternity homes or premises used or intended to be used for the accommodation of pregnant women or of women immediately after child birth. I can accept that post-natal care is excluded from the definition of "step-down care". However, I am sure there is a range of health complications arising from pregnancy which can be adequately dealt with by the professionals at a maternity home or similar premises. My concern arises from the first-hand knowledge of a lady who suffered from a stroke whilst pregnant. The health insurance policy taken out for her covered medical care for strokes, but because her stroke was deemed to have arisen from her pregnancy, she found that her medical costs were not covered. A less sweeping exclusion directed at medical and health care for normal pregnancy, including Caesarian births, would be preferable. This would ensure that only premises set aside to deal with special pregnancy cases would qualify. Larger families are being encouraged in the light of a rapidly ageing and shrinking population. No one would wish for a complicated pregnancy. The medical cost for a normal pregnancy is sufficient financial burden to many. Some help is well deserved by those playing their part in replenishing and expanding our major resource, our citizens.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the opportunity to speak on the Bill. My comments are directed largely to Part III of the Bill on the ElderCare Scheme. The Bill seeks to establish a Government fund to subvent the recurrent cost of step-down care providers. Firstly, I would like to commend the Ministry of Health for moving so expeditiously on the recommendation of the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on the Ageing Population to make provisions for the funding of step-down care. The IMC had observed that while the provision and financing of acute health care services for the elderly in Singapore are pretty much adequately taken care of, the step-down care and, primarily, the community-based services still need much strengthening. The Ministry has in fact started to address those areas under its purview. The recent announcements relating to allocation of land for private nursing homes and changes in eligibility for subsidy of new residents in Government-funded VWO-run nursing homes and, now, this Bill to set up the ElderCare Fund, are all directed towards facilitating the provision of step-down care, encouraging appropriate usage and assisting in the financing of these services. This is certainly moving us in the right direction in preparing for our growing population of older Singaporeans. I do have a concern, however, that our attention continues to be much more heavily directed towards the very visible problem related to institutional care and not enough towards the not so visible, but equally, if not, more important, educational, preventive and rehabilitative aspects of the whole picture. The Bill has defined step-down care very broadly to cover both accommodation and day care, and to cover both health and personal care as well as other forms of care arrangements. This is good and necessary as it is not only more places for institutional care and nursing homes and in day care centres that are needed, but even more so the provision of home care services, medical and nursing services and simple home-help services in which a large gap currently exists. But step-down care, as its very name indicates, addresses the situation after the damage has been done and seeks the solution from the acute care institution's point of view of how to get the senior citizen who has needed to be hospitalized back in various stages to the community. We have defined in our vision of successful ageing for Singapore that, at the individual level, we aspire to have healthy and active older Singaporeans who lead independent and fulfilling lives. To achieve this, there is a chasm we have yet to bridge in mindsets and attitudes, both in the value that we currently place on the advanced years of an older person's lifetime as well as in the importance of paying attention to the simple daily routines in preventive health care to ensure that our senior citizens continue to stay fit. Sadly, it is not infrequently that I have heard stories of older persons who have not had treatment for correctable conditions simply because the family had not thought that, at their age, the expense would be worth it. Just recently, a colleague who does voluntary work in the community shared an account of an elderly woman who was house-bound because of failing eyesight due to cataracts. The family felt that it would not be justified to dig into the family reserves for the thousand dollars that they took for the operation to correct the problem, and that was because she was 70 years old. But for this lady, she has five more years, 10 more years, maybe even more, house-bound and unable to see. It is the attitude, I think, of after a certain age, it does not matter so much. But our life expectancy is now pretty high and I think we need to put more value on the quality of life for the older Singaporeans. The National Health Survey conducted by the Ministry in 1995 discovered a high occurrence of high blood pressure and diabetes in our population. These medical conditions will increase in incidence with age. High blood pressure that is not managed well will predispose to strokes and diabetes that is not well treated may very well lead to amputations. Poor eyesight and frailty result in falls. All three result in drastically reduced mobility for the older persons. The quantum leap in care needed when an older person suffers loss of mobility and the impact on her or his quality of life is horrendous. Very often, people will scrimp on or ignore what they feel to be small things - good, effective control of low grade chronic illnesses or exercise and rehabilitation to maintain fitness, not paying attention until what could have very easily been managed on an outpatient basis in the community becomes a hospitalisation for a major health event. So while the provisions in the Bill for financing and subsidy of step-down care are most welcome, I urge the Minister to put aside enough resources towards encouraging and facilitating the development of strong programmes in the community for health educational and preventive services, to re-orient our perspective so that what drives the system is how to prevent the strokes, the amputations and the fractures that give rise to the need for the step-down care in the first place. Services to meet the needs of the frail, ill and disabled elderly are currently provided by a range of agencies under the umbrellas of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Community Development and the National Council of Social Services. As the Health Ministry proceeds to refine its existing criteria for susbsidy of nursing home residents to ensure the appropriate use of facilities and services and to enact and implement regulations to ensure that the ElderCare Fund to be established is drawn upon prudently and appropriately, there will be a shift in the mix of residents that are presently being looked after by the nursing homes. The Ministry has recently announced that it will no longer subsidise new incoming residents who need only varying levels of assistance in their routine activities of daily living - I think these are referred to as Category 1 and 2 patients - as these persons should not be cared for in the nursing home, but rather in their own homes, in the community, or perhaps in the homes for the aged. Unfortunately, at the moment, the homes for the aged, which come under MCD, are not geared up to deliver this care as they are actually meant for the well elderly. And there are insufficient VWOs providing community services and support that would be available to help families and elderly individuals to cope at home. So, as the nursing homes resist taking in the Category 1 and 2 patients because they no longer receive subsidy for them, where will these people go to? In this interim, there will be tremendous pressure on families to cope. Is there some way perhaps the Minister could look at some resources towards helping bridge this interim gap, until such time as MCD and VWOs are able to provide the services that will enable these categories of residents to be taken care of at home. As the various agencies will move at different speeds in undertaking their part of the work that needs to be done in moving towards our desired destination of successful ageing in Singapore, much coordination is required to ensure that, for all our good intentions, we do not in fact exacerbate the problem in the meantime. I trust that the Minister will take the points raised into consideration as he moves to put together the policies, initiatives and legislation to provide for and finance appropriate health and personal care for our growing senior citizenry. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. How we treat the sick and old is a strong signal on how we recognise their contributions to the success of this nation. It is part of strengthening the software to look after the old and the sick. Today's old was yesterday's young who contributed to the success of Singapore. And today's young who is presently contributing to our success will be tomorrow's old. I do not wish to go through all the many things in the Bill because it has been covered by previous speakers. However, I have two concerns regarding elderly care. First, in promoting step-down care, the private sector would be playing a role. The private sector is primarily profit-motivated, and there is nothing wrong with that. But, Sir, the question we ask is: should the question of elderly care be subjected to too much of market forces? And as a follow up, is it not better to serve the needs of the elderly through the VWOs and cooperatives? The setting up of cooperatives would have social objectives and they could give the elderly care and those who need it better value for money. Moreover, the surpluses of cooperatives, which are run on commercial line, belong to members and will go back to the people who need it. The other point I want to make is about home care. While we promote institutional care, I think we should not neglect home care. The report of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on the Ageing Population had a whole chapter on enabling families to care for the elderly. It primarily says that the care of the elderly by the family is the best avenue as they also need to talk about physical need as well as the emotional and social needs. And it is also in keeping with our value of filial piety. While I support step-down care and institutional care for the elderly, I ask that we do not neglect home care. Home care is also the desire of most of the elderly. They like to be near their children and grandchildren, and we should say that it is part of the value for the family to take care of them. Towards this end, I would like to ask the Minister what steps are going to be taken to promote home care so that more and more people will look after their elderly at home.

Sir, I would first like to thank the Members for their contributions to this debate. This whole issue of looking after the aged sick is a very big challenge for us. This is not the first nor the last time that we are going to discuss on how we are going to approach this challenge. At the outset, I would like to say that I agree entirely with Dr Lily Neo and Mr Seng Han Thong that our entire approach must emphasise the personal responsibility for looking after one's health and also counting on family members to look after you when you grow old or when you fall sick. I think these are two pillars that would not change - personal responsibility and family support. But at the same time, there would be this small percentage of the elderly who would fall sick. This elderly sick is quite well-defined in medical terms. This is defined through some criteria of how a person can go about his daily living with different levels of assistance. For those categories that require a very high level of nursing care, what we designate as Categories III and IV, the medical conditions of such people would affect approximately 2% to 3% of the elderly above 65 years old. So, what we are discussing today is a fairly well-defined group of about 2% to 3% of the elderly above 65 years old. Of course, this is part of the whole issue of how you address the challenge of the ageing population and many issues have been raised by Members. But I just want to concentrate Members' minds that the ElderCare Fund is set up to target at this 2% to 3% of the 65 years and above who fall sick, categorised as Categories III and IV under these medical conditions, and who require care in an institution or in a home setting. Sir, the first definition is the medical condition of the person that requires such care. As Mr Seng Han Thong has asked, this is addressed in the definition in the Bill and it does not cover the elderly frail. Elderly frail, who are out of this 3%, would not be covered by this ElderCare Fund. Having defined this group whose medical condition requires us to look after them, then it really does not matter whether we look after them in an institution setting or in a home setting. But for purposes of implementing the financial support, we are saying that we start off first with supporting the nursing homes run by VWOs. This would be extended in due course in future to nursing homes run by the private sector when we are familiar with running such financial support. The subsidies are meant for people meeting the medical condition, and passing the means test. In future, we can also extend to other institutional care settings, whether it is a community hospital, chronic sick hospital or such facilities set up in the void decks. When we are able to develop home care facilities and services in a better way, such financial support would also be extended to home care services for this 3% of elderly sick. I think we start off with this category that requires the medical attention and financial support. As a start, to implement this programme, my Ministry suggests we do it first with the nursing homes run by VWOs, develop some expertise, and then we can systematically extend it to widen the coverage. Mr Gerard Ee asked does the ElderCare Fund only cater for the elderly? The answer is no. It is mainly the elderly who would require such nursing home care, but there would be others who would also require such rehabilitative and nursing home care, for example, the case that he cited of a pregnant lady who suffered a stroke. In the first phase of the sickness, she would be cared for in an acute hospital setting. Then later, when she is more stable, when her recovery is better, we would probably transfer her to a nursing home. And when she is in a nursing home, and if she belongs to the low and lower-middle income, then the financial assistance would kick in. We call it ElderCare because the vast majority of the people who would enjoy this funding would be the elderly. But it is not restricted to just the elderly. People whose medical conditions satisfy or require us to provide medical and nursing care, ie, those in Categories III and IV, would be eligible for the financial assistance. Having defined the medical condition and the premises, we can now define the relevant patient, that is, the different categories of people who deserve the different levels of financial support. Mr Seng Han Thong made a plea for the sandwiched group, the middle-income group whose income is too low to afford private nursing home and too high to enjoy the subsidies. We try to take care of this by having a three-tier framework. Previously, it was only either above or below $2,000 household income. Now we have three tiers, so it is no longer a sandwich. It is now a three layered nonya cake. But of course, there would still be people who fall outside the criteria. I do not think we need to go into a kueh lapis, with so many layers, but we can obviously extend the layers and provide more assistance when we build up the fund and when we build up the experience. Now, I would turn to the specific suggestions and points raised. Dr Lily Neo asked whether we accept private donations. The answer is yes. All donations and bequests can be paid as capital monies into both the Medifund and ElderCare Fund. She asked whether the Government would give a matching grant of 3 to 1. At this moment, I do not see the need because the Government is pledging to build up the ElderCare Fund to the tune of $1 billion. That is a lot of money, so there is really no need to have further incentives to ask the private sector or the individuals to donate. In fact, I would urge the private sector and individuals, if they want to make donations, not necessarily to make donations to the ElderCare Fund because the Government is going to build it up to $1 billion, but to make donations directly to the VWOs, because they need the donations to help pay for the patients' portion of their bills. Dr Lily Neo also asked whether we can work through local councils like the CDCs. This is something that we are thinking about and this is one of the reasons why we are making some of the amendments, in particular, the amendment to section 6 where we did not stipulate the number of advisory councils. This is to give us the flexibility to appoint enough people to match the CDCs, depending on the number of members in the CDCs. So, the intention is to involve the community in the form of the CDCs. They are the people who know the residents on the ground and can understand their needs and make sensible decisions on who qualifies for Medifund assistance. Dr Lily Neo asked what happens to the patients if we have to suspend a nursing home. That really depends on the reasons for suspending the nursing home. We may suspend nursing homes for several reasons. The most drastic reason is when we have to remove the licence from the nursing home because it does not meet the medical criteria of continuing to run the nursing home. Under such circumstances, the patients will have to be taken care of in other homes. But if the nursing home continues to meet the medical criteria of running a nursing home, but gets suspended for other reasons, for example, for not keeping good accounts or for whatever reasons, then of course, it would not affect the patients. Mr Gerard Ee asked why we exclude facilities meant for pregnancy, etc. As I explained, complications arising from pregnancy will be dealt with either in the acute hospital setting or if it is something that requires nursing home care, then it will be dealt with in a step-down nursing home care facility. Under the latter circumstances, the patient will qualify for ElderCare funding. Dr Jennifer Lee made several very good points. I just want to say that all these are very important. We do recognise the full range of the challenge facing us. As I said, the Bill tackles 3% of the elderly who require nursing home care. My Ministry, working together with MCD, would also look at the other very important areas. I agree with her entirely that we first have to set up the framework for preventive care so that as few as possible of our elderly actually fall into acute or chronic problems. So preventive healthcare and public education are very important, and we are also working on programmes that will address this. Both Dr Jennifer Lee and Mr Thomas also talked about the very important role played in home care facilities. This is a tremendous challenge. It requires a lot of resources. I can assure both of them that both MCD and my Ministry are working to improve the home care facilities and services that we have in Singapore but Members have to give us some time to work on it. The particular problems of Categories I and II, I think, require a joint effort between MCD and MOH to deal with. I do not want to give the impression that because we come to this House on our plans for setting up nursing homes and our financial arrangements for the ElderCare Fund that we are giving focus or attention to institutional care, and not to the other aspects of the problems confronting our aged. As I said, this would not be the first or the last time that we would be talking about the issue. I am sure we will be addressing it. Members can have my assurance that my Ministry and MCD will tackle this problem systematically, and we will come back to the House for support for the other components of looking after the elderly.

Sir, the Minister said earlier that the ElderCare Fund will also go towards the recipients of home care. I want to ask him how would this work and who will be eligible for this ElderCare Fund. Will the recipient be the beneficiary or the carer of the recipient?

Dr Lily Neo is always moving at the speed of a train. I said that we start off first with nursing homes run by VWOs. We build up the experience and, in future, we can extend the scope to the next step, which is nursing homes run by the private sector. Then we can extend it to another step, which is other types of homes, not just nursing homes, but community hospitals, chronic sick, and also facilities in the void decks. We can also extend it to home care. I know the real challenge and the difficulties of providing subsidies or financial assistance to home care, the very issues that the Member raised, whether it is the provider or the recipient; who gets, who approves. It is a huge problem. I prefer to go about it systematically. Let us start with the easy part first, which is nursing homes run by VWOs. Then we extend it systematically, but I can assure Members that we will reach home care in due course. An hon. Member: When will that be?

Before you grow old!

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lim Hng Kiang]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 22 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23 -

The hon. Member for Kreta Ayer-Tanglin, Dr Lily Neo, has given notice of an amendment to this clause. A notice of the amendment has been circulated to hon. Members. As inadequate notice has been given of this amendment, it is subject to the consent of the Chair and the general assent of Members present. I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be moved? Hon. Members indicated assent.

All right. Dr Lily Neo, could you move your amendment?

Sir, I beg to move, In page 12, line 32, to delete the words "without assigning any reason,". Sir, my reason for proposing the deletion is that it sounds too harsh, as it gives an absolute discretion to the Minister to reject any application without assigning any reason. Secondly, the deletion will, in a way, leave a room for the Minister to give reason if any applicant attempts to appeal or ask for a reason for the rejection. Without the deletion, the Minister may conveniently refuse to entertain any such request.

Sir, when the Member pointed this out to me, I accepted her reasons for wanting to make the amendment. It is not our intention not to give any reasons. It is just one of the standard clauses. I think it is a very jarring phrase. So I have no problems at all with the deletion. I concur with the Member's amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 24 to 47 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be read a Second time." The Bill before this House seeks, inter-alia, to amend the SAF Act to rationalise the disciplinary powers for dealing with officers of the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel and above, and to establish a new scheme of service for SAF military Warrant Officers and Specialists. The new scheme of service, to be called the Premium Plan, is intended to replace the current Pensionable, Full CPF and Contract schemes of service. Summary Trial System for Senior Officers Sir, I would like to highlight the key aspects of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 10 propose refinements to the summary trial system for SAF senior officers by empowering the Service Chiefs to summarily try errant officers of the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. Correspondingly, the jurisdiction of the Chief of Defence Force and the Senior Disciplinary Committee should be realigned.

4.55 pm The SAF (Amendment) Act 1994 was passed by Parliament on 26th February 1994. One of the amendments empowers the Chief of Defence Force to summarily try officers of Lieutenant-Colonel rank and a Senior Disciplinary Committee to summarily deal with officers of Colonel rank and above. The SAF has, since then, further rationalised the summary trial system for its senior officers. It is now proposed that the Service Chiefs, ie, Chief of Army, Chief of Air Force and Chief of Navy, be vested with powers to summarily deal with officers of Lieutenant-Colonel rank, the Chief of Defence Force be empowered to deal summarily with officers of Colonel rank, and the Senior Disciplinary Committee be given the authority to summarily deal with officers of the rank of Brigadier General rank and above. Although there have been very few cases of officers of the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel and above who have had to be summarily dealt with, the proposed amendments will provide Service Chiefs and the Chief of Defence Force an appropriate and responsive means of dealing with offences committed by their senior officers. Parliament is requested to approve the amendments. Premium Plan and SAVER-Premium Fund Sir, I now turn to the amendments concerning the Premium Plan and the SAVER-Premium Fund. The subsequent clauses of the Bill seek to establish the legislative framework for the implementation of the Premium Plan for military Warrant Officers and Specialists. Provisions are also made for consequential amendments to the Pension Fund Act. Sir, allow me to briefly explain the rationale for the introduction of the Premium Plan, and how it relates to the SAVER Plan for military Officers which the House had endorsed in March 1998. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is the guarantor of our national security. The SAF is a credible deterrent because of the dedication and professionalism of its personnel. To maintain this edge, the SAF must be able to recruit, train and retain enough quality Officers, Warrant Officers and Specialists who are able to meet its high standards of commitment and professionalism. It is with this objective in mind that MINDEF formulated the "New Partnership" programme for our military Officers in 1997. The "New Partnership" programme is a total revamp of the manpower management system of the SAF, making fundamental changes to the career structure, remuneration package and career management and performance management of our personnel. As part of the "New Partnership", in 1998, MINDEF implemented the SAVER Plan, which replaced the Pensionable, CPF Plus and Contract schemes, for uniformed Officers. But it is not enough to revamp the manpower management system of the Officer Corps alone. The SAF requires good people at every level to ensure that it can continue to perform its role effectively. The non-officer corps is just as important, as it forms the backbone of the SAF. A review was therefore commissioned in 1998 to revamp the career structures and remuneration mechanisms of military Warrant Officers and Specialists. As part of this review, MINDEF has developed a new scheme of service, to be called the Premium Plan, to support the career structures of military Warrant Officers and Specialists, in the same way the SAVER Plan supported the career structure for military Officers. The Premium Plan will meet the needs of Warrant Officers and Specialists at different stages of their careers. Under the Premium Plan, MINDEF will provide a gratuity for the serviceman after his 10th year of service, and thereafter contribute an amount, based on his monthly salary, into his Premium Plan accounts. Because the objectives and mechanisms of the SAVER and Premium Plans are broadly similar, funds in both Plans will be pooled and invested as a joint "SAVER-Premium Fund". Investment returns from this Fund will be credited into each serviceman's individual accounts. The Fund would adopt a similar structure of governance and the same Board of Trustees as the existing SAVER Fund. The accumulated balance in the Premium Plan accounts will be given to the servicemen when they retire after serving a full career with the SAF. Those who leave earlier will get a smaller sum, depending on their length of service. Finally, this Bill also empowers the Armed Forces Council to make provisions for loans and other benefits out of both the SAVER Plan and the Premium Plan. This would include the provision of flexible benefits for servicemen and their families under the Premium Plan. MINDEF intends to implement the Premium Plan on 31st March 2000 for all newly-enlisted Specialists. Existing Warrant Officers and Specialists will be offered an option to convert to the Premium Plan, and transfer the accumulated benefits from their current schemes of service to the new Plan. Sir, quality manpower is a key pillar of the SAF's defence capabilities. The Premium Plan aims to attract the quality manpower that the SAF needs, by providing first class careers in the SAF that are both challenging and rewarding. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr David T. E. Lim]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, in accordance with Section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Cap 113), approves the reclamation by the Government of the foreshore and seabed at Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong containing an area of about 3,310 ha as shown coloured pink on LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 1/2000, which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore and consequently approves modification of the boundary of the reclamation previously approved by Parliament on 16th January 1992 of 657 ha of foreshore and seabed as shown edged red on the same plan.

Sir, on 16th January 1992, this House approved the reclamation of 657 ha of foreshore and seabed at Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong as shown edged red on `LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN 1/2000'. A copy of this plan is displayed in the Library of this House for the reference of hon. Members. The reclamation was to be carried out by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) as agent of Government. However, this was not carried out as the Ministry of National Development subsequently redirected the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and HDB to review the reclamation profile with the objective of increasing the amount of land that can be reclaimed and to optimise land use. The study has been completed. HDB now proposes to reclaim a revised area of 3,310 ha of foreshore and seabed as shown coloured pink on the same plan. A copy of this plan is displayed in the Library of this House for the reference of hon. Members. When reclaimed, the land would be kept as contingency land for urban development. The reclamation works will commence in October 2000 and will be completed by 2008. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with Section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Cap 113), approves the reclamation by the Government of the foreshore and seabed at Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong containing an area of about 3,310 ha as shown coloured pink on LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 1/2000, which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore and consequently approves modification of the boundary of the reclamation previously approved by Parliament on 16th January 1992 of 657 ha of foreshore and seabed as shown edged red on the same plan.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to 3.00 pm on Friday, 25th February 2000." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes past Five o'clock pm to 3.00 pm on Friday, 25th February 2000.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Government intends to pass laws giving protection to consumers such as the Fair Trading Act 1986 and the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 of New Zealand, and, if so, when.

The Government's approach to consumer protection is to educate consumers while enabling the market to operate as efficiently as possible, regulating only where necessary. Encouraging competition and increasing access to a range of goods and services enable consumers to make their own decisions from a menu of choices. This is the best way to increase consumer welfare. The policy has served us well. In areas where protection is necessary, for example, to safeguard health, safety or public morals, there are already existing legislation. Specific offences of cheating and certain forms of fraudulent trades are also covered in the Penal Code and other legislation. We must avoid over-regulating. First, legislative and regulatory requirements on businesses carry with them compliance costs. This will increase business costs that would ultimately be passed on to consumers. Second, we must also avoid excessive dependence by consumers on Government regulation. Otherwise, legislation would have to keep expanding in scope and coverage to cover all possible cases of cheating and unfair trade practices. In the end, let the buyer beware - this is the caveat emptor principle. We believe that a better approach is to educate consumers and make more information available, so that they can make good choices. The Government will continue to work with CASE on such efforts. CASE has also informed that it will be putting up a proposal for a Fair Trading Act for Singapore. They are studying, among others, the two Acts cited by Mr Chiam See Tong and will be incorporating the elements which they deem appropriate for Singapore. MTI will study CASE's proposal when it is ready, but our preference is for a minimalist Fair Trading Act, should one be deemed necessary.