Hansard, 2000-04-25

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: NameFromTo (2000)(2000) Mr R Sinnakaruppan22 Mar23 Mar 3 Apr10 Apr 19 Apr22 Apr Mr Simon S C Tay23 Mar30 Mar 10 Apr11 Apr 16 Apr29 Apr Mr Thomas Thomas24 Mar26 Mar 7 Apr9 Apr 23 Apr26 Apr 7 May13 May Assoc Prof Low Seow Chay25 Mar29 Mar NameFromTo (2000)(2000) Mr Leong Horn Kee 28 Mar28 Mar 10 Apr12 Apr 15 Apr18 Apr Mr Ong Kian Min29 Mar5 Apr 9 Apr20 Apr Mr Chew Heng Ching31 Mar1 Apr 10 Apr18 Apr Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon1 Apr11 Apr BG George Yong-Boon Yeo2 Apr7 Apr 22 Apr3 May Dr John Chen2 Apr7 Apr Assoc Prof Yaacob Ibrahim2 Apr15 Apr Mr Heng Chiang Meng 3 Apr3 Apr 11 Apr20 Apr 27 Apr1 May Dr Ong Chit Chung3 Apr5 Apr Mr Tan Soo Khoon5 Apr6 Apr 26 Apr27 Apr Dr Ow Chin Hock6 Apr2 May Mr Lim Swee Say7 Apr9 Apr Prof S Jayakumar9 Apr11 Apr 20 Apr23 Apr Mr Peh Chin Hua9 Apr16 Apr 26 Apr29 Apr Mr David T E Lim9 Apr19 Apr 26 Apr7 May Mr Tang Guan Seng9 Apr19 Apr Mr Ahmad Md Magad9 Apr19 Apr Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed9 Apr19 Apr Dr Wan Soon Bee10 Apr13 Apr Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap10 Apr20 Apr Dr Ker Sin Tze10 Apr24 Apr Mr Zulkifli Baharudin10 Apr24 Apr RAdm Teo Chee Hean 11 Apr11 Apr Assoc Prof Chin Tet Yung11 Apr20 Apr Mr Bernard Chen16 Apr18 Apr Mr Lew Syn Pau16 Apr19 Apr Mr Yeo Guat Kwang16 Apr20 Apr Dr Lee Boon Yang16 Apr22 Apr Dr Tan Cheng Bock16 Apr27 Apr BG Lee Hsien Loong17 Apr20 Apr Mr Peter Chen17 Apr23 Apr Mr Goh Chee Wee17 Apr25 Apr Encik Yatiman Yusof20 Apr23 Apr Mr Chan Soo Sen21 Apr29 Apr NameFromTo (2000)(2000) Mr Abdullah Tarmugi22 Apr26 Apr Mr Davinder Singh 25 Apr25 Apr Mr K Shanmugam25 Apr 25 Apr Mdm Claire Chiang 25 Apr25 Apr Mr Lee Kuan Yew 25 Apr25 Apr Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam26 Apr1 May Mr S Iswaran26 Apr30 Apr 13 May20 May 24 May26 May 18 Jun1 Jul Mr Lim Hng Kiang27 Apr30 Apr Mr Mohamad Maidin BPM30 Apr12 May Dr Aline Wong30 Apr2 May Mr Chng Hee Kok2 May5 May Mr Seng Han Thong4 May6 May 3 Jun10 Jun Mr Ang Mong Seng8 May12 May Assoc Prof Toh See Kiat9 May17 May 21 May25 May Mr Inderjit Singh24 May26 May TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the dates stated: 21 March 2000 (i) Supply Bill; and (ii) Supplementary Supply Bill. 25 March 2000 Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority Bill. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order. On behalf of hon. Members, I welcome the Hon. George Strickland, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia, and Mrs Strickland, who are present in our Gallery. [Applause].

asked the Minister for Finance whether his Ministry has investigated the matter relating to Unicorn International Pte Ltd's business dealings with Amos Industries Pte Ltd, and whether he will provide an update on his Ministry's findings and conclusion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the Committee of Supply on 8th March 2000, the Member related that SMEs would probably do well to form alliances and that Government-linked companies (GLCs) are their obvious alliance partners. However, he said that he had received negative feedback to this idea, and then gave an account of the personal experience of one of his grassroots leaders. I quote: "He came across a new product in Italy that was superior and would prove to be an advantage in bidding for a certain Government tender. Being a small-time businessman, he approached a GLC to jointly pursue this Italian contact. He thought he could trust the GLC without signing a binding joint venture contract or non-circumvention agreement. ... When he brought the Italian principals to Singapore, the GLC partner ferried them away, bought them an expensive dinner and proposed to deal directly. With the GLC's immaculate credentials, it is no surprise that the Italian company was convinced to deal with the GLC directly, and the small guy was excluded from the arrangements." In short, according to Mr Ong Kian Min, the grassroots leader alleged that a GLC had acted dishonourably in excluding him from a business arrangement, which the grassroots leader had introduced to the GLC, and that the GLC had reneged on an agreement to jointly pursue the contact, by dealing directly with his Italian principal. The GLC concerned is Unicorn International. The Italian principal referred to was FB Design, and the Government contract relates to a Mindef tender. The grassroots leader was Mr Ng Cheng Hwee of Amos Industries. Mr Ng subsequently told the Sunday Times on 19th March 2000 that the GLC "then proceeded to ask a sister company to try and displace Amos from its existing servicing contract with the government agency". I have investigated the case and am satisfied that the allegations have no merit. Unicorn International acted correctly and honourably in its dealings with the local company, Amos Industries, and its Italian principal, FB Design. The facts of the incident are as follows: In June 1997, Mr Ng approached Unicorn on a possible collaboration to market to Mindef a product manufactured by FB Design. Mr Ng represented to Unicorn that Amos was the sole and exclusive agent in Singapore for FB Design. On this basis, Unicorn and Amos agreed that Unicorn would submit the tender to Mindef, while Amos would not. Mr Ng confirmed this in writing on 5th September 1997. FB Design also affirmed Mr Ng's fax that "Unicorn will be the prime contractor for the tender". On 10th June 1998, FB Design stated in a letter to Unicorn, which was copied to Amos, that Amos was its agent in Singapore and was rewarded on a commission basis, and that Amos had not been given any contractual capabilities, ie, Amos did not have the right to enter into any contracts on behalf of FB Design. Once the tender requirements were clear, FB Design would offer the product directly to, and possibly sign a contract with Mindef, or Unicorn. In addition, Mindef has confirmed that Amos was not a pre-qualified supplier and thus could not bid for the contract directly. Since Amos was not in a position to bid for the contract in the first place, there is no basis to claim that Amos decided not to enter into any joint venture agreement or non-circumvention agreement with Unicorn because it felt it could trust Unicorn. At meetings conducted on 11th and 12th August 1998, Unicorn management met FB Design representatives in Singa pore. Mr Ng was present. It was agreed that: (a) Unicorn would be the party which would submit the tender bid to Mindef; (b) FB Design would submit a quote directly to Unicorn for the supply of the products required by Mindef. FB Design's quote would include Amos' contractual commission; (c) In the event that Unicorn succeeded in the tender, FB Design would pay Amos its contractual commission; and (d) Amos would provide Unicorn with the requisite services for Mindef's maintenance and service requirements during the one-year warranty period, the understanding being that Amos would give a reasonable quote for its service charges. After the meeting on 11th August, the Unicorn and FB Design representatives proceeded for dinner. Mr Ng did not attend the dinner because FB Design brought along a guest known to Unicorn, but not to Mr Ng. This was the "expensive dinner" which Mr Ong Kian Min referred to. In reality, it cost only S$375.58 for six persons, or about $63 per head. A lunch the next day with the same FB Design representatives included Mr Ng. It is therefore clear that all material discussions on the transaction took place in Amos' presence, with Amos' consent on the agreed terms. It was FB Design which chose to deal directly with Unicorn. At no point did Unicorn propose to deal directly with the Italians, or exclude Amos from the arrangements. Thereafter, Unicorn sought Amos' quote for its maintenance and service charges for the one-year warranty period. Amos quoted an unrealistically large sum, compared to figures furnished by FB Design. When this was brought to Amos' attention, they insisted on maintaining their price. This threatened to make the bid uncompetitive. Unicorn was thus compelled to approach various parties to provide alternative quotes, of which only ST Marine reverted. Even ST Marine's price was not low enough. Unicorn therefore did not give the maintenance contract to either Amos or ST Marine. Mindef awarded the tender in March 1999. Unicorn failed to secure the contract. Amos complained to Mindef the same month. Mindef investigated the matter and found the complaint to be without merit. Mindef replied to Amos as follows: "Our investigations showed that Unicorn International had never requested FB Design for the agency right. We also learned that when your Company's agency agreement with FB expired in December 1998, FB did not appoint UI or any other party as their new agent." Despite this reply, Mr Ng was not satisfied. Hence, after Mr Ong Kian Min raised the matter in Parliament, Mr Ng spoke to the press to voice his grievances. Mr Speaker, Sir, the facts of the case show that the accusations against Unicorn International have no basis. I have laid out the details of the entire incident in Parliament today, because the Government takes allegations of misconduct or unfair practices by GLCs very seriously. We have made it clear, both to GLCs and to the public, that we expect GLCs to maintain the highest standards of corporate conduct. We will not tolerate any unethical or illegal behaviour by GLCs, and will act swiftly and firmly to deal with any wrong-doing. At the same time, we cannot allow the reputations of our GLCs to be smeared by unfounded allegations. The GLCs have painstakingly built up their businesses and reputations over the years. Any accusation against a GLC must either be refuted conclusively, or else be substantiated and the GLC put right. I understand that after Mr Ong Kian Min spoke in Parliament on 8th March 2000, he had been in touch with Unicorn International, which had informed him of the facts of the case. Subsequently, Mr Ong told the Sunday Times on 19th March 2000 that the matter was "a misunderstanding". However, the matter could not be left there unresolved. The "misunderstanding" had to be properly and publicly cleared up. I therefore thank Mr Ong for asking the question in Parliament, and giving me the opportunity to put the facts on the public record.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his full investigation and comprehensive reply. I am satisfied that Unicorn International acted properly throughout this transaction. In raising this matter I had no intention of misleading anyone into thinking that our GLCs were adopting cut-throat business practices. If such impression was indeed created, I apologise. I am happy to note the Minister's reassurance to this House that the Government expects all our GLCs to adhere to responsible business practices.

Having heard the Minister, may I ask whether the Minister does not think it right that perhaps it is time that a Board of Ethics be appointed to investigate any misconduct or malpractices of any sort in the business sector in Singapore?

I have just explained that there was no misconduct in this case. I know what the Member means, that is, in general, there should be some sort of appeal board. But I think it is unnecessary because I do not believe the problem is a major one and I do not see any reason to create a so-called Ethics Board.

Does the Minister not agree that it will make for greater transparency if we had a Board of Ethics which investigated and reported it publicly?

My speech this afternoon and the response are as transparent as he can hope to have. I do not see what else he wants to do.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister, given the changing nature of the provision of financial services, especially where a more timely extension of online credit may mean that credit risk assessment lags approvals, how overall credit risk will be managed.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether there are signs, anecdotal or actual, of excessive consumer credit, given the recovery in confidence and the advent of online services, and how the Government will act to curb such excess, if necessary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I answer, with your permission, Question Nos. 2 and 3 together?

Yes.

Consumer credit, overall, has not increased significantly. Total bank loans to individuals declined by 0.8% in 1999 to $21.6 billion, and picked up by only 2% in February 2000, compared to a year ago. Credit card spending has gone up by 16% in 1999 and 19% in February 2000, after declining in 1998 due to the downturn in the economy. After a slowdown in 1998, the amounts rolled-over on credit card balances have also grown by 23% in 1999 and 25% in February 2000, compared to a year ago. But bad debts on credit card spending remained low, at 0.6% of spending. There has been a rapid emergence of online services allowing purchases by credit card. This will no doubt grow, as e-commerce becomes prevalent and more consumers become familiar with the Internet. While this may alter the means of payment and spending patterns, credit spending in Singapore is still governed by the minimum income requirement and two times monthly salary limit that MAS imposes. The traditional methods by which banks assess and manage their credit risks still apply in the electronic age. Offering on-line credit facilities should not change the criteria that banks use to evaluate credit applications. Banks will have to carefully balance the need to grant quick approval of on-line applications with the need to verify the income and credit history of the applicants. However, technology exists for banks to perform credit assessment more efficiently and quickly, and thus become more responsive to consumers, particularly for those with whom they have an existing banking relationship. Within the industry, the Association of Banks is looking into the formation of a Consumer Credit Rating Bureau which will help the banking community identify risk candidates for credit. All these enable the banks to manage their overall credit risks better, while raising the quality of service to their customers. While the pick-up in credit so far has not been excessive, the Government will continue to monitor the trends in consumer credit to see if further measures are necessary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister that in view of the fact that consumer credit can sometimes be encouraged by financial institutions which advertise seemingly minimal interest rates and perhaps hide charges and penalty clauses which actually make the low interest rates non-effective, would the Government look into legislation to prevent such practices?

Sir, we will study the matter. I do not believe legislation is a good solution. Basically, we want people who are selling things or offering loans to be honest and to advertise honestly and accurately, and not to make misleading claims. Of course, the whole idea of advertising is to make your thing look even better than it really is. So, there is a fine line to be drawn, and I believe CASE has been helping us to draw that line.

Sir, I would like to know whether, as a philosophy, the MAS would be inclined to be more stringent with regard to the granting of non-security backed on-line credit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a Question to be answered next concerning credit for security. It is slightly different from unsecured lending. We have limits on unsecured lending of two months of salary, and it is basically an income requirement. We think that is satisfactory, because as incomes rise, the two months' salary automatically increases.

Sir, I would like to ask the DPM whether he thinks that it is more effective to have legislation and to come out with a standard that banks, for example, must have when they advertise interest rates - like effective annual interest rates. CASE, being a members' association and not a Government agency, would lack the bite that legislation has.

Sir, let us see whether we have a problem. If so, then we can study the solutions, because I do not think, up to now, we have had a problem with banks making misleading advertisements of interest rates they are offering. So I would be inclined to wait for the problem to arise before examining possible solutions.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether the recent new initiative by financial institutions in relation to share financing will lead to excessive credit exposure by investors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, share financing is an integral part of the securities market. Before 15th March this year, under the old T + 5 settlement system, investors often did not have to pay up until 12 days after their trades were executed. The contra buyer could sell on the fifth day after the initial purchase, and only pay the broker the difference between the purchase and sale prices after settlement of the contra sale, which was another six days later. In addition, brokers often extended informal credit, so that when the market entered a downswing, some customers would default, exacerbating the problem of contra losses. Now that we have shortened the settlement cycle to T + 3, contra trading has become less attractive. This may dampen market turnover. Brokers have responded by introducing new forms of financing for their clients, and reviving older forms. For example, at least one broker is giving its preferred clients up to 14 days interest free credit. Where securities firms are concerned, the Singapore Exchange (SGX) requires its members to impose an initial margin requirement of at least 50%. This means that if an investor buys $2,000 worth of securities, he must pay the first $1,000 upfront. SGX rules also require the broker to make a margin call when the value of the securities falls below $1,800. If the investor is unable to meet the call, the broker will sell the securities and liquidate the position. These margin requirements have helped to keep our stockbroking firms healthy and not over exposed to risk. They should adequately protect the firms should the market turn down. From the macro perspective, the rules have also prevented excessive leverage in the stock market, much like MAS' rules on property financing. However, these margin requirements do not currently apply to banks, or to other lenders that are not members of the SGX. Hence, UOB could recently offer customers 100% share financing up to six times their monthly salary, so that they can buy shares without putting up any money upfront. Our banks are well capitalised. Margin loans form only a small percentage of their total loan portfolio. MAS is therefore not worried that the banks will become over exposed to the stock market. However, MAS is concerned that over generous margin loans may create froth in the stock market, and increase market volatility. They may also lead to an excessive expansion of consumer borrowing, and tempt individuals to speculate in shares beyond the limits of what they can afford. The US Federal Reserve Board (FRB) imposes margin requirements on brokers, banks and non-bank intermediaries. All providers of share financing are required to impose an initial margin requirement of at least 50%. There is thus a level playing field, unlike in Singapore. The US Federal Reserve Board requires investors to pay $1,000 upfront for $2,000 worth of securities. The exchanges also require margin calls to be made when the value of the securities falls below $1,333. This is more liberal than our threshold of $1,800, but, in practice, many American broker-dealers maintain stricter internal policies on initial margin requirements as well as margin calls. As the US stock market has risen, margin debt has grown sharply. There have been calls on the FRB to raise the margin requirement, especially after the recent volatility in US equity prices. The FRB has not agreed to do so. Its position is that the present requirements are adequate, but it is continuing to monitor the situation. Other commentators have observed that margin financing is only one form of leverage in the stock market, and is still only a small percentage of total market capitalisation in the US. MAS is reviewing whether to extend limits on margin financing across the broad spectrum of margin providers, and whether our present requirements provide the proper balance in our markets.

Sir, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the new financing by financial institutions has aggravated the stock market fluctuations in Singapore recently?

Sir, I doubt it, because I do not think the volume is very large. It is only about 1% of the stock market. So it is unlikely to have a major impact.

Sir, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether there is a need to have a control on margin requirements presently or in the near future in Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is standard to have margin requirements, because we want to make sure that individuals do not over borrow, and that if the share prices go down, they are actually able to pay for it and do not default. And we also want to make sure that the intermediaries, like the brokers and the banks, do not over lend. Because if there is a default, it is not just the individual customer's problem or the individual broker's problem, but it could become a systemic problem, as Members will remember from Pan Electric. When Pan Electric went bust, a lot of brokers found that they had over extended themselves and several went out of business. We had to organise a life boat fund to try and rescue the rest, which we succeeded in doing. So there is a need for margin requirements. The question is how strict they should be, and how they should be applied, and what we should do with brokers and non-brokers. These are things which we are studying now.

Sir, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, regardless of whether the Government thinks that margin debt is the cause or the effect of a rising market, would the MAS use the percentage of margin debt to the stock market capitalisation as a benchmark when deciding on margin requirements?

Sir, I think the two have different parameters. The percentage of margin debt to total capitalisation is very small. We do not have an exact number, but I said it is about 1%. Whereas the margin requirement relates not to the size of that debt but to the volatility of the debt. Because if you bought shares worth $2,000, and you have paid $1,000, you still owe $1,000 secured against the $2,000 piece of paper - shares. If the shares go down to $1,500, you still owe $1,000, but it is only secured against $1,500 of shares. If your broker is slow to sell and liquidate the position, he may find the market has moved further against him and then he has a loss on his hands. So it is the volatility which concerns us when we have to judge how tight to make that margin financing limit.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Monetary Authority of Singapore will help set up a bond exchange, especially as an electronic platform, to facilitate bond-trading for both institutions and retail investors, as well as to further establish Singapore as a regional debt hub.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few years, rapid advances in electronic bond technology has caused electronic bond trading systems to proliferate in the US and Europe. These range from the Euro-MTS, which was launched in Europe in June 1999 by 24 financial institutions who are primary dealers in the various European government securities markets, to exchange systems operated by stock exchanges like the New York Stock Exchange. Electronic bond systems bring several benefits to the bond market. For the issuer, it removes traditional geographical barriers and facilitates a wider reach and distribution of bonds. For the bond investor, electronic platforms offer greater transparency, lower transaction costs and more value-added services. However, more important than state-of-the-art electronic infrastructure are the fundamental conditions for efficient and liquid bond markets. Electronic bond systems are most prevalent in countries where the bond markets are already highly developed and liquid. Necessary conditions to create thriving and liquid bond markets include: A robust market making mechanism. This requires a group of financial institutions committed to making markets, both in government securities as well as corporate bonds. An efficient market structure. This includes a reliable government yield curve, and a liquid bond repurchase and futures market to enable market participants to hedge their S$ debt positions. A large base of diverse investors. This should comprise a mix of long term- institutional investors like insurance and fund management companies, short-term value traders, as well as retail investors. MAS will be taking steps soon to enhance the efficiency and liquidity of our bond markets. To support this, we are also studying ways to facilitate the introduction of electronic bond systems in Singapore.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will indicate what are the steps taken to establish a Speakers' Corner.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the purpose of setting up a Speakers' Corner and for what considerations has the Government changed its mind in setting up this Corner.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will outline the rules that will apply to the proposed "Speakers' Corner" in Singapore.

Sir, may I have your permission to answer Questions 6, 7 and 8 together as they are all related?

Yes.

Sir, the Speakers' Corner will give Singaporeans a designated venue where they can speak outdoors in public on any issue, without having to apply for a Public Entertainment licence. The idea of having a Speakers' Corner, modelled on the Hyde Park Corner in London, was mooted about a year ago. The Government initially did not support the proposal, as it was concerned over the potential for public disorder in our multi-racial, multi-religious society. Irresponsible speakers might use the Corner to make speeches to create social strife and division for whatever reason. However, after studying the matter further, the Government has decided that while there is some risk, the risk can be managed, and the idea is worth trying out, especially in view of the support it has attracted from civil society groups. The rules for using the Speakers' Corner will be kept to the minimum. The Police has carefully studied how the Royal Parks Agency and the Royal Parks Constabulary in the United Kingdom manage Hyde Park Speakers' Corner in London. We will adopt many features of the Hyde Park example in our own Speakers' Corner. I will ask the Clerk to distribute the comparison (Cols. 77-80) of the conditions of our Speakers' Corner and the Hyde Park Speakers' Corner. [Copies of document distributed to hon. Members]. Members can study that afterwards. comparison - COMPARISON OF HYDE PARK'S SPEAKERS' CORNER AND SINGAPORE'S SPEAKERS' CORNER AT HONG LIM PARK (Cols. 77-80) Let me now outline my Ministry's plans for the Speakers' Corner and the basic rules that would govern its operation. First, let me address the choice of venue. The Speakers' Corner will be set up at Hong Lim Park. It will be open during the daylight hours of 7 am to 7 pm, 7 days a week, throughout the year. I will also ask the Clerk to distribute a map (Cols. 81-82) which shows the exact extent or location of the Speakers' Corner. [Copies of document distributed to hon. Members]. Hong Lim Park is easily accessible and close to the business district and Chinatown, which are areas of high concentration of people and activities. It is also historically the venue for political rallies and speeches. The Kreta Ayer Neighbourhood Police Post nearby will make it convenient for speakers to register to use the Corner. map - SPEAKERS' CORNER AT HONG LIM PARK (Cols. 81-82) My Ministry considered other possible locations, such as the Padang, the Civic Plaza at Ngee Ann City, Bras Basah Park, and the Botanic Gardens. However, they were less suitable for various reasons, such as interference with frequent commercial or sporting activities, relatively poor accessibility and redevelopment in the near future. There will only be one Speakers' Corner. Given Singapore's population and geographical size, there is no need for more than one such venue, nor to have venues of different sizes to cater to different levels of formality. Even London, with a population of over seven million people and about three times the size of Singapore, has only one Speakers' Corner at Hyde Park. There have been suggestions to set up more such venues in the UK, but these are for other cities across the country, rather than for London itself. Some ground rules will ensure that speakers and audience use the Speakers' Corner without creating a fracas, or law and order problems. There will be three basic conditions: (a) The speaker must be a Singapore citizen; (b) The speaker must register his intention to speak before he makes his speech; (c) The speech should not be religious in nature, and should not have the potential to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups. Let me elaborate on each of these conditions. The speaker must be a Singapore citizen. The Speakers' Corner is meant to provide Singapore citizens with an avenue to express their views on issues that concern them. The Corner should not become an avenue for foreigners to pursue their own agenda whether in respect of their own domestic issues, or those of other countries, including Singapore's. Speakers must give notice of their intention to speak, and present themselves in person to show that they are Singapore citizens, before they start speaking. This is a very simple requirement. All they need to do is to turn up in person at the Kreta Ayer Neighbourhood Police Post, which is right next to the Speakers' Corner, produce their identity cards or passports to prove their citizenship, and register their intent to speak. They need not inform the NPP what they intend to speak on. Approvals will be granted on the spot, and they can then proceed to the Corner to speak. The Police will allow advance registration by individuals who wish to speak, but not advance booking of whole or part of the venue for an organised public event. This is to ensure that the Speakers' Corner remains available at all times to all Singaporeans who wish to speak, and no person or group can take over whole or part of the venue for themselves. No speeches that would cause racial or religious enmity. Singapore is a multi-racial, multi-religious society. To safeguard racial and religious harmony, the rules prohibit religious speeches, and speeches that would cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups. The speakers can speak on any other subject they wish, in any of our official languages. They must naturally abide by the laws of Singapore, including the Sedition Act, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the Penal Code. For example, if a speaker issues a threat to kill someone, it will be treated as criminal intimidation. A speaker who makes slanderous remarks can be sued for defamation. As at the Hyde Park Speakers' Corner, no sound amplification devices will be allowed. This is to reduce noise pollution, and ensure that no one speaker drowns out the other speakers. The Police will adopt a minimalist, hands-off approach towards the Speakers' Corner. The Police will not try to control activities there, as long as there is no law and order problem. But should rioting, affray, or a breach of the peace occur, the Police will take firm action to prevent the situation from getting out of hand. For less serious offences, the Police will investigate and take appropriate action, ranging from verbal and written warnings to suspensions from speaking at the Corner, depending on the severity of the breach. Assoc. Prof. Chin has asked about the steps to be taken to establish the Speakers' Corner. The Ministry of Home Affairs will gazette an exemption under the Public Entertainments (PE) Act to exempt public speeches at Speakers' Corner from licensing requirements. The exemption order will specify the three basic conditions which I have just outlined. Regulations will also be required to facilitate the smooth operation of the Corner as well as to deal with any breaches of the conditions. In addition, some physical improvement works will also be carried out at the site. For example, signages need to be erected, and the boundaries of the Speakers' Corner clearly demarcated, so that speakers will know where the Corner extends to. We are targeting to complete all preparations and launch the Speakers' Corner by end August 2000.

Just a matter of clarification, Sir. The Minister just now mentioned the registration process and said that once the registration is done, permission would be given to speak. I would just like him to clarify that actually no permission needs to be given because it is just a registration process and it is to be distinguished from the licensing process, which is a different form of registration. That is the first point. My second point is this. The Minister points out that there will be very few uniformed officers on patrol in the Speakers' Corner. What would happen if there is a rowdy scene provoked by speeches or otherwise? What would happen in that case? Who will maintain law and order?

Firstly, Prof. Chin is right. The licensing requirement is granted an exemption by the Exemption Order of the Public Entertainments Act. All the speaker needs to do is to put his name down and he would be given a form which would state the conditions. He would sign it and he would go forth and speak. In that sense, there is no licensing. It is simply that he has indicated his interest and then he can go ahead and speak, having taken note of the conditions. For people who go to the Speakers' Corner and speak there or as a member of the audience, we hope that they will be sensible enough not to provoke any disturbance and not to disturb the peace. Of course, if the peace is disturbed and people complain about it, the Police will be there.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek the Minister's view on the significance of the Speakers' Corner to Singapore.

This subject was raised last year and there was a lot of public interest among certain groups of people who said that we should be like some other countries. We should have a free speech corner to allow people to say anything they want without regulations and without the need to apply for a Public Entertainments licence and so on. We thought it was not quite a good idea. But, in the end, we thought that if that is really what the people want and we can manage the risk, we will provide for it. Basically, if the people really want this, we will let them try it out. We hope that they can make it succeed.

Sir, since there are no qualified privileges and the defamation law will be enforced, will there be tape recorders around to tape every word that a speaker says?

Sir, I think the police has a lot of better things to do than just to carry a tape recorder and tape speeches. But Mr Chiam should not be suspicious when people turn up with a tape recorder. Let me tell him why. Because this is something new, there could be people who are interested to go there to speak and perhaps to make a name for themselves. There could also be people who are really interested to find out what is going on and what the speakers will say. Maybe they will say something interesting. So curious onlookers may carry a tape recorder. Or a research student, for example, writing about political developments in Singapore and he thinks that it is such a grand thing that we have taken such a step, he may carry a tape recorder. Who knows? Journalists will also carry a tape recorder. They will even carry a video recorder, and not just a tape recorder. Therefore, Mr Chiam should not be suspicious. At the same time, if he has something to say, do not be afraid to say it. That is the best test, is that not?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must compliment the Government for this decision, but I have a couple of questions. First, I am a little bit concerned about the location of Hong Lim Park. I know that historically it may be good, but I would like to ask the Government whether they are prepared to change the location if in future it is found that other locations are more suitable, for example, Bras Basah Park, with its more intellectual atmosphere with the Singapore Management University. Secondly, the Government spoke about enforcement. There is a difference here. If somebody were to speak quite ---

Order. Mr Zulkifli, can you move on to your question?

If he does not provoke someone, but a passer-by just decides to break a park bench, is the police going to prosecute the speaker or the guy who breaks the park bench? Can the Minister please clarify the level of enforcement and against whom is he enforcing against?

Sir, I have mentioned that the Bras Basah Park is not suitable, if that is his suggestion. Bras Basah Park is going to be redeveloped because of the Singapore Management University. Hong Lim Park is actually a very suitable location. It has historical significance. Some of the most fiery and important speeches were made at Hong Lim Park. So there is a good reason to go to Hong Lim Park and it is very convenient. It is very accessible. The MRT station is nearby. It is within walking distance of many office workers and even those going home will pass by there. There are two MRT lines, the North-East line as well as the line running along Raffles Place. So I do not think we need to worry about the location because once the place is established as a Speakers' Corner, people will turn up. Have Members been to Hyde Park? It is a very large place and yet people know where the Hyde Park Speakers' Corner is. They are not afraid of losing their way just because it is in some quiet place. On enforcement, as I have said, we hope people will behave themselves and not provoke anybody. If there should be a case to be investigated, it must depend on the facts, the circumstances and the evidence. The police just cannot go around chasing and prosecuting everybody. That is not what the police does.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister, and I hope it is not to be thought impertinent, but because of the view expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister that this was merely symbolism, whether the Government is seriously intent on promoting free speech in Singapore or is this just another mere show? If it is seriously interested in promoting free speech, would the Minister agree to an open debate with the Workers' Party outside?

Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam has always asked for a debate. We can have a lot of debates in this House. Any time he wants it, we can have it. And he can stand up there and make his speech as he wants, except that when we give an answer, he is not around to listen. So there is no point talking about a debate with us when he does not even bother to stay in the House. There is nothing to stop him from going to the Speakers' Corner and make a speech. So, do not worry about where. If he wants to debate, do it right here. This is where the public forum really is for a proper policy debate, not in the Speakers' Corner. But let me put it more seriously. It is not just a question of symbolism. Of course, we have a place to show. It is symbolism in the sense that, yes, if you want a place, there is a place. But for free speech, I think we must not delude ourselves. He can do so on the Internet. He can do so with the press. He can do so in any place he wants, subject to the rules of the land. And he can do so right here. So, what is the worry about having free speech? There is free speech all the time. It is a question of whether he is prepared to have it or not. Do not run away from it. When we give him an answer, stay here to listen.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two questions for the Minister. Firstly, would the Speakers' Corner from now on be a permanent feature in Singapore? What happens if in future Hong Lim Park is redeveloped? Move the Speakers' Corner to some other places? The second question I have is regarding the language used. The rule says four official languages will be allowed. I would like to find out from the Minister whether dialects, for instance, Hokkein, Cantonese, or Teochew, would be allowed in the Speakers' Corner.

Sir, first, the question on redevelopment. There is this saying - I think you all understand - that when you get to the bridge you will cross it. You have not got to the bridge yet; so wait for the time to come. If there is redevelopment, we will find another place. On language, we say four official languages. But if he cannot speak any of them, and want to speak in Cantonese, go ahead.

I will allow one more question.

May I ask the Minister: what is he afraid of about public debate? Is he afraid of the public of Singapore or is he afraid of the Workers' Party? Is that what is worrying him? Secondly, may I ask the Minister: is he aware that it is not just Hyde Park where the people of London are allowed to speak up? They can speak up anywhere else, and not only just in London but in any other part of the country. So it is nonsensical to say that London has only got one Speakers' Corner. Thirdly, why is there any need even for registration? May we have an assurance that the particulars of the speaker will not be sent to the Internal Security Department?

Sir, if we are afraid of having a debate with the Workers' Party, we would not be here. And if we are afraid of having a debate with the Workers' Party, he would not be given a chance to be here, by us, by the way. Mr Jeyaretnam rose.

Order, order. Mr Jeyaretnam, can you resume your seat? Mr Jeyaretnam resumed his seat.

We can have free speech anywhere in Singapore so long as it conforms to the law. Nobody says he cannot have free speech. He can do so anywhere so long as he conforms to the law. He can do so on the Internet, if he is Internet-savvy enough. He can talk to a lot of people that we do not even know of. On registration and sending the particulars to ISD, let me tell him that ISD has a lot of better things to do than just to read his name.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will consider amending the legislation on harbouring of illegal immigrants so as to differentiate landlords who may be unintentional offenders from those with intent, and to prescribe lesser penalties for the unintentional offenders.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government will consider reviewing its policy of mandatory jail sentence for those convicted of harbouring illegal immigrants.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Singapore Immigration and Registration Department has ever had internal guidelines to determine whether a person who committed an immigration offence should be charged in court.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs why the authorities have seen fit to prosecute ordinary landlords for renting premises to tenants who have turned out to be illegal immigrants.

Sir, this is a serious subject. Let me answer all these Questions relating to harbouring of illegal immigrants altogether. Let me, first, give the background and the reasons why we have strict laws to deal with the immigration offenders problem. This is not a new problem. It has been with us for a long time. So long as Singapore's economy continues to grow, there will always be desperate foreigners who want to come in here illegally and to stay here illegally to find jobs. They will pose a serious threat to Singapore's safety and security if they are allowed to remain here, particularly in large numbers. Sir, there are four parties who contribute to this illegal immigration problem: (i) the trafficker who smuggles in the illegal immigrants, (ii) the illegal immigrant or the overstayer himself, (iii) the person who gives him a job, the employer, and (iv) the person who gives him shelter. We therefore must have strict laws to deal with all of them. The scale of the problem is large. In 1998, about 23,000 immigration offenders were arrested, comprising 14,700 illegal immigrants and 8,300 overstayers. This number remained unacceptably high last year, with some 17,000 arrested, comprising 11,500 illegal immigrants and 5,500 overstayers. These numbers have grown steadily over the years since the early 1980s. The Home Team adopts a multi-pronged approach in dealing with the immigration offenders problem. To deter illegal immigrants and their traffickers, the Singapore Immigration and Registration (SIR) conducts strict checks at all our entry points. More than 40 Police Coast Guard boats patrol our waters intensively every day. The Police and SIR regularly conduct raids at construction sites, forested areas and other possible hideouts to arrest and flush out immigration offenders. But all these efforts will come to nought if we do not deal with the people who maintain, support or facilitate the immigration offenders' stay in Singapore, namely, the employers and harbourers of immigration offenders. So long as there is work or a place to stay, the immigration offenders problem cannot be tackled effectively. By providing them work or a place to stay, these employers and landlords make it harder for the authorities to find and catch the immigration offenders. In recent years, the number of persons arrested for employing or harbouring immigration offenders has increased from 230 in 1996, to 326 in 1997, 436 in 1998 and 698 in 1999. Stricter enforcement in recent years has led to more employers and harbourers being arrested. Since 1984, the Immigration Act has been amended several times to tighten up the problems of enforcement. The mandatory jail sentence for convicted harbourers and employers is not a new punishment introduced only recently. Let me repeat this: The mandatory jail sentence for convicted harbourers and employers is not a new punishment introduced only recently. It was introduced way back in 1984, when the Immigration Act was amended to provide for enhanced penalties against immigration offenders, and employers and harbourers of immigration offenders. The mandatory jail term is necessary to send a clear signal to all would-be offenders of our tough stance towards those who give shelter or work to immigration offenders. Before the amendments to the Immigration Act made in 1993, the prosecution had difficulties in securing conviction of errant employers and landlords. Many employers and harbourers of immigration offenders managed to secure acquittals by simply arguing that they were shown a copy of the work permit by the foreign worker, even though the work permit later turned out to be a forged one. Sir, in 1991, Justice F.A. Chua in the High Court, held in the case of Vadivelu that, to rebut the presumption of knowledge in a charge of harbouring an overstayer [and this case refers to a harbourer], a person must show that he has exercised due diligence in ascertaining the immigration status of the overstayer. In that case, Justice Chua said that the social policy of the Immigration Act, and I quote him, "would not be achieved if mere negligence or recklessness on the part of the accused to enquire about the status of the illegal immigrant or overstayer, if he knows or has reason to believe that the person is a foreigner, would be sufficient to rebut the presumption of knowledge." In an appeal case heard at the High Court in 1993, the Chief Justice himself affirmed the strict requirement for employers [and this time he refers to employers] to comply with the Immigration Act to thoroughly check the foreign worker's status before employing him. The Chief Justice said clearly and firmly in his judgement that, and I quote him, "to allow an employer to evade the section by shutting his eyes to the immigration or employment status of his foreign employee, would make proper control and enforcement impossible. It cannot be placing too onerous a duty upon employers in Singapore to require them to screen their foreign workers before employing them to ensure compliance with immigration policy and the law." Hence, it is instructive to note that both the courts and the Government are both agreed on the importance of ensuring the effective enforcement of our immigration laws and the need to impose a high level of diligence on those employing or giving shelter to foreigners. By ensuring that immigration offenders have no place to stay and no place to work, we are addressing key factors on the demand side of the equation. Therefore, a person who provides shelter or work to the foreigner must exercise due diligence in letting out his premises to foreigners or in employing them. In view of the observations of the Chief Justice, the Immigration Act was amended in 1993 to expressly require both employers and landlords to carry out certain basic checks, failing which they would be liable for the offence of employing or harbouring an immigration offender, should the worker or tenant turn out to be one. The employer or landlord was required to check the passport or travel document of the foreigner he intended to employ or let out his premises to. The due diligence requirements were refined again in 1998, to make clear what persons who give shelter to foreigners must check before letting out their premises to them, and in view of the fact that visit passes were no longer endorsed in the passport. The landlords were required to check the original immigration and work passes, and check that the particulars on the passports correspond with the particulars set out in the passes. If the employer is named, the landlords should also check with the employers to verify that the prospective tenants are indeed employed by them. If employers or landlords are not sure, they can also call SIR or the Ministry of Manpower to check the status of the employee or tenant. These due diligence requirements to check on potential workers or tenants are not onerous. Indeed, they are based on common sense. Surely, it cannot be unreasonable to require the employer or landlord to do some straightforward checks on the status of his foreign employee or tenant, especially as the safety and security of the community and country are at stake. The need for such checks has been well-publicised. The due diligence requirements were publicised in the newspapers in 1993, when the requirements were first introduced. In 1998, when the requirements were refined, they were also publicised. These requirements have been reported through radio and television news stories. These same requirements have also been covered in the popular television documentary, Crime Watch, in 1996, 1997, 1999 and this year, each episode attracting about 730,000 viewers watching the English and Mandarin channels. The HDB in 1998 sent out a letter to all the tenants and lessees of HDB flats. I will also ask the Clerk to distribute a copy of that letter. [Copies of letter distributed to hon. Members]. This letter dated 20th July 1998 set out very clearly, step-by-step, what a landlord must do when he were to let out his premises. And this letter reaches to more than 80% of the Singapore households. For the remainder, I suppose they are educated enough; otherwise they would not be living in private property and they should be well read. Sir, recently SIR has also pamphlets showing how to verify the status of foreigners and these have been placed at the NPP and HDB branches. In short, there has been more than enough publicity on this issue. But we will continue to publicise this and I have asked SIR to send the pamphlets to all households that pay property tax to remind them of the requirements, and this will be done very soon. Besides publicising the requirements of the law, the authorities have also been meticulous in examining the circumstances and facts of each case, before a decision is taken as to whether to charge a landlord in Court. Internal guidelines to determine whether an offender should be charged in court have been in place all the while. Over the years, the guidelines have been fine-tuned to ensure their relevance and effectiveness. 1.30 pm

Order. End of Question time. [Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 16, 18, 21-25, 28 and 29, 31, 33-35 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the section, "Oral Answers to Questions Not Reached" (Cols. 51-66).] Question Nos. 13-15, 17, 19 and 20, 26 and 27, 30, 32 and 36 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

"to amend the Multi-level Marketing and Pyramid Selling (Prohibition) Act (Chapter 190 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Lim Swee Say); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, Singapore is a party to the 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, or CWC for short. We need to enact this law to implement our obligations under that Convention. The Convention banned a whole category of weapons of mass destruction and established a comprehensive verification scheme to ensure that member countries comply with their obligations under the Convention. The CWC is the result of 20 years of negotiations in the United Nations Conference on Disarmament. To date, it has been ratified by 129 countries, including the United States, China, Indonesia and Russia. Singapore signed the Convention in 1997. Sir, I need not spell out for Members the horrifying effects chemical weapons can have on human life. To make matters worse, chemical weapons are cheap and can be easily produced, requiring little by way of technical expertise and raw materials. Unlike nuclear weapons, they can easily be disseminated using commercially available equipment. Chemical weapons have been used in a number of armed conflicts in the past causing death and injury to millions. The best known examples are during World War I, the Holocaust and the Iran-Iraq War. A few years ago, the Aum Shinrikyo cult released Sarin gas into a Tokyo underground, causing 5,000 casualties. It highlighted the fact that a country remains at risk from a chemical attack even during peacetime. Singapore ratified the CWC in 1997. Besides the obvious security benefits in a world that is free of chemical weapons, there are also other advantages to ratification. The Convention established the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). As a member of that Organisation, we can obtain technical assistance from other member countries if threatened with an attack by chemical weapons. Ratification is also expected to facilitate trade in chemicals which are controlled by the Convention. The Convention progressively prohibits transfers of these chemicals to States that are not parties to the Convention. However, as a State Party, our chemical industries are able to freely import or export these chemicals to and from other State Parties for legitimate purposes. Sir, Singapore does not produce or possess chemical weapons, nor do we have chemical weapons facilities or stocks to destroy, as required by the Convention. The verification measures required by the Convention have limited implications on parts of our chemical, pharmaceutical and other industries which I will elaborate shortly. The verification measures, which consist of periodic declarations of activities involving chemicals controlled by the Convention and inspections of facilities producing or using such chemicals, are necessary as a number of chemicals produced or used for normal commercial activities also have applications in the manufacture of chemical weapons. Therefore, these activities have to be constantly monitored to ensure that countries do not use their commercial chemical industry for the clandestine production of chemical weapons. Let me now touch on the salient provisions of the Bill. Clause 8 makes it an offence to use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer a chemical weapon. Singapore is obliged under the Convention to prohibit the carrying out of these activities. As required by the Convention, this clause also applies to acts and omissions of our citizens overseas and persons on board ships and aircraft registered in Singapore. Penalties for committing the offence are severe to reflect its seriousness and the devastating effects of the use of chemical weapons on lives and property. Clause 9 creates a licensing system for the use, development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention or transfer of scheduled chemicals for permitted purposes. Permitted purposes include protective, research, medical, pharmaceutical and law enforcement purposes. The licensing system is administered by the National Authority, an office created as part of the Trade Development Board. The system will facilitate the gathering of information from chemical facilities to enable Singapore to make periodic declarations to the Organisation established under the Convention. For the same reason, clause 12 requires those carrying out activities involving such chemicals to keep appropriate records and provide certain information to the Director of the National Authority, and clause 13 empowers the Director to require any person with information relevant to such declaration to furnish the information to the Director. Any information so provided is protected from disclosure under clause 26. This is to give our chemical industry the assurance that commercially sensitive information will always be kept confidential. Part V of the Bill provides for two types of inspections of premises: national and international inspections. National inspections are carried out by the National Authority and police officers to determine if the Act and regulations have been complied with at the premises. International inspections are carried out by the international inspectors of the Organisation, OPCW, which can be of two types. They could either be routine or challenge inspections. Routine inspections are carried out at facilities using controlled chemicals to ensure that such use is consistent with legitimate purposes and with annual declarations made by a State Party. A challenge inspection is carried out when a State Party to the Convention requests the Organisation to conduct an inspection in any other State Party to the Convention. A request may be made if the requesting State Party has good reason to suspect that the other State Party has violated the Convention. However, to allay any concern over the intrusive nature of such an inspection, the Bill provides that an inspection may only be carried out with the consent of the person in control of the premises or with a court warrant. Other safeguards are set out in clause 24 of the Bill. Sir, the Bill will have limited impact on the commercial operations of our companies in the chemical and other industries. In fact, since 1997, they have actually been making annual declarations to the National Authority voluntarily and have already factored the making of such declarations in their work schedules. From information obtained in 1999, less than 60 companies will require licences for activities involving chemicals controlled by the Convention. Of these, only eight will be subject to routine inspections by the international organsiations as set up under the Convention. Trial inspections here and elsewhere have shown that they cause only minimal disruptions to the operations of companies. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Sir, it is morally right for Singapore to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention on 14th January 1993 and ratifying the Convention on 21st October 1995. Sir, my sincere hope is that Singapore shall never support any form of weapons of mass destruction in war and, in peacetime, to prevent their proliferation, manufacture, stockpiling and take a stand for their destruction. All forms of mass destruction, be it nuclear, biological or chemical are inhuman. When they are used, they destroy both combatants and non-combatants. In a war, when conventional weapons are used, it is the civilian population that really suffers and when weapons of mass destruction are used, the civilian population suffers even more. Sir, I visited Hiroshima in 1998 and I visited the museum which told the story of the dropping of the atomic bomb on that city. All inhabitants of that city within range of the bomb died. The atomic bomb, which is a weapon of mass destruction, killed every one in its path. It did not discriminate whether a person is a soldier, a woman or a child. It just simply wiped out every one. In the case of Hiroshima, the inhabitants on 6th August 1945 suffered a terrible death. The inhabitants were seared by heat of 4000 degrees Celsius. Then there were strong winds of intense heat followed by acid rain. Finally, those who were still alive suffered radiation which destroyed their immune system. Many later died of leukemia and related diseases. The mass destruction done by chemical weapons is equally bad. The difference between chemical weapons and nuclear weapons is that the former destroy only living things. They do not destroy physical properties, such as houses and other buildings. However, like all weapons of mass destruction, they still do not discriminate between soldiers who are the actual combatants and the civilian population. When they are used, they kill every one. Some chemical weapons are designed to kill plants such as the agent orange chemical that was used in Vietnam to destroy vast areas of foliage instantly. The main use of the chemical agent orange was deployed mainly to kill plants and trees but it was also harmful to human beings who came in contact with it. Those who came in contact with that chemical later suffered from sickness and disabilities. Sir, it is right that we should have this law to prohibit chemical weapons in Singapore and give effect to Singapore's obligation under the Convention. I support the Bill.

Sir, I have listened to Mr Chiam and I thank him for his support. I think Members would share his views and comments on weapons of mass destruction, and I should add to what I said in my speech that Singapore has in fact signed all the key treaties and international conventions involving weapons of mass destruction. In addition to the convention, which is the subject of the Bill today, we have also ratified the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention as well as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). We have also signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) last year and we are now in the process of examining the ratification in due course.

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. 1.46 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the National Science and Technology Board (NSTB) Act was introduced in 1991. At that time, the Singapore economy was making the transition from a developing economy to a more advanced developing economy. We needed to strengthen our capabilities in undertaking higher value-added activities, and invest in R&D to better harness the full potential of latest development in science and technology. We therefore upgraded and expanded the Science Council into the NSTB to nurture manpower development, and encourage R&D in the public and private sectors. Sir, 10 years have gone by. Gross expenditure in R&D has increased from 0.84% of GDP in 1990 to 1.78% in 1998. The number of research and scientific engineers (RSE) has tripled from about 4,300 to 12,600 over the same period. The private sector now accounts for more than 60% of R&D, compared to only 54% in 1990. The NSTB has also helped establish a technology infrastructure comprising 13 research institutes and centres to support R&D in the industry. On the whole, we have made good progress in enhancing our capabilities in technology development. Looking ahead to the next 10 years, our new challenge is to transform the Singapore economy into a knowledge-based economy. We recognise that innovation and speed are the two key attributes for success in the New Economy. We therefore need to continue to strengthen not only our capabilities in up-stream technology development, but also our capabilities in mid-stream innovation; and down-stream commercialisation. More importantly, we also need to strengthen the link among these up-stream, mid-stream and down-stream capabilities, so that we can speedily turn creative ideas into marketable products and services to enjoy first mover's advantage. Our business communities will need to reinvent their businesses to seize the huge opportunities presented by these rapid changes. Likewise, NSTB and all our economic agencies will have to rapidly evolve in response to the emergence of the New Economy. Sir, the purpose of the proposed amendments to the NSTB Act is to enable the NSTB to respond to the New Economy by expanding its role. The expanded role encompasses the development of an environment conducive not only for science and technology development, but also for innovation with science and technology, and commercial deployment of science and technology. I will now run through the proposed amendments. In clause 2, we have inserted the definitions of "commercial application" and "financial assistance". This is to state clearly the proposed expansion in the scope of NSTB's functions beyond science and technology development to include innovation and commercialisation. Clause 3 of the Bill and the amended First Schedule will allow the Minister to appoint up to two members of the NSTB Board to be Deputy Chairmen instead of one. This will provide greater management flexibility to NSTB, bearing in mind its expanded scope of functions. To strengthen the link between up-stream R&D with mid-stream innovation and down-stream commercialisation, we will expand NSTB's functions to include development and promotion of technopreneurship in Singapore. This is reflected in clause 4 of the Bill. This will empower the Board: to create a pro-enterprise, pro-discovery and pro-innovation environment; to promote pervasive development and exploitation of science and technology knowledge in commercial applications; and to encourage more collaborations in the education and research communities, as well as between the public and private sectors. The Board will also step up its activities in the development and attraction of local and foreign science and technology and technopreneurial talents, investors and corporations. Clause 5 of the Bill empowers NSTB to embark on a wider range of developmental activities. This includes the granting of financial assistance to individuals and enterprises for manpower development, technology development, innovation and commercialisation. It also includes the provision of incubator and business support facilities, as well as the development of properties such as the proposed Science Hub for the development of science and technology, innovation and technopreneurship. It also provides for partnership with the private sector to offer incubator and business support facilities for new and growing technology-based start-ups. Sir, in conclusion, NSTB has done a good job in building our capability in science and technology. In our next stage of economic development, we need to build and exploit our science and technology capability speedily, and to the fullest potential for maximum commercial returns. The proposed amendments would empower the NSTB to perform an expanded role in the development of science and technology, innovation with science and technology, and commercialisation of science and technology, as we venture into the era of the knowledge-based economy. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in joining this debate on the National Science and Technology Board (Amendment) Bill, I wish to raise two issues so as to seek further information from the Acting Minister. First, I wish to ask the Acting Minister what are the future plans of the Government and the role of the NSTB with respect to the Technopreneurship 21 plan. In particular, I understand, as reported in the press covering a speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister Dr Tony Tan, he said that the $1 billion technopreneurship fund would be fully invested by about the middle of this year, which is quite soon. Hence, I would like to know what are the Government's intentions to provide additional funding of this programme, and how the NSTB would be involved in actively pursuing the objectives of Technopreneurship 21. I also like to urge the NSTB to work closely with the private sector in its future plans in promoting entrepreneurship and technopreneurship development. Sir, my second query relates to clause 5 of this Bill. It says that the amendment Bill would expand the powers of the NSTB in order for it to discharge additional functions. And the NSTB would have powers to provide or develop, in partnership with the private sector, programmes such as incubator centres and other business support facilities. Sir, here, I would like to declare that I am a director of a company involved in incubator centre facilities in Singapore. However, my view is that we should encourage technopreneurship, there should be more competition and more incubator centres and more of such support facilities to be established in Singapore. Only by having more such facilities can we then be able to build up a critical mass of young entrepreneurs among our Singaporeans. Sir, in the experience of other countries such as in the US, incubator centres have been set up by the private sector. In the US, they call them by various names like hatcheries, garages or even accelerator programmes. These are all based on the same concept, which is to help start-up companies to be formed and enable them to grow quickly from a start-up stage to a mature stage. Even in Malaysia, I understand that they have the Multi-Media Super Corridor. They have provided a very huge area to provide for a very massive incubator centre, so as to encourage Malaysians to get into this incubator centre concept. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what are NSTB's plans to support or develop incubator facilities in Singapore, and what are the programmes of the NSTB to collaborate with the private sector to create more incubator centres. Also, will the Government consider giving special incentives or encouragement so that the NSTB together with private enterprise can set up more incubator centres in Singapore in future?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make some general comments on the Bill. Sir, many Members of the House have recently given many excellent suggestions on how we could effectively participate in the new economy that will be mainly driven by information and the technology sectors of our industries. It is quite obvious that more can be done in creating a conducive environment that can nurture entrepreneurs as well as many more new start-up companies, and also in supporting the many new small companies in Singapore to be groomed to become world-class companies in the long term. It is therefore timely that an agency be given the task to focus on doing the things I just mentioned, and the National Science and Technology Board is the best agency to assume this role. I must say that in the past few years, the NSTB has played a proactive role in trying to promote technopreneurship and in encouraging the development of technological activities, and we have been very successful in doing so. The expansion of the functions and powers of the Board is therefore an excellent measure for promoting and supporting technopreneurship and to organise Singapore to continue to be the centre of technological development in this region. Increasingly, I feel that the role of NSTB is being divided into two parts. The first role is of initiating and promoting longer term development efforts, the results of which may not be so obvious in the short term, and which will involve huge investments that may not yield financial returns for the Board or for the Government in the short term or in the long term. But these are still necessary so that we could steer the country and the private sector to the desired directions, the results of which would create the future industries and therefore the wealth for the country, and also future jobs for Singaporeans. The second role is one that can have an immediate or short term impact and which could also result in financial gains for the Board. The amendments in clause 5 of the Bill basically reflect this role. In this role, the NSTB acts as an incubator and as an angel investor, or as a venture capitalist which can help stimulate many new start-ups to set up shop in Singapore. With its infrastructure, the Board can also help start-up companies with a network of companies that it is incubating and with the connections that the Board has, and this will help them basically progress in setting up their companies and in progressing further. The role of being an incubator and an investor is also a useful role in creating a dynamic environment where many new companies can thrive and grow to become world-class companies. In this capacity, the Board should not restrict itself to the local market, but rather it should participate as a global player entering into the best technology centres around the world. Sir, in my opinion, it would be wise to at least have a separate organisational structure for each of these two roles that I have mentioned. In fact, in order not to lose focus, it may be a good idea to have separate agencies handling these two roles, with the possibility of the second role or function being privatised in the long term. Sir, one other suggestion I have is for the Board to be responsible for supporting and growing the smaller companies from the point of them being in the start-up stage to the point when they become world-class companies. Currently, both the Economic Development Board and the Productivity and Standards Board have a bigger role to play in supporting such companies. In my opinion, the NSTB could play a more effective role than both of these agencies that I have mentioned, especially for the technology-type of companies, if we are serious about growing many more world class companies in Singapore. The Bill is also being amended to allow for the appointment of two Deputy Chairmen. I would like to suggest that one of the Deputy Chairmen's position be filled by someone who is still in the private sector to complement the strength of the existing members of the Board. In this way, industry perspective and current trends will always be available and will be useful in the decisions of the Board. The Vice-Chairman should also have executive functions for greater ownership and effectiveness in executing his or her role. Sir, the changes proposed in this Bill, in my opinion, are good and I hope that the Minister of State will consider the suggestions that I have made in executing the Bill. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the two Members for speaking up in support of the Bill. Mr Leong Horn Kee asked whether the Government would inject additional funding for T21 beyond the US$1 billion TIF. Since the launch of the US$1 billion TIF, we have invested in 24 funds amounting to about $620 million. As a result of the TIF as well as the efforts by the EDB and NSTB in promoting venture capital in Singapore, in fact, today the total pool of venture fund managed out of Singapore has grown to about $10.2 billion. So the total fund size is actually quite large and is still growing. The NSTB right now is studying whether there is a need for the Government to inject additional funding into the venture market. We will certainly do so if there is a need for the Government to continue to play this role of risk sharing by co-investing with the industry. Certainly, if we were to inject more funds, the intention is to work very closely with the industry. Mr Leong also asked whether NSTB and the Government would do more to promote the creation of more incubation centres to create more competition in the market place in order to create the critical mass of technological start-ups. We agree with Mr Leong's assessment. It is important that we continue to encourage more start-ups and at the same time create more incubation facilities for the start-ups so that they could go into operation as quickly as possible. Since the NSTB started the incubation centre programme about five years ago, I am happy to report to this House that at this moment we are seeing at least 20 incubation centres being set up by the private sector. What is even more exciting is that some of these private sector-driven incubation centres even offer equities in lieu of rent so as to reduce the cash flow demand on these start-ups. Looking to the future, the NSTB does intend to continue to work very closely with the private sector. For example, NSTB will continue to refer new start-ups and deal flow that we come across to these incubation centres. Some of these incubation centre management companies do set up incubation venture funds to invest in the start-up. If need be, the NSTB is prepared to co-invest with them to share their risks. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe Mr Inderjit Singh brought up three points. First, he divided the role of NSTB into two parts - long term development to create future industries and short-term impact to stimulate new start-ups. He suggested that we have two separate agencies to handle these two roles. Sir, I think the two roles are inter-related. After all, the long term is made up of a series of short terms. What is long term today will become short-term in five to 10 years from now. Our key challenge is really to find ways to better align our efforts for long term development and short term impact so as to maximise the benefits we can derive from our investment in these long term and short term development efforts. In fact, this is the main motivation behind the proposed amendments to ensure that we will be able to derive maximum synergies from science and technological development and technopreneurship development. It will therefore still be useful, at least for the time being, for the NSTB to continue to perform both roles, of long term science and technology development and short term technopreneurship development. However, I would like to assure Mr Inderjit Singh that in performing these two roles, the NSTB will work very closely with the industry, the research community as well as the private sector because, at the end of the day, we recognise that the private sector is really the engine of growth. Mr Inderjit Singh suggested that the NSTB be responsible for supporting and growing companies from start-up through to world class corporations. I think companies at different stages of their development do face different challenges. Over the years, various economic agencies such as, the EDB, NSTB, PSB, TDB and so on, have built up their areas of core competencies that can complement and supplement each other. We feel that it would be useful to continue to let each of these agencies play its role. What we will do is to continue to strengthen the coordination across these agencies so that collectively they will be able to provide a better level of support to our start-ups as they grow into major corporations. Mr Inderjit Singh also suggested that one of the positions of the Deputy Chairmen be filled by someone who is still in the private sector. The NSTB believes in drawing on the expertise of the private sector. In fact, on the present board of 12 members, six of them are from the private sector. With these proposed amendments, the Minister will now be able to appoint not more than two board members to the position of Deputy Chairman. In that sense, the private sector members of the board likewise can be appointed to the position of Deputy Chairman. The Minister will certainly consider the suggestion put up by Mr Inderjit Singh.

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 Swee Say]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

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

asked the Prime Minister if he will (i) give an assessment of his recent visit to the People's Republic of China from the economic point of view, and (ii) inform the House what business opportunities have been identified or made available for our business community.

Economic assessment My recent visit to China has re-affirmed my bullish assessment of its growth prospects. It is a large market of 1.2 billion consumers and an attractive investment destination. It can be a strong economic partner, if our businessmen can grasp the opportunities it offers. Of course, like all emerging economies, there are some areas of concern that bear watching. For instance, China's traditional industries are still suffering from over-capacity. Domestic demand remains sluggish although the government is trying to encourage greater spending. Nonetheless, I am confident that the Chinese government remains committed to the path of economic reforms, and is prepared for the full introduction of foreign competition upon WTO membership. China's impending accession to the WTO will keep up the pressure to speed up reforms in its State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and financial sector in particular. One strong impression I had from this trip is that while the Chinese government is vigorously pushing ahead with its economic reforms, it is at the same time busy preparing for the New Economy. During our visits to Zhongguancun in Beijing and the Xi'an Hi-Tech Industrial Development Zone, we saw that the Chinese government had begun to build infrastructure, including info-communications infrastructure, and to enhance institutional capacities such as in research and development, with a view to riding on the New Economy for sustainable long-term growth. Another issue of particular concern to the Chinese leadership was the outflow of Chinese talent. Premier Zhu Rongji told me that China was losing about 70 to 80 per cent of its graduates from top Chinese universities, mainly to the US. Beijing's Tsinghua University has 10,000 of its graduates working in Silicon Valley. Xi'an's Jiaotong University lamented that two thirds of its graduates did not stay in Shanxi Province after graduation. The Shanghai leadership is aggressively attracting talents to help convert opportunities offered by the Internet revolution and other growth sectors such as life sciences to real business activities. For example, they are offering scientists and professors from Beijing double the salary and rent-free accommodation plus flexible employment terms to work in Shanghai. That is why when I suggested that Asian countries should collaborate to forge a "Silicon Valley of the mind" to retain Asian talents in Asia, it met with an immediate and receptive response. Business Opportunities As China continues to develop and open up, there will be many new opportunities for our businessmen. The Chinese government is now giving greater emphasis to the development of the inland provinces. The inland provinces are many years behind the coastal region. Their opening up will create even more investment and trade opportunities. I understand that the business delegation which accompanied me to China had identified 37 business opportunities while in Xi'an for further consideration. It is up to the private sector to assess and decide on the type of investments to be made. The government will, however, help to facilitate their efforts through our economic agencies. For example, the Singapore-Shandong Business Council, established in 1993, has successfully initiated 12 areas of cooperation such as manpower training, finance and banking, enterprise development, hospitality services and information exchange. Our economic agencies, universities and research institutes will also continue to work with their Chinese counterparts to enhance exchanges in mutually beneficial areas such as IT and telecommunications, tourism, R&D and financial services.

asked the Minister for Health whether there are any plans to ensure that MediShield will remain affordable and effective such that the coverage is adequate and the premium deductible will not rise unduly.

MediShield is an insurance scheme. Just like other health insurance schemes, the premiums will be higher if the co-payment is low, or if more disease conditions are covered by the scheme. We are fortunate that since its introduction in 1990, we have been able to keep the premiums low and affordable and expand MediShield coverage to new treatments and drugs, without increasing the premiums or co-payment. To give just two examples, we have recently extended MediShield reimbursement to stereotactic radiotherapy for the treatment of brain tumour, and Prograf, an immunosuppressant drug used in organ transplants. So, MediShield has delivered better and better value for money to patients over the years. However, we cannot take this for granted. The best way to keep MediShield premiums as well as patient co-payment affordable to Singaporeans, without compromising its coverage of a wide range of disease conditions, is by ensuring that Singaporeans remain healthy and when they do require medical care, the cost increases are moderated. The Government is already heavily subsidising health care in Singapore. Acute hospital care is subsidised at 80%, 65%, 50%, and 20% for Class C, B2, B2+ and B1 respectively. Polyclinics are subsidised at 50%. The measures to contain health care costs must be complemented by individual responsibility. Our best insurance for the future is to continue to encourage all Singaporeans to lead healthy lifestyles. If they fall ill and have to be warded, they must choose their wards prudently based on their financial means. For those who cannot afford to pay even the subsidised rates due to financial hardship, Medifund acts as a final safety net.

asked the Minister for Manpower whether existing office workplaces are generally safe and what steps his Ministry is taking to ensure that our work environment will be highly favourable and on par with OHS standards of developed countries.

Office environment in Singapore is generally safe. Our offices are mostly air-conditioned. There may be potential air pollutants from the use of office equipment, ie, `sick building' syndrome. However, good air quality can be achieved by adequate ventilation and proper maintenance of the air conditioning system. My Ministry and the Ministry of the Environment are monitoring the situation. Guidelines on improving the indoor air quality of such premises have been issued. Our assessment is that currently air quality in the office workplaces is generally within the acceptable limits and there is no cause for alarm. Nevertheless, my Ministry will continue to provide safety and health training for workers and promote a culture of safety and health at work. Last year, the Factories Act was amended extensively to enhance safety at workplaces. We will continue to actively enforce safety and health laws. Industries with poor safety performance, such as construction industry, will receive special attention. However, maintaining high standards of safety and health at work requires the commitment and combined efforts of employers, workers and regulatory agencies. We must work closely in partnership to achieve a safe and healthy work environment for all workers.

asked the Minister for Manpower whether there are plans to improve safety record in the metal working sector.

The safety record of the metal-working industry is indeed a cause for concern when compared to other industries. The accident frequency rate (AFR), which is the number of accidents per million man-hours worked was 3.4 for 1997. While it had improved to 3.2 in 1999, this AFR is still higher than the figure of 2.4 for all industries in 1999. My Ministry is working closely with the industry to organise safety and health promotional activities. These include the annual safety campaign in October, safety seminars and workshops and a mobile exhibition highlighting past accidents and appropriate remedial measures. A safety training course for supervisors, comprising 13 modules was developed for the industry. In 1999, a CD-ROM on Safety orientation programme for workers was also developed. A series of 7 Handbooks to help workers and supervisors to improve work safety were also produced and distributed to the industry. My Ministry has formed Advisory Committees on Accident Prevention for both the construction industry and the shipyards. These Committees provide a good platform for the discussion of safety and health issues and organising activities and programmes to reduce accidents in the two industries. My Ministry is looking into forming an Advisory Committee for the metal-working industry to further improve safety and health in this industry. In 1994, we made the implementation of a safety management system a mandatory requirement for shipyards. Since then, the safety records in shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry have improved significantly. The Ministry is considering making it mandatory for bigger metal-working factories to implement similar safety management systems.

asked the Minister for Manpower (a) if he is aware that some foreign motor mechanics are carrying out repair work on break-down motorcycles in make-shift workshops within the vicinity of Woodlands checkpoint without work permits; and (b) whether his Ministry will allow these foreigners to continue with such activities in competition with our local motor repair workshops, contrary to our stringent control over the employment of foreign workers by our local industries.

The Ministry of Manpower is not aware of foreign motor mechanics carrying out repair work within the vicinity of Woodlands checkpoint without work permits. The Ministry has checked with the Ministry of Home Affairs which has not received any reports of such activities. Depending on the circumstances, these foreign mechanics would either have infringed the Employment of Foreign Workers Act or the Immigration Act. For example, if a work permit holder freelances as a motorcycle mechanic, he would be moonlighting and this constitutes an offence under the Employment of Foreign Workers Act. The employer of the mechanic would also be liable to be prosecuted under the Employment of Foreign Workers Act. On the other hand, any foreigner on a social visit pass who engages in any form of paid employment or business would have contravened the Immigration Regulations. MOM will work with the Immigration Department to look out for such illegal activities and will not hesitate to take firm action against the errant parties for infringing our laws.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what was the cause of the recent power dip at Power Seraya and what was the estimated loss to industries affected by this dip.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether it is the policy of utilities companies such as Singapore Power Limited, to compensate consumers (including commercial and industrial users) affected by disruptions to the supply of utilities, as in the case of the recent dip in power supply.

Voltage dips are momentary drops in voltage levels, usually in the order of a fraction of a second. Voltage dips occur in all electric power systems and are caused by many reasons such as cable damage by excavation works and ground movements; equipment failure at customers' installations; and equipment failure at power stations and the transmission and distribution network. Voltage dips cannot be totally eliminated. The voltage dip on 24th March 2000 was caused by the failure of a voltage measuring transformer in the 230 kV switchgear at Pulau Seraya Power Station. The faulty equipment caused a short circuit which resulted in a voltage dip. The short circuit was detected and the faulty equipment was immediately isolated by its protection system. The defective component has since been replaced and it has been sent back to the original equipment manufacturer in Japan for further investigation to determine the reason for failure. Disruptions caused by voltage dips vary from one customer to another depending on the sensitivity of their equipment and the protective devices which they have installed to help their equipment ride through such voltage dips. It is hence difficult to estimate losses suffered by companies. Since many of our companies now manufacture high value products such as semiconductors, power dips are therefore a serious concern for many of them. Compensation payments will arise if there is a contract between a customer and its utilities supplier based on a mutually agreed set of power quality standards and the compensation where there is failure to meet these standards. Currently, we do not have a generally accepted standard for power quality with respect to power dips although we have standards for power outages. However, in view of the need for very high quality power by our high-tech industries for their sensitive equipment, PUB is currently working with the industry to establish power quality standards for compliance by utilities companies. This will provide clearer guidelines on the quality of the power supply expected. In addition, we are also undertaking measures to provide an even higher quality of power supply. Last year, we amended the Public Utilities Act to impose heavier penalties on earthworks contractors who damage power cables. This has helped reduce the number of voltage dips. In addition, as part of the restructuring of the electricity industry which the Minister for Trade and Industry announced last month in this House, PUB will also implement performance-based regulation for PowerGrid, the transmission and distribution company. With a liberalised electricity market, we can expect to see a variety of service providers provide customised solutions to meet the specific needs of high-tech customers. Meanwhile, to help existing high-tech companies in Singapore, PUB is working with the EDB and PowerGrid to implement a scheme to provide premium quality power. These customers will have to bear the additional costs incurred but Government will assist by co-sharing the cost. Details will be announced when the scheme is finalised.

asked the Minister for Finance when the Government intends to introduce the Estate Agents' Bill.

In 1998, I had said that the Government was contemplating the introduction of legislation to regulate the sale and promotion of foreign properties in Singapore. After consideration, the Government has decided against regulating foreign property sales. The main reason is that laws and regulations created in Singapore cannot provide full or even adequate protection for the purchase of properties located in foreign countries and therefore outside Singapore's legal jurisdiction. Administratively, it would be impossible to establish the veracity or adequacy of information provided by vendors of foreign properties. Caveat emptor is still the best rule for those who wish to purchase foreign properties, not Government protection. Singaporeans are well advised to transact only through reputable real estate valuers and law firms in the countries in which the foreign properties are located before they conclude any deals.

asked the Minister for Information and the Arts whether his Ministry is responsible for and exercises its influence on the subject and content of reports by local media companies, including media commentaries on the developments and personalities of foreign countries.

Local media companies publish and broadcast reports as they see fit. They are responsible for their editorial policies. If the Government does not agree with certain reports or when there are factual errors, the relevant Ministry may write in to the media to correct the reports or to dissociate the Government from certain points of view.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology whether his Ministry will consider building sheltered walkways linking the major private residential estates and large commercial buildings in the Central Business District with MRT stations and bus shelters like those provided in HDB estates so as to encourage more Singaporeans to make full use of public transport and to help the national effort in easing the increasing traffic congestion on our roads and in conserving energy.

The building of sheltered walkways to commuter facilities such as MRT stations, bus interchanges and bus shelters is a shared national responsibility between the Government, town councils and private developers. Since 1998, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has spent $18.6 million constructing covered walkways to provide better linkages to the MRT stations and bus interchanges. This is intended to encourage commuters to use our public transport system. Through these projects, LTA has demonstrated the attractiveness of such an infrastructure provision. LTA will continue to focus on providing sheltered walkways at the major transport nodes, namely MRT/LRT stations and bus interchanges. For this financial year (FY2000), it will be spending about $6 million on these projects. Town Councils will continue with their efforts to build more sheltered walkways in the residential estates. We understand that the Ministry of National Development is also exploring the provision of sheltered walkways to link private estates to commuter facilities in the proposed upgrading programme for private estates. In the city area, LTA works closely with the Urban Redevelopment Authority and other authorities on the planning and provision of commuter facilities, taking into consideration motorists' and pedestrians' needs, site constraints and the need to preserve the city landscape. The MRT stations in the city area are usually underground to optimise land use. Where possible, LTA will ensure that underground linkages are provided to link the MRT stations to the key developments in the vicinity of the stations. As a result, most of the major developments next to MRT stations in the city have direct underground access to the stations, eg, developments around the Raffles City and Orchard Stations. Such underground linkages are planned when the stations are designed and if a station is built before adjacent development takes place, knock-out panels will be provided within the station box so as to facilitate easy linkage in the future. At the ground level, many streets are lined with arcaded walkway, traditionally called 'five-foot way'. Such walkways are provided by developers when they construct their commercial buildings. These walkways already provide good shelter for pedestrians and commuters making their way to the bus stops.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology (a) whether Jurong Island will be gazetted as a public area and all roads on the island are public roads; (b) when can public bus services be provided to the island; and (c) whether the approved bus fare structure will increase the cost of transport of workers on the island.

Jurong Island is a public area. This means that the public has access. The roads on Jurong Island will be declared as public streets when the Jurong Town Corporation completes all the road works and hands over management of the roads to the Land Transport Authority. Before the causeway was constructed in April 1999, workers had to travel to Jurong Pier, board a ferry to the island, and then take a shuttle bus within the island. Ferries and shuttle buses were provided by employers. Since the completion of the causeway, JTC has been providing a bus service between Jurong East Interchange and the island. This is a public bus service for Jurong Island workers as well as members of the public. The bus service is heavily subsidised by JTC. This is because Jurong Island is a huge sprawling industrial estate with very low ridership density. To compare, the island is about two times the size of Ang Mo Kio town, but the daily bus ridership is only about 1.5% of the ridership in Ang Mo Kio. The island serves mainly workers which means that transport demand is very peakish. It is difficult for any bus operator to run a viable bus service on the island unless the correct level of fares is charged. The Public Transport Council has called for a tender to operate a public bus service on the island after the contract with the current bus operator ends. This will ensure that the operator that wins the tender offers the most competitive fares and gives the best value for money. Tender proposals are being evaluated and will be awarded by early May 2000. The new operator will start operations from 1st June 2000. JTC has been in contact with employers on Jurong Island to brief them on developments. I understand that many companies are prepared to provide transport allowance to their staff to make it more attractive for them to work on Jurong Island. This is a common practice for workers in remote locations, and I encourage employers and workers to work together for a mutually beneficial solution.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology how many taxis were successful in securing COEs each month from May 1999 to February 2000.

Taxi companies are required to bid for COEs only for the registration of new taxis which are additions to their fleet. For replacement taxis, ie, taxis that are registered to replace those that have been de-registered, they are only required to pay Category A Prevailing Quota Premium (PQP). This is a concession given to taxis in view of their public transport role. For the period between May 1999 to February 2000, a total of 160 new taxis were registered. During the same period, 1,234 replacement taxis were also registered.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will include the changing of front windows in the precincts where tenders for the Main Upgrading Programme have already been awarded.

The replacement of front windows has been included in the standard package of the Revised Main Upgrading Programme from Batch 16 onwards. This is possible due to the savings that would be derived from the omission or scaling down of other works as a result of a review of the MUP. For existing MUP precincts before Batch 16, some residents may have already changed their front windows through their own arrangements. Including the replacement of front windows now as part of the standard package for these precincts may create unhappiness among the residents. However, MND has no objection for existing MUP precincts to include this item as part of their standard package if: i) there is strong demand from residents for the item; ii) substantial construction works have not yet started for the precinct; and iii) the item can be funded within the MUP budget. If necessary, the precinct will have to forgo other improvement items to accommodate this addition.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether his Ministry will, in line with the current efforts to attract foreign talents, allow foreign citizens working on employment pass in Singapore to obtain bank loans in Singapore dollars to buy a residential property for the purpose of owner-occupation.

The restriction on foreigners obtaining Singapore dollar loans to purchase residential properties was part of the package of measures the Government introduced in May 1996 to curb speculation in our property market. The overall package was effective in cooling the property bubble. Most of the anti-speculation measures have since been lifted. However, the restriction on Singapore dollar loans to foreigners to buy residential property remains. The Government has left this in place as a signal that it does not encourage speculation in the property market, especially by non-Singaporeans using borrowed funds. The restriction does not in practice cause a problem, because employment pass holders who take up permanent residence become eligible for Singapore dollar property loans. Those who do not take up PR probably do not plan to stay on for the long term in Singapore, and are unlikely to want to buy property for owner-occupation.

asked the Minister for Finance (a) what was the annual revenue collection of excise duties and customs on alcoholic beverages from 1990 to 1999 and (b) whether he will consider increasing taxes to discourage their import and consumption in view of the rising trends in alcohol consumption among Singaporeans.

The Government has always used taxes on liquor products as a tool to discourage excessive alcohol consumption. Our annual customs duty collection on liquor products from 1990 to 1999 are at the Table below. Liquor duties were last revised in 1992. Between 1992 and 1998, duty collection on liquor products had increased an average of 3.11% annually. This had declined slightly in 1998 due to the economic downturn. Table TOTAL DUTY-PAID RELEASES OF LIQUORS (IN DECALITRE) AND REVENUE COLLECTED ON LIQUORS Annual Financial Quantity Revenue Percentage Year Released (DAL) Collected (S$) Change In Revenue FY90 6,767,245 237,422,234 FY91 6,806,567 246,334,350 3.75 FY92 7,184,639 281,669,012 14.34 FY93 7,112,705 284,750,784 1.09 Annual Financial Quantity Revenue Percentage Year Released (DAL) Collected (S$) Change In Revenue FY94 7,498,463 301,848,136 6.00 FY95 7,878,599 318,669,581 5.57 FY96 8,141,913 330,080,320 3.58 FY97 8,618,638 351,305,374 6.43 FY98 8,424,498 337,087,196 (4.05) FY99 8,328,338 344,830,895 2.30 (Projected figures) Increases in duty collection over the years have been small. The findings from a 1998 National Health Survey conducted by the Ministry of Health also show that the overall prevalence of regular1 and binge2 drinking has remained stable from 1992 to 1998. 1 Consumption of alcohol at least 4 times a week. 2 Consumption of 5 or more alcohol drinks on a single occasion at least once during the past month. Alcoholic drink refers to one can or bottle of beer (280ml) or 120ml of wine or 30ml of spirit. Nevertheless, the Government constantly monitors the trend in national alcohol consumption and would periodically revise our duty rates as necessary.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) has given proper guidelines for its officers to gain access into industrial and commercial premises to perform their official duties; and (b) what safeguards are provided to prevent abuse of power by these officers or unauthorized entry by persons claiming to be SCDF officers.

The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) has issued clear Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to its enforcement units on the procedures to follow for gaining entry into industrial and commercial premises to carry out their official duties. Under the SOPs, officers are not allowed to conduct inspections alone. Inspections have to be carried out by a team of not less than 2 persons. When conducting inspections, all SCDF officers, including civilians, are required to produce their Warrant Cards, without demand, when seeking entry into premises. Where the SCDF officers fail to produce such identification, the owner/occupier may refuse them entry into the premises. If there is suspicion of unauthorized entry by persons claiming to be SCDF officers, the owner/occupier of the premises can call the SCDF to verify the identity of the persons. All SCDF officers are briefed on their powers to enter into premises for official purposes under the Fire Safety Act, and the seriousness of abusing such powers.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, based on annual records of crimes committed from 1990 to 1999, whether alcohol was a significant causal factor of these crimes and what was the trend for women and youth offenders being arrested for drink driving and other crimes related to alcohol.

Police does not track offences committed by culprits who are under influence of alcohol. However, Police's assessment is that alcohol intoxication has not been a significant factor contributing to crimes. The small number of crimes where alcohol was a factor are generally limited to crimes against persons, such as assaults and outraging of modesty. Police does not have the breakdown of arrests for drink driving by sex or age. However, as the minimum age for holding driving licences is 18 years old, cases of youths involved in drink driving are rare.

asked the Minister for Health whether his Ministry will consider accepting medical examination reports from qualified practitioners in other countries for the purpose of issuing employment passes to foreign talents who are required to undergo a medical examination in Singapore.

Foreign workers in Singapore have to undergo a medical examination to ensure that they meet minimum health standards. It is also to prevent the spread of infectious diseases in Singapore. The rationale for requiring the medical examination to be conducted in Singapore in accredited medical establishments is to maintain an acceptable standard of medical examination and tests. We have received feedback that this requirement could pose difficulties and inconvenience to some applicants. MOH and MOM have reviewed this. We recognise that health concerns should be balanced against economic needs. EP holders, unlike the WP group, represent the skilled and professional talent that we wish to encourage companies to employ. We therefore should facilitate companies wanting to employ these talents, by not insisting on medical examinations in Singapore for new entrants. Foreign talents who wish to apply for an employment pass to work in Singapore will therefore be allowed to opt to have the medical examination done in their home country or in Singapore. However medical examinations required for renewal of Employment Passes would still have to be done in Singapore.

asked the Minister for Health (a) from 1990 to 1999, how many cases of problem drinking were reported to hospitals annually and what was the profile of these problem drinkers by gender and social class factors; (b) what measures are in place to address intervention and treatment issues at the institutional and community levels; and (c) whether it is time for a national campaign against problem drinking.

The number of admissions to hospitals from 1990 to 1999 for conditions related to problem drinking, such as acute alcoholic intoxication, alcohol dependence syndrome, alcoholic liver damage and alcoholic psychosis, is about 1,100-1,200 annually. The annual number of such admissions over the years has remained fairly constant. The male to female ratio is approximately 8:1. We do not keep track of the social class of patients admitted. Woodbridge Hospital runs an Alcohol Treatment Centre for the treatment and rehabilitation of problem drinkers. The Centre accepts referrals from hospitals, polyclinics, general practitioners, community groups dealing with alcoholism, like Alcoholics Anonymous, social service organisations such as the Family Service Centres, community agencies and counselling centres. In 1999, the Centre had managed about 170 admissions, 100 new outpatient cases, and 3,600 attendances at its alcohol recovery support group sessions. The staff of the Alcohol Treatment Centre also conducts public seminars and training for general practitioners on early identification of persons with alcohol problems and the management of such persons. In the community, the Alcoholics Anonymous and two halfway houses offer counselling and group therapy for problem drinkers. The current size of the problem does not warrant a national campaign. Nevertheless, my Ministry will focus on public education to increase awareness of the dangers of excessive drinking, specify safe drinking limits, and manage problem drinkers.

asked the Minister for Community Development and Sports (a) what capacity-building resources are identified to curb increasing alcohol consumption among young women; (b) what intervention and treatment strategies can be developed to help families cope with alcoholic members; and (c) whether it is appropriate for his Ministry to facilitate the setting up of Alcoholics Anonymous for Women and to fund the setting up of half-way houses for women under the influence of multiple substance abuse.

The Ministry of Health's National Health Survey 1998 found that there has not been any significant change in the prevalence of drinking among young women. In 1998, 72.4% of women were non-drinkers. Of the remaining 27.6% who drank, only 0.8% drank on a regular basis. Among those who drank regularly, ie, more than 4 days per week, 0.5% were women aged 18-29 years. Capacity-building resources to curb increasing alcohol consumption among young women Whilst alcohol consumption among young women does not appear to be an increasing trend, nevertheless MCDS, together with other government agencies, volunteers and community groups will highlight alcoholism as an anti-social behaviour. This would be done through our regular talks and group sessions for youths, which are held to teach them to resist peer pressure and to practise responsible behaviour. Community groups also play an important role. For example, Project Access, a non-profit social enterprise runs programmes in schools and community organisations which seek to teach girls aged 13-16 years and young women leadership skills, personal effectiveness and professional development. The acquisition of positive life-skills is important to counter negative habits such as drinking and smoking. What intervention and treatment strategies can be developed to help families cope with alcoholic members The treatment for alcoholics comes under the care of Ministry of Health. For example, the Alcohol Treatment Centre (ATC) in Woodbridge Hospital (WH) has in place a counselling and support group for families with alcoholic members. Besides the ATC, private hospitals like Adam Road Hospital and Mount Elizabeth Hospital also offer detoxification and rehabilitation programmes for persons with a drinking problem. MCDS assists families who are affected as a result of an alcoholic member in the family. For example, temporary shelter for families from an abusive drunkard, funding of crisis shelters which provide temporary refuge, counselling and support. Families facing financial difficulties as a result of the breadwinner's drinking problem get help from MCDS, Family Service Centres and Community Development Councils, eg, interim financial assistance and care for the child's well-being. More importantly, MCDS will help family members to develop life-skills to care for themselves and their children and educate them on the steps that they could take if their spouse refuses to seek treatment for the drinking problem. The appropriateness for MCDS to set up Alcoholics Anonymous for Women and to fund the setting up of half-way houses for women under the influence of multiple substance abuse As WH already has in place an existing framework for the intervention and treatment for recovering alcoholics and their families, MCDS would not want to duplicate this. Currently there are two half-way houses for women under MHA. One of them has a specific programme to help recovering addicts cope with their drinking problem. This half-way house is also open to members of the public. Government will continue to monitor the extent of alcohol consumption among young women and men. comparison - COMPARISON OF HYDE PARK'S SPEAKERS' CORNER AND SINGAPORE'S SPEAKERS' CORNER AT HONG LIM PARK (Cols. 77-80) map - SPEAKERS' CORNER AT HONG LIM PARK (Cols. 81-82)