Hansard, 2000-11-13

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) Dr Teo Ho Pin12 Oct18 Oct 23 Oct27 Oct 18 Nov24 Nov NameFromTo (2000)(2000) Mr Loh Meng See12 Oct14 Oct 24 Oct24 Oct 2 Nov4 Nov 7 Nov10 Nov Mr Lim Swee Say13 Oct22 Oct 6 Nov7 Nov Dr Ker Sin Tze15 Oct29 Oct Mr Lim Hng Kiang15 Oct17 Oct Mr Chew Heng Ching16 Oct20 Oct 30 Oct31 Oct Mr Ong Ah Heng17 Oct23 Oct Mr Peh Chin Hua17 Oct27 Oct 14 Nov21 Nov Mr Yeo Guat Kwang18 Oct23 Oct 27 Oct29 Oct Prof S Jayakumar18 Oct23 Oct 11 Nov17 Nov Mr Goh Chee Wee20 Oct28 Oct 17 Nov30 Nov 6 Dec11 Dec 14 Dec20 Dec Mr David Lim T E22 Oct26 Oct 1 Nov3 Nov 12 Nov16 Nov 25 Nov25 Nov Mr Ang Mong Seng23 Oct28 Oct Mr Ong Kian Min23 Oct31 Oct Assoc Prof Toh See Kiat 24 Oct24 Oct 28 Oct2 Nov 6 Nov14 Nov Encik Ibrahim bin Othman25 Oct31 Oct Mr Tan Soo Khoon 27 Oct27 Oct 31 Oct1 Nov 18 Nov24 Nov Mr Inderjit Singh29 Oct3 Nov 27 Nov28 Nov Assoc Prof Yaacob Ibrahim 31 Oct31 Oct Assoc Prof Low Seow Chay31 Oct1 Nov 13 Nov16 Nov Mr S Iswaran31 Oct3 Nov 8 Nov9 Nov 17 Nov24 Nov 15 Dec27 Dec Mr Charles Chong1 Nov4 Nov 6 Nov8 Nov Mrs Lim Hwee Hua4 Nov8 Nov Mr Peter Chen4 Nov16 Nov 18 Nov3 Dec Dr Wang Kai Yuen5 Nov10 Nov Mr Tay Beng Chuan5 Nov12 Nov NameFromTo (2000)(2000) Mr Bernard Chen5 Nov16 Nov Mr Chng Hee Kok6 Nov8 Nov 13 Nov17 Nov Mr Lee Yock Suan9 Nov12 Nov Mr Hawazi Daipi9 Nov16 Nov Mr Abdullah Tarmugi10 Nov12 Nov Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon10 Nov20 Nov Dr Ong Chit Chung11 Nov12 Nov BG George Yong-Boon Yeo11 Nov17 Nov Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam12 Nov20 Nov Dr Ow Chin Hock 13 Nov13 Nov Dr Lee Boon Yang 13 Nov13 Nov Mr K Shanmugam 13 Nov13 Nov Mr Davinder Singh 13 Nov13 Nov Mr Tang Guan Seng13 Nov19 Nov Mr Zulkifli Baharudin14 Nov16 Nov Mr Goh Chok Tong14 Nov17 Nov Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan15 Nov2 Dec Mr Wong Kan Seng18 Nov19 Nov Mr Mohamad Maidin BPM18 Nov30 Nov Mr Lee Kuan Yew19 Nov22 Nov 6 Dec9 Dec Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad19 Nov25 Nov Mr Seng Han Thong21 Nov25 Nov 19 Dec29 Dec Dr Tan Cheng Bock24 Nov27 Nov Assoc Prof Koo Tsai Kee26 Nov29 Nov BG Lee Hsien Loong29 Nov30 Nov RAdm Teo Chee Hean5 Dec15 Dec Dr John Chen6 Dec22 Dec Mr Matthias Yao Chih12 Dec25 Dec Dr Hu Tsu Tau Richard22 Dec5 Jan 01 TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 16 October 2000 (i) Compulsory Education Bill; and (ii) Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments and Repeal) Bill. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology if he will provide a preliminary report on the causes of the crash of the ill-fated Singapore Airlines flight SQ 006 in Taipei on 31st October 2000.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology when he expects the investigation of the crash of flight SQ 006 at Taipei to be completed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos. 1 and 2 together?

Yes.

First, let me express on behalf of the Singapore Government, our deepest sympathies to the families and friends of those who were affected by the crash of flight SQ 006. The Government is indeed deeply saddened by this tragic accident. I will now update the House on the progress of the investigations. The Aviation Safety Council (ASC) of Taiwan is leading the investigations into the accident, with the support of experts from the USA, Singapore and Australia. The investigators will determine the cause of the accident and recommend measures to prevent future occurrences. As Members already know, preliminary findings revealed that the aircraft had taken off from the wrong runway, 05R, instead of the designated 05L. Investigators are trying to find out how and why this happened. To do this, the investigator-in-charge, Dr Yong Kay of the Aviation Safety Council of Taiwan, has indicated that the investigators would need to gather all factual data and do the necessary analysis. He has indicated that it would take about a year to complete the investigation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister what is the prospect of our three pilots facing prosecution by the Taiwanese government?

Sir, the Taiwanese authorities have stated that they would let the investigations continue before deciding what to do.

asked the Acting Minister for the Environment if he will (i) give an update on the outbreak of the hand, foot and mouth disease; (ii) state whether the disease is under control; and (iii) inform what precaution his Ministry will take to avoid similar situation in the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) is a common mild childhood disease. Very rarely does it result in deaths. However, on the morning of 30th September, two siblings aged one and two died, within two hours of each other. Upon notification that morning, the Commissioner of Public Health immediately activated the Task Force that was formed two years ago following the outbreaks of HFMD in the region in 1998. The Task Force recommended the closure of all pre-schools effective from 2nd October. The objective was to isolate the children and protect them from contracting the disease. The Minister for the Environment accepted the recommendation. The directive went out immediately to all the pre-schools on the same day. The quick and decisive action by the Government, together with the concerted efforts of the public, pre-schools, media and employers proved to be effective. I am pleased to report to the House that the outbreak has been brought under control. The number of reported cases per day reached a peak of 258 on 4th October, and declined steadily to 9 on 31st October. All pre-schools have reopened since 16th October. The situation is now back to normal. On behalf of the multi-agency task force, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the parents and members of the public, pre-school and kindergarten teachers, doctors at the Kandang Kerbau Women and Children Hospital, the National University Hospital, the Singapore General Hospital and doctors in private practice, affected employers, and various Government agencies for their understanding, support and cooperation. HFMD is spread through close contact among children. The most effective measure to prevent future outbreaks is to maintain a high standard of hygiene in pre-school centres and at home. Parents and teachers also need to remain vigilant, and keep infected children away from other children. The multi-agency task force will continue to strengthen guidelines relating to hygiene standards and sick bay operations to prevent future outbreaks as much as we can.

Sir, is the Minister confirming that we have completely eliminated or at least we have brought it down to the level that it was at the previous outbreak status in terms of the number of children contracting the disease? In terms of precaution, is the Minister saying that just cleanliness and hygiene is an issue or can we actually take other medical precautions to prevent our children from contracting this disease in the first place?

Sir, the hand, foot and mouth disease is an endemic disease, ie, it is there all the time. Last year, before we imposed the compulsory reporting of HFMD, we had about 25 cases a week. During the recent outbreak, it went up to as high as 258 cases per day. Since then, it has come down to about 10 cases per day. 10 cases per day will work out to about 70 cases per week. It would appear to be still higher than the 25 cases per week last year. However, there was no compulsory reporting last year whereas today there is compulsory reporting. Our assessment is that at 10 cases per day, we are now back to the normal situation. Mr Inderjit Singh also asked whether beyond cleanliness, is there a medical solution. Sir, at this moment, there is no medical cure to the hand, foot and mouth disease, in particular, the EV71 virus. There is also no vaccine available. However, I want to highlight that when we say "there is no cure", it does not mean that every child who has contracted the disease will face the danger of death. As an illustration, in the outbreak in Taiwan, there were about 1.4 million cases and over 70 death cases, ie, one casualty out of 20,000 cases. I want to emphasise that there is no need for the public to be alarmed that the hand, foot and mouth disease is there all the time. What is important is for us to continue to take measures to reduce the number and to keep it to as low as possible, bearing in mind that this disease is, generally speaking, not harmful.

May I ask the Minister whether, for the control of the disease spread, child care centre operators are being facilitated by his Ministry on correct maintenance of the child care centres and on the proper screening of the students in the centres? May I also ask whether there is a new protocol for vigilance and pro-active closing of an infected centre to curb the disease spread and also avoid a nation-wide closure of the child care centres in the future?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two types of pre-school centres in Singapore. They are the kindergartens and the child care centres. The child care centres are licensed by the Ministry of Community Development and Sports (MCDS) and the kindergartens by the Ministry of Education. Both types of pre-school centres are subjected to hygiene guidelines issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Education and MCDS. In fact, the last time we updated our guidelines was in March this year. As a result of the recent outbreak, the Task Force has decided to further update the guidelines. A new set of guidelines will be issued soon. On Dr Lily Neo's second question regarding the screening of children, it is true that many teachers and parents were not aware of the proper actions to be taken during the recent outbreak. What has happened was that we actually had cases of children who had contracted the hand, foot and mouth disease but continued to attend school. For the child care centres, sick bay is a standard facility. We do not have much problem because the infected children are isolated. But in the case of kindergartens, there is no practice of having a sick bay. As a result, some of the children were allowed to continue to interact with the other children. As a result of the recent outbreak, we have now issued clear guidelines to all kindergartens that for those without sick bay facility, they would still have to isolate the children, using the principal's office or any other facility. At the same time, they have to notify the parents immediately. This practice has been put in place. Over the last one month, we are seeing a very effective decline in the number of cases. So we intend to continue to enforce such hygiene practices so that, hopefully, we will not see another outbreak and we do not have to close the schools in the future.

I would like to ask the Minister whether through the process we have identified any highly susceptible facilities like sand bays, playgrounds or swimming pools and so on, that are actually causing a bigger probability of this disease being spread and are we going to review the building and maintenance policy of such facilities. The other question I have, which is still not very clear, is why we have had this disease at a steady state and what was the reason for the sudden increase this time round.

Sir, the spread of the disease is basically through direct contact among the children. For example, if a child were to pick up a piece of toy and puts it into his or her mouth and before the saliva dries up another child picks it up and puts into his or her mouth, it can be transmitted. Therefore, in the case of sand bays and so on, it is probably not the primary mode of transmission. What we have done, as I have mentioned earlier, is to enforce the hygiene practices in the schools. For example, in our hygiene guidelines, there is a clear regulation that all toys must be washed at the end of the day every day and any items where the children can put into their mouth are not supposed to be placed in a common area for the children to share. All these guidelines will now be further enforced. As to the sudden increase, prior to 1st October, the hand, foot and mouth disease was not a notifiable disease. As a result, we have to rely on the reporting from the child care centres. The information we were getting was not complete and not up to date. Since 1st October this year, all hand, foot and mouth disease cases will have to be reported because it is now a notifiable infectious disease. Henceforth, we should be able to monitor very closely. Should there be any increase, we will be able to take responsive action before it gets out of control.

May I ask the Minister what was the reason for the long delay in confirming the diagnosis of the recent hand, foot and mouth disease occurrence, whether there is now an improved channel for speedier laboratory confirmation of the hand, foot and mouth virus, and whether this virology testing is available to all doctors for earlier and correct diagnosis?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the case of unnatural death, it is a standard practice that we will do a post-mortem. In the process, there are actually two steps involved. The first step is to detect the presence of the relevant virus. And the second step is to identify exactly what strain of virus it is. Take, for example, in the case of the hand, foot and mouth disease, the most common virus is the family under the enterovirus, and there are over 60 different strains. Within a few days, we are able to identify the presence of enterovirus. But the next step is to identify if it is a coxsackie A16 or EV71, or something else. For that to happen, the medical laboratory will have to isolate the sample. They have to culture the virus to see whether there are any reactions. So that typically will take a few weeks. Just to give you an example. We actually did the isolation in parallel in a Singapore facility as well as to send a sample to the CDC (Communicable Disease Centre) in Atlanta. In fact, both centres identified the presence of EV71 almost at the same time. It shows that there was no delay on our part, because even with a very reputable facility in Atlanta, it takes about the same time. This is because we have to go through that period of time for the virus to be cultured, to be grown, and to be identified. Sir, I want to assure the public that we do have an up-to-date facility and that there was no delay in identifying the virus. Unfortunately, the process does take time. But having said that, it does not mean that we will not further invest in upgrading our capability. In fact, the Task Force is now looking into what kind of new facilities and capabilities we ought to invest in Singapore so that in future, should there be any infectious disease outbreak, we will be able to continue to respond very rapidly.

asked the Minister for National Development, in view of the rapid increase in oil prices, whether his Ministry is considering any new measures for energy conservation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1998, an Inter-Agency Committee on Energy Efficiency (IACEE) was chaired by the Ministry of National Development. It was formed to address the concerns over the increasing consumption of energy in Singapore and to look into improving the efficient usage of energy. When this Committee was formed, oil prices were low at about US$15 per barrel. This shows that the Committee was formed at a time when the prices were low and there was no knee jerk reaction to the present energy prices. But now that it has gone up to over US$30 per barrel, the need to act on energy conservation has become all the more urgent and important. The IACEE has completed its study and released its recommendations to the media in May this year. The recommendations are wide-ranging, long term and attainable. Various agencies are working towards achieving these recommendations. In summary, Sir, these include: Reviewing and developing building regulations on energy efficiency by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA); Expanding the Green Labelling Scheme under the Singapore Environment Council which works in cooperation with the Ministry of the Environment (ENV). Under this scheme, equipment which meets certain efficiency and environment labelling standards would be allowed to have a Singapore Green Label, and I believe SEC will be launching this label very soon; Incorporating energy efficiency as an objective of our land transport policy. Sir, you have heard Dr John Chen announce the hybrid car scheme; and Monitoring and reviewing the pricing of electricity, and creating awareness amongst consumers on using energy efficiently by the Public Utilities Board (PUB). Sir, with the current rapid increase in oil prices, the IACEE is coordinating the efforts of all the various agencies, including PUB, ENV and the Land Transport Authority (LTA), to roll out on an urgent basis a series of programmes to inform and educate the consumers on ways to conserve energy and use energy more efficiently.

Sir, can I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary which sector is the largest energy consumer, whether it is the residential, commercial or industrial sector? Secondly, he has mentioned a lot of measures to be introduced. Can he tell us whether these measures are recommendations or with some enforcement rules attached to them?

To his first question, which property sector consumes the most energy, whether it is residential, commercial or industrial, the answer is, of course, industrial, because they are heavy users of energy, like our petrochemical companies. But these are bottomline focused MNCs, so they know what they are doing. And I am sure that they would have factored the cost of energy into their production, because they need to compete on a world-wide basis. But we found that most of the energy is channelled through air-conditioning as well as refrigeration. So the commercial and residential sectors have more scope to improve their energy efficiency. On the recommendations, whether they are achievable or attainable, yes, of course they are. These are long-term objectives. Although our energy efficiency is quite good, we can always improve further. We have put together various recommendations. The agencies are looking into these recommendations and rolling out their implementation plans.

May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the Government will take the lead in this area and set the example by trying to make sure that public buildings continually become more efficient in use of energy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is indeed one of the recommendations of the report published in May. The public sector is a large sector, and we intend to use the public sector as the leading sector to promote energy efficiency. But having said that, most of the public buildings are quite new and they are really very energy-efficient. So the scope for improvement may be limited. But, nonetheless, we are attempting for a start to band the energy efficiency of all the bigger public buildings. The BCA has compiled an initial list and it would be circulated internally to all the various statutory boards and Ministries. So within the Ministries, they will know which building is more efficient, which is less efficient vis-a-vis the other Ministry's buildings, and this will be compiled on the basis of floor area, usage hours, things like that.

Hearing the Government's intent to band and grade their own buildings, would it be possible for this list to be shared with experts and practitioners from the private sector, so that we can have more transparency into how different buildings are performing?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we will take that suggestion into consideration. This is only the beginning. So we thought we will try out with the public sector buildings first, because it is easier for us to collect energy data. But certainly it is a step that we want to advance in the future.

Would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary consider some incentives for private sector to be more efficient in their buildings?

We are looking at the examples of other countries to see how we can encourage developers, for example, to be more conscious of energy efficiency. We are exploring this. BCA, I believe, is talking to URA and at some time they will talk to REDAS and all the other contractors to see how we can make our buildings more efficient.

asked the Minister for National Development what is the current demand for public housing and whether the Government will revise the public housing development programme to match the actual demand for the next 5 to 10 years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the first nine months of this year, HDB received 9,600 applications under its Registration for Flats System (RFS). The average monthly application for new flats this year therefore works out to about 1,100 per month, compared to about 800 in 1999 and 700 in 1998. As at September 2000, there were 35,600 applicants on the waiting list for HDB flats. HDB will continue to monitor the demand closely and adjust its building programme according to the demand.

Sir, it appears that HDB has achieved its primary role of providing affordable housing to most Singaporeans. Is it time now for HDB to reduce its role, ie, to give the private sector more opportunities to meet the increasing sophisticated housing demands of Singaporeans?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is a role for both the public and the private sectors to play in housing our population. In fact, the HDB has more than achieved its purpose of creating communities where our people can live in good quality public housing. At the present moment, more than 85%, roughly 86%, of our people live in public housing. It has been discussed in both the public and private domains that a long-term target is to have more Singaporeans living in private housing. Indeed, this, I believe, is the aspiration of many Singaporeans, to be able to upgrade to private housing. In the 1991 Concept Plan, for example, there was discussion about increasing the mix of private housing vis-a-vis public housing. This is now currently under discussion in the present Concept Plan review and this is where we will be discussing the matter more extensively - URA together with members of the public and other interested parties. When that discussion is complete, I think we will have a rough idea of which direction we are heading.

May I ask the Minister, now that the number of applications for HDB flats has lessened and the waiting time is less, can HDB give a more accurate completion time? There are a lot of applicants who are told of a certain time they can take over the flat, but now, for example, they are very often told that in one year or 11/2 years the flat will be ready, and they get panicky because they are not ready financially or physically. Can HDB give a more accurate target date for the completion of the flats?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member's point is a valid one. In fact, we have been receiving quite a lot of feedback from Members of Parliament that, where in the past, applicants had to wait for a long time for their flats, now they are actually getting their flats faster than they want them, primarily because they have not been able to accumulate enough savings in their CPF in order to pay for the downpayment. I think it is a happy state of affairs, in some ways. But it is also incumbent upon the HDB now, with slowing demand and with greater control over the building programme, to be able to monitor more closely the progress of the building programme and to therefore give a more accurate assessment, as the Member has mentioned just now. HDB will be looking into ways and means of matching supply and demand more accurately.

Sir, in relation to the Minister's answer, I believe that the HDB has a scheme to allow the 20% deposit payment to be made in two instalments for those who cannot afford it. May I ask the Minister to extend this to 5-room flats too?

Sir, this change or revision to the policy of allowing the deposit of 20% to be split into two instalments was primarily to allow younger couples who are not able to afford the 20% downpayment to therefore get the HDB flat, as it were. The reason why the decision was taken to restrict this concession to the 4-room flats was that if you are actually applying for a 5-room flat and therefore your deposit is larger, then affordability should not be in the picture. Therefore, in so far as this being a concession is concerned, the relaxation is only for the 4-roomers. It is a question of affordability as well as being able to get their flats faster.

May I remind the Minister that because of the shorter waiting period as well as the reduced CPF payments due to the economic crisis, the ability to build up enough balances in the CPF for the 20% deposit has been greatly impaired. In that case, may I again ask the Minister whether he will consider the 5-room option too, Sir?

Sir, as I said, it is a question of affordability. And if it is a matter of not being able to build enough balances in the CPF for a 5-room flat, then I would suggest that the young couple consider a 4-room flat instead where together with the split, delayed or deferred instalment, I think affordability would no longer be an issue.

In meeting the demand for housing of Singaporeans, may I ask the Minister to clarify the HDB's position on the building of smaller and smaller flats while it seems that Singaporeans have a great energy for retaining the existing flats or even bigger and bigger flats?

Sir, this matter came to the attention of the public recently by way of media reports that HDB was downsizing its flats. Over the last 10 to 15 years, there is no doubt that there had been several demographic changes taking place, not least of which is the downsizing of the family unit. So the average household size over the last 10 to 15 years has come down, to around four today and, if the trend persists, to something less than four. That is one of the changes that is taking place that HDB has taken into account in its building programme. But having said that, there is no intention at this point in time for HDB to further downsize its flats. It has already done so slowly over the last many, many years. And currently, the intention is for HDB to continue to build flats of this size because this is the level of comfort and the level of public housing that we believe is affordable for Singaporeans and also affordable for the state. I think HDB has made it quite clear that there is no intention to further downsize the flats at this point in time.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Singapore Exchange (SGX) has completed its probe on the last minute spurt buying of SingTel shares on 13th October 2000 resulting in the sudden upward surge of STI index.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 13th October 2000, there was a 30% increase in the share price of Singapore Telecommunications Limited ("SingTel") resulting in a sudden upward surge of the STI index on that day. The increase in share price was due to a last minute order to buy 2 million SingTel shares at $3.50 each, keyed in by Nomura Securities Singapore Pte Ltd. The order was given at 5.04 pm, just 1 minute before the end of the pre-close session on the Singapore Exchange Securities Trading. 662,000 shares, representing all the outstanding sell positions during the pre-close session, were matched at $3.50, causing SingTel shares to close at that price. The Singapore Exchange ("SGX") had confirmed that the trade was not an error trade. As a regulator of the securities and derivatives market, SGX is concerned with unusual price or volume fluctuations on any share counter. SGX will take action against market participants engaged in trading activities aimed to create a false market in contravention of SGX's rules and bye-laws. Based on its investigations, SGX has ascertained that there could be a possible violation of the Securities Industry Act. It is an offence under the Securities Industry Act to create a false or misleading appearance in the market for a share counter. Accordingly, based on advice from MAS, SGX has referred the matter to the Commercial Affairs Department for further investigation.

Sir, is the Commercial Affairs Department now investigating the matter and how long would it take to complete its investigation?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, the Exchange has referred the matter to CAD and I assume that CAD is now investigating the matter. I have not heard when they will complete the investigation.

asked the Prime Minister, with the proliferation of degree courses being offered by various public and private institutions, whether the Public Service Commission will release a list of recognised and preferred qualifications so that members of the public may make an informed choice when enrolling for a course.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Service Commission does not assess or grant recognition to degrees awarded by overseas universities for employment purposes as it is not in the position to judge qualifications awarded by institutions all over the world. Moreover, each individual employer in the private or public sector should be left to decide on the criteria for recruitment based on its organisational strategies and needs. This includes the type of qualification acceptable for employment in each organisation.

asked the Minister for Education (i) how many primary, secondary school and junior college teachers have resigned, (ii) how many such teachers have retired, and (iii) how many foreign teachers have been recruited to fill the vacancies in the last five years since 1995 and up to the first half of this year, giving breakdown figures for each year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the resignation rate in the Education Service has been stable at a rate of 2% to 3% over the last five years. In absolute terms, the number of resignations of trained teachers has dropped from 576 resignations in 1995 to 465 in 1999. For the first half of this year, there were 451 resignations. In terms of retirement, the numbers have increased in the last five years from 414 in 1995 to 755 in 1999. In the first half of 2000, there were 463 retirements. The number of retirements has been increasing because a significant portion of our education service are aged 50 and up. To supplement our pool of local teachers, the Ministry has been tapping on the external source of foreign teachers. The number of foreign teachers the Ministry had recruited from 1995-1999 ranged from 47 to 71 and in the first half of 2000, 92 foreign teachers were appointed.

Sir, can I ask the Minister, out of the 70 to 90-odd foreign teachers recruited each year, how many of them are Chinese Language (CL) teachers?

Of the 47 to 71 teachers recruited each year from 1995 to 1999 and of the 92 recruited in 2000, quite a good number are CL teachers.

asked the Minister for Education (a) how many students and households receive help through his Ministry's Financial Assistance Scheme, and (b) whether it has any plans to revise the eligibility criteria for the granting of this assistance.

Sir, a total of 3,714 students received help through MOE's Financial Assistance Scheme this year. The total amount disbursed was $412,500. The eligible income criteria for the assistance scheme are pegged to MCDS' Public Assistance rates. We review the criteria in tandem with MCDS' revision of rates for public assistance. MCDS is currently carrying out a review. It is expected that the review will be completed next year.

asked the Minister for Education what is his Ministry's policy with regard to the polytechnics offering degree courses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, higher education in Singapore is provided in the universities and polytechnics. Currently, we provide places for 21% of the Primary 1 cohort in universities and about 40% in polytechnics. These cohort participation rates for higher education are among the highest in the world. The polytechnics do not offer degree courses, and it is not the Ministry's policy for the polytechnics to do so. Universities and polytechnics serve different groups of students and different needs of the economy. Each higher education segment focuses on providing a best-in-class education to its students. Polytechnic graduates are the largest group to graduate from our education system and are well trained and highly employable. They constitute some 40% of every cohort of students, and form the backbone of our economy. I do appreciate that polytechnic graduates, like other Singaporeans aspire to upgrade themselves. Currently, about 1,200 polytechnic graduates per year are admitted to various full-time and part-time courses leading to degrees in NUS, NTU and SMU. Polytechnic graduates also upgrade themselves by attending courses at the polytechnics that lead to advanced and specialist diplomas. Some polytechnic graduates enrol in universities in other countries. My Ministry recognises the aspiration of polytechnic graduates to upgrade themselves, and we are currently studying how more upgrading opportunities can be provided for polytechnic graduates in Singapore, in the context of providing continuing education and life-long learning for all Singaporeans.

asked the Prime Minister if any decision has been made whether to prosecute the transport companies that gave bribes in the form of money for refreshments to CISCO escort riders.

Sir, when this question was last raised in Parliament on 9th May this year, the Minister for Law responded that a decision would be made when all the cases against the CISCO officers involved have been concluded. Sir, as all the cases have not yet been concluded, it is still premature to make any decision as to whether the transport companies should be prosecuted.

May I ask the Minister of State why is it necessary to wait until all the cases against the escort riders have been completed? Is there or is there not enough evidence now to charge the companies for offering the bribes? Why do we have to wait?

All the transactions are related because we are talking about 23 companies and about 30 CISCO officers involved. So in order to be fair to all parties concerned, it is prudent to wait till all the cases are concluded before deciding whether or not to charge any giver. In fact, some will still be giving evidence in the remaining cases. In order not to prejudice the remaining cases and, for the sake of justice and fairness, this decision should only be made when all the cases have been concluded.

May I tell the Minister of State that I find it difficult to understand his answer. I take it that some of the cases or the majority of the cases against escort riders have been completed. So the evidence must be in the possession of the public prosecutor. Please tell us what is the delay.

As I have said, these are not separate cases. They may involve different officers. But the transactions are linked because they involve the same companies and, in some cases, several companies gave bribes to different officers, so the charges are also related. So for the sake of fairness, it is better to wait till all the cases have been completed before deciding whether or not to charge any of the givers. Let me assure Mr Jeyaretnam that this consideration will be made. Sir, it is a matter of time.

One final question for the Minister of State. Will he assure the House that the public prosecutor will not adopt double standards when it comes to making a decision to prosecute or not?

This question does not require a response. The public prosecutor always acts judiciously in the public interest and with fairness to all parties. In deciding whether or not to prosecute cases, he looks at all the evidence and facts and see whether a case can be made out, and he prosecutes in the public interest. I think that is very clear.

asked the Minister for Manpower, in view of the Government's encouragement to Singaporeans to adopt a more risk-taking entrepreneurial spirit, whether his Ministry intends to extend the Central Provident Fund tax benefits for the self-employed to take into account a "notional employer's contribution" so as to bring them in line with the CPF contribution level of employees and thereby overcome the less attractive features of the proposed Supplementary Retirement Scheme.

Sir, currently tax exemption is granted for compulsory CPF contributions. Hence, all employees enjoy tax exemption on both employers' and employees' compulsory CPF contributions. For self-employed persons, CPF contributions are not compulsory with the exception of Medisave contributions. However, to encourage self-employed persons to contribute to CPF voluntarily for their retirement needs, we also allow self-employed persons tax exemption for their CPF contributions up to 20% of their net trade income (subject to a maximum of $14,400). The Ministry of Finance is reviewing this limit. The Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS), a voluntary retirement scheme to be launched next year, will provide an alternative avenue for individuals to save for retirement. Both employees and self-employed persons participating in the SRS will enjoy similar tax benefits.

asked the Minister for Manpower whether his Ministry will conduct a national survey among employers to ascertain the extent of labour shortage in various sectors, and review the foreign labour policy to ensure an even and adequate supply of foreign labour to sustain the traditional and new businesses of our local enterprises in line with the Government's current efforts to create a pro-enterprise environment.

The Ministry of Manpower conducts quarterly and annual surveys to obtain information on job vacancies by occupation and industry. The survey results are published in the Singapore Yearbook of Manpower Statistics, the Quarterly Labour Market Report, as well as in ad hoc reports. MOM also conducts the Manpower and Skills Needs Survey on a bi-annual basis to assess the employment outlook and skills needs of various industries for the next two years. In addition, our officers conduct regular company visits and engage in frequent exchanges with companies and unions to get first hand information on manpower issues. We also monitor and actively seek feedback from companies and workers to identify emerging problems. All these channels, from official surveys, links with economic agencies and interactions with companies, have enabled MOM to identify short and medium term manpower needs in various industries. These findings and projections on manpower needs are presented to the National Manpower Council. The Council, which meets twice a year, sets directions on the appropriate strategies to meet both the short and long term manpower needs. To meet emerging manpower needs, various strategies encompassing manpower development, manpower augmentation and industry re-engineering will be needed. This includes welcoming and facilitating skilled foreigners coming here to work. For such skilled global talents coming here on Employment Passes, we do not have any cap or sectoral limitation. In the case of semi-skilled or unskilled foreign workers, we will have to take a more balanced approach. We already have more than 450,000 low-skilled foreign workers in Singapore. Unlimited inflow of low-skilled foreign workers is not sustainable and may undermine economic restructuring. Employers with easy access to low cost foreign workers may lose the incentive to invest in labour-saving technology, participate in workforce development, or re-engineer their work processes to address their manpower needs. There are also serious social and political costs in admitting too many foreign workers. We have therefore adopted a more holistic approach to address industries' skilled and unskilled manpower needs. In response to the shortage of IT workers, for example, we launched the Strategic Manpower Conversion Programme (Info-comm) to encourage the conversion of local non-IT workers to take up IT jobs. This complements the liberal admission of foreign talents in this area. The Skills Redevelopment Programme has been extended to cover training of cleaning workers, health assistants and nurses, and other sectors facing labour shortage. This will help to re-deploy displaced workers, thus easing structural unemployment. Sir, despite these measures, there will still be gaps in manpower demand and supply where the local workforce is not able to fill. Consequently, we will need to augment the workforce with foreign manpower. We will review the foreign manpower policy to ensure that they remain relevant while taking into consideration the social and economic costs associated with the admission of too many foreign workers. But foreign worker policies must be seen as part of the total solution to industries' manpower challenges and tailored accordingly. We will continue to monitor the employment situation closely and assist both large and small companies in their manpower needs.

Sir, there could be excess foreign workers in certain sectors of our industries, such as the construction sector. Can the Ministry of Manpower not allow some of these excess foreign workers to be transferred to other sectors, such as the service and manufacturing sectors, to meet the shortages so that these foreign workers can also be put to better use which will benefit our economy?

Sir, each company, each sector, will have to justify its needs for foreign workers separately. Although there may be excess in one sector, if the other sectors or companies do not justify their needs, then we are not able to provide them with additional workers. And, as I mentioned in my reply, we have to look at the total picture. We have to ensure that the needs of the industries are satisfied but, at the same time, we also have social and political costs that we need to take into consideration. So it has to be a total approach. Each sector, each company, must be able to justify its needs, and, if they can justify their needs, then we will be able to consider them.

Sir, is this number of 450,000 low-skilled foreign workers in Singapore too high already? There is talk of excess in the building trade. What I am saying is that there is a danger of these low-skilled foreign workers taking the jobs of Singaporean workers.

Sir, in fact, we are trying to get more skilled workers as against unskilled workers coming into Singapore. We have to have a balance. And we want companies to look at their processes and look into ways where they can cut their manpower needs by taking in more mechanisation processes. I think this has to be taken as a whole. Obviously, we cannot afford to have a large number of unskilled foreign workers, because there are social and political costs. So, while we want to welcome foreign workers, we want to welcome skilled workers to Singapore rather than unskilled workers. 450,000 is definitely a large figure and we should try our best to moderate the demand for unskilled workers. But we will obviously try and help those who need skilled workers to get their needs.

May I ask the Minister of State, firstly, what criteria does the Ministry of Manpower use to assess the need of a specific sector for foreign workers and, secondly, does it take into account in its assessment what the potential growth or the current situation in the sector is, in order to decide whether they should allow more or less foreign workers to be employed by the sector?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in fact, we have various sectoral limitations for unskilled workers. For the manufacturing sector, for companies facing greater foreign competition, we allow them even up to 50% foreign workers and, for the construction sector, although there is not a need now, we actually allow up to five foreign workers for one local worker. So we have got this way to see what are their worker requirements. Even for the service sector, we do allow 30% of the total workforce to come from traditional sources. Though we do not allow non-traditional source workers to come into the service sector, we allow some exceptions. So the answer is, briefly, we have ways to find out how to allocate the workers, and this depends on the needs of the industry. Obviously, in an area where there is strong competition, like manufacturing, we are pretty liberal, allowing up to 50% in some cases.

asked the Minister for Health (a) what other alternative assistance, if any, the Government gives to help a single mother when she decides not to terminate the pregnancy, and (b) whether the benefits are spelt out to the pregnant person during the 2weeks pre-counselling period before the actual abortion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all women, married or single, undergo compulsory pre-abortion counselling conducted by trained counsellors when they attend any registered medical clinic to request for an abortion. At least 48 hours must elapse after the pre-abortion counselling before a woman can go for the abortion. During the pre-abortion counselling the risks involved in the abortion procedure and the possible consequences of abortion are explained. Depending on the circumstances and the reason for seeking an abortion, the counsellor will discourage women from going through with the abortion by explaining the benefits of keeping the baby, which include the joys of parenting, the bonding of the family, and that a baby is not a burden and will not jeopardise a woman's career. If the woman is single and decides to keep the baby, assistance appropriate to her needs will be rendered. She is referred to shelters for pregnant single women for accommodation if she finds it difficult to stay in her own home. She is also provided with information on adoption procedures and alternative child care arrangements. She can be referred to agencies such as the Family Service Centres and the Pregnancy Crisis Service for social support and services like mediation between the single mother and her parents, arrangements to retain her in school and referral to agencies for financial assistance and free antenatal care.

Sir, I notice pre-counselling does not include material benefits, like food or free medical treatment for the child. Are there such benefits after the child is born?

If the single mother requires financial assistance, there are various agencies to provide this financial assistance. So she will be referred to all these agencies, as I have explained in my answer.

Sir, other than the risks of abortion and the benefits of a family, does the Government give other benefits to the single mother especially?

Our position is, if you bring a baby into this world, you should be responsible for the baby. But in the case of a single mother, we understand that she is probably in more financial difficulties and so we will refer her to all the various agencies. There are no special benefits for single mothers.

It would appear that the Government prefers a single mother to abort the baby rather than to keep her, and even, later on, with the hope of giving the child up for adoption. But does that not go against the policy of the Government to encourage Singaporeans to have more babies?

We encourage more babies within a family context.

asked the Minister for Health (a) how many public and private rehabilitative centres are there in Singapore; (b) whether the current number is sufficient to meet needs; and (c) what is the projection for such service over the next five to ten years in view of our rapid greying population.

Rehabilitation services in Singapore are provided at both acute hospitals and community levels to help patients recover from conditions such as stroke and fractured hips. All the 5 public hospitals, namely, SGH, CGH, NUH, TTSH and AH provide rehabilitation services. The 4 private hospitals, Mt Elizabeth, Gleneagles, East Shore and Mt Alvernia, also provide rehabilitation services to their patients. At the community level, four community hospitals and 23 day rehabilitation centres provide among others 970 places for rehabilitation. Most nursing homes also provide rehabilitation to their patients. Half of the 50 nursing homes are run by private organisations. The standalone rehabilitation centres are all run by voluntary welfare organisations. Based on our provision norms of 3.5 places per 1,000 elderly, we estimate that there is currently a slight overprovision of day rehabilitation places by about 150 places. This is borne out by the utilisation rate of day rehabilitation centres, which at 60% is a little underutilised. We will have sufficient day rehabilitation places over the next 10 years, based on projected requirements and known development plans over the next few years. However, my Ministry reviews the provision of such step-down facilities regularly so as to ensure an adequate supply to meet the needs of our patients.

asked the Minister for Law whether his Ministry will consider using a different fee structure for vacant state lands when the proposed use has no commercial value such as a soccer field maintained by the Town Council.

asked the Minister for Law if his Ministry will consider charging a Town Council nominal fee only for using small vacant state land as precinct park for Housing and Development Board residents.

Sir, may I take Question Nos. 16 and 17 together as they are related?

Yes.

Sir, vacant lands in HDB estates, which include State lands and land owned by HDB, may be under the purview of Town Councils, HDB or Land Office. For most vacant State lands within HDB estates, HDB acts as the agent of Government in maintaining them and is also responsible for their interim uses within approved planning parameters. Following this year's Committee of Supply debate when the issue was raised, Ministry of Law and Land Office reviewed the Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL) rates imposed on grassroots organisations for interim use of State land in HDB estates. We have decided to charge 30% of the market TOL rates that would otherwise have to be paid for the use of State land in HDB estate as playing fields and courts. For example, previously an annual TOL fee of $4,800 ($400 per month) would be imposed on the grassroots organisations for using a piece of vacant State land, 1,000 square metres in size. Now, based on the 70% discount, grassroots organisations will pay only $1,440 annually or $120 per month for using the same piece of State land.

asked the Minister for Law whether he is aware that the row of terrace houses that has been compulsorily acquired for the Mass Rapid Transit project along Pheng Geck Avenue, Sennett Estate is overcrowded with foreign workers and cause environmental nuisance to the residents living opposite them; and whether he will take immediate action to solve the problem.

Sir, there are 48 residential properties at Pheng Geck Avenue acquired by Land Office (LO) for the North-East MRT Line (NEL) project and comprehensive redevelopment. Pending redevelopment, these properties are let out to ex-owners and other tenants by the Land Office's managing agent on Tenancy Agreements (TAs) and Temporary Occupation Licences (TOLs) for residential use. Land Office had earlier received a complaint about the unauthorised use of these properties for housing foreign workers and the nuisance they caused to the neighbourhood. Following up on the complaint, Land Office's managing agent had on 5th October this year, served notices on 23 tenants who had breached the conditions of the Tenancy Agreement, requiring them to vacate and return the premises by 4th November this year. Another 4 licensees were informed that their licences would not be renewed when they expire on 14th November 2000 (3 licences) and 31st December 2000 (1 licence).

Sir, were the authorities aware that the tenants were in fact foreigners?

Sir, these properties were rented out to companies for the use of their employees but there was a limit on the numbers. The nuisance which was caused by them subsequently was serious enough for residents to lodge complaints and therefore Land Office has done what is right, which is to terminate the Tenancy Agreements of the companies so that the foreigners would leave.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) what factors contributed to the lower cost of the Housing and Development Board flats published recently; and (b) whether the price of HDB flats will stabilise at the current levels.

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB considers various factors in the pricing of new flats for sale. These include affordability of the flats to the buyers, prevailing resale prices of comparable HDB resale flats, the locations and attributes of the flats and the overall development cost. Generally, HDB flats which are in more popular towns/locations with more developed amenities and facilities, such as MRT/LRT stations, bus interchanges, shopping centres, and sport complexes, are priced higher than those in the less developed towns. The selling prices of flats may therefore vary from quarter to quarter, depending on the factors that apply to the flats offered. For example, the prices of some new flats offered in the 4th Quarter 2000 are higher than those of flats offered in the 2nd Quarter 2000 because the new flats are in the more developed Bukit Batok Town within the Town Centre and next to the MRT station. On the other hand, prices of new flats offered in Punggol town in 4th Quarter 2000 are priced lower than those offered in 2nd Quarter 2000, to reflect their location nearer to the expressway. HDB will continue to use these factors to set the prices of HDB flats and to ensure that they remain affordable. From time to time, HDB will make some adjustments to the prices of flats offered to reflect the location and attributes of the flats.

asked the Minister for National Development whether he will consider converting those unused roof-top floors of multi-storey car parks in Housing and Development Board estates to recreational facilities such as tennis courts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the roof-top floors of multi-storey car parks that are accessible but not used for parking are meant as a provision for additional parking lots when the need arises. Before allowing recreational facilities to be built on the unused roof-top floors, HDB has to study whether the technical constraints such as design load of the roof deck can support such uses. HDB also has to consider whether the recreational facilities would create noise and lighting nuisance to nearby residents. HDB will study each individual case should the MPs and residents request for such facilities.

Sir, will the Minister of State consider allowing the grassroots organisations to use the roof-top facilities from time to time for their activities, aside from the recreational facilities which we talked about earlier?

Sir, the grassroots organisations can make an application to use the roof-top facilities, and we will consider it.

Sir, I notice that some of the roof-tops of the carparks are beautifully decorated. I wonder whether the Ministry will consider beautifying the exposed carparks by painting them in nice colours so that neighbouring residents looking down the carparks will have a far more pleasant environment to look at?

Subject to technical constraints we can look at the Member's suggestion.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the basic conditions that must exist before Police personnel can open fire aimed to kill a member of the public.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first say that no police officer in doing his job will want to kill anybody. It is not his job to kill. His job is to ensure that life is not endangered. Not just his own life, but also those of members of the public. Police officers may use firearms when there is an immediate threat to life or of grievous hurt. Such a situation exists when: First, the suspect has the means to inflict grievous bodily harm on the officer or any member of the public; Second, the suspect makes threatening gestures or moves at the victim or police officer, which suggest that he will use violence and has every opportunity to inflict harm; and Third, the victim or police officer is clearly in imminent danger of death or grievous hurt. Police officers are trained to use firearms only as a last resort. And they only do so when the above conditions - which are very strict conditions - are present.

May I ask the Minister of State whether he has made a close study of sections 100 and 101 of the Penal Code and the exception to section 300 of the Penal Code, exception (c), before I ask further questions?

These are exceptions to committing a murder, are they not? Can you read them out? I do not have the Penal Code with me.

Have you made a study of all those sections?

In determining the position to take, we work within the laws. So definitely, these conditions are within the framework of the law. It must be so.

May I ask the Minister of State: is he aware that under exception (c) to section 300, the murder is reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder? It does not result in an acquittal or justification for the killing. Is he aware of that?

Surely it is up to the coroner or the court to decide on a particular case whether any legal provision kicks in. In this case, the coroner, with all the facts on hand, had looked into the case and decided that the officer had acted reasonably. There was imminent danger and, therefore, the coroner decided that what had happened was justifiable homicide.

Is the Minister of State aware that the finding of the coroner was not that the policeman was in imminent danger of being killed but there was imminent danger that he feared for his safety? Will the Minister of State look up the coroner's findings again?

Sir, the coroner held that his safety was immediately threatened which encompasses his life because when his safety was threatened, in those circumstances, with the man charging at him with a 1.62-metre iron rod, nobody knows what would happen. The coroner also held that he had no reasonable alternative to shooting the deceased. And he also held that Sergeant Chan in this case had acted reasonably and professionally.

May I ask whether it is a point of order. If we are discussing a particular case, surely that is a finding of the court in question. Is there not something in the Standing Orders on this point, Sir?

That is not a point of order. Mr Jeyaretnam, do you have any more questions?

I have, Sir. Does the Minister of State not think that in spite of the coroner's findings, the policeman should have been charged in court for him to persuade the court that it was not murder but manslaughter, culpable homicide not amounting to murder? Because if you look at sections 100 and 101, the right of private defence does not extend to killing another man unless there are reasonable grounds to suspect that his life is in imminent danger.

Sir, as I have said just now in my answer, it is not the police's intention to kill. In those circumstances, he has to shoot to stop the man. If the bullets kill him, that is the result of the action. But in those split seconds, he has to act. He has to act reasonably, not only in defence of himself, but also passers-by and members of the public.

Were there passers-by?

Yes. There was a driver of a motor lorry behind him who testified that he feared for his life if the man was not stopped. Mr Jeyaretnam well knows that a coroner's enquiry is part of the traditional process. It is a coroner's court, well established, and the system has worked well. In fact, the coroner will not have the last say because it is the Attorney-General's Chambers who will ultimately decide whether or not there are grounds for prosecution. In this case, he decided that, based on the coroner's inquiry and also his own assessment of the facts, there were no grounds for prosecuting the police officer.

Sir, may I ask the Minister of State whether he has the number of fatal shootings done by the police in the last year or whatever timeframe? And if so, how many prosecutions have resulted?

Over the last 15 years, there have been only 10 cases of fatal shootings, and all the cases went before a coroner's inquiry. Every one of them was justifiable homicide, except for one case which was an open verdict.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology whether he will consider merging the Certificate of Entitlement categories for private cars into a single category as early as possible.

Sir, the present two COE categories for cars, namely, Category A and Category B, were formed from the merger of four car COE categories in May 1999 following a review by the Government Parliamentary Committee for Communications. In its review of the Vehicle Quota System (VQS), the Committee considered merging the car COE categories into a single category as it felt that this would provide greater liquidity and reduce price distortions. However, public feedback raised concerns that with a single COE category for cars, buyers of smaller cars were likely to be outbid by buyers of big and luxury cars. The Committee therefore recommended that the merger of categories should be done gradually and, as an intermediate step, recommended that the four car categories be merged to form the two categories. Over the last 12 months, the COE prices of Category B were generally higher or comparable to the prices of Category A except on a few occasions, such as in the October tender, when the COE price of Category B fell substantially below that of Category A. This can happen and does happen because in a closed bidding system, bidders are not given any information when the bidding is in progress and they are therefore unable to follow up when the demand for a particular category of COE is weak vis-a-vis the supply. The Land Transport Authority will be implementing the open bidding system for COEs as a trial in the 2nd quarter of next year. With the open bidding system, bidders will be able to see the going prices during the bidding exercises and make informed decisions when bidding COEs. This will help to reduce wide fluctuations in COE prices like the sharp fall in Category B COE price in the October bidding exercise or when the price for the big car COE fell to $50 previously. We should therefore review whether to merge the two car COE categories into one after we implement the open bidding system.

Sir, with the information available in the open bidding system, is it not equivalent to having a single category for all cars?

Sir, it depends on the reactions of the bidders. If they choose to bid in a particular category because they just want to buy a particular category car, then it may not be. But if they choose to buy any car as long as its COE price is the lowest, then perhaps what the Member said is true.

Sir, would the Minister of State agree that in the previous discussion on this topic, the merger of categories allows buyers a greater freedom to buy cars? As such, open bidding with the information available seems to suggest that the segregation of categories is no longer necessary. Given this, would he consider merging the categories as soon as possible?

Sir, from the transport management point of view, it is logical to have only one category. But as I said, there are still public concerns about merging the categories, because they felt that buyers of smaller cars will be squeezed out. In view of that, we are prepared to implement the open bidding system first and then review the results. And if what the Member says is true and that people feel that there is no reason to have more than one category, then we will consider the Member's suggestion.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister how does one ensure that Category A COEs cater for only those in that income group. Is it not a reality that it is open to everyone to bid for it?

Sir, we cannot dictate how people should bid. Anyone, regardless of his or her income level, can bid for a car in Category A. But the fact remains that people are still concerned about the effect of having one single category. Therefore, as I said, we will consider doing so if the concern becomes negligible.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology whether he will consider granting incentives such as a 50% rebate on road tax to encourage the importation and use of eco-friendly vehicles.

Mr Speaker, Sir, eco-friendly or "green" vehicles generate substantially less pollution than conventional vehicles. The environmental benefits of using eco-friendly or "green" vehicles are: (i) lower emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) which contributes to the "greenhouse" effect; (ii) lower emission of carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons and nitrogen and sulphur oxides, and particulates; and (iii) lower noise levels. My Ministry and the Land Transport Authority, together with the Ministry of the Environment and the Inter-Agency Committee on Energy Efficiency (IACEE), have reviewed measures to promote the importation and use of eco-friendly vehicles in Singapore. As recently announced by my Minister of State, Dr John Chen, the Ministry has decided to introduce "green" vehicle rebates for electric and hybrid cars. These rebates are intended to lower the cost differential between "green" cars and conventional cars. To reduce the cost of ownership of "green" cars, a rebate equivalent to 20% of the car's Open Market Value will be given at the point of registration. In addition, hybrid and electric cars will be given a road tax rebate of 10% and 20% respectively. Based on LTA's estimates, the effect of the rebate would be to lower the difference in purchase price between a conventional car and a hybrid car from 16% to 10% and to reduce the daily operating cost difference from 7.3% to 2.5%. The "green" vehicle rebates for electric and hybrid cars will be implemented in early 2001. These rebates will be subsequently reviewed after three years. The Land Transport Authority, together with the Ministry of the Environment, will be announcing further details of the "green" vehicle rebates scheme for electric and hybrid cars within the next few weeks. The announcement will also cover the categorisation of green vehicles for road tax and Certificate of Entitlement purposes.

Sir, I am not sure I understood the Parliamentary Secretary correctly. But if I got it right, it is still nominally more expensive to purchase and run either a hybrid car or an electric car. Is that correct?

It is slightly higher than a conventional car.

In terms of land transport, a car is a car. It should be on par. In terms of efficiency and pollution, the hybrid car and electric car will be more beneficial for our environment. Should it not, if anything, be nominally cheaper?

Sir, these are new technology cars. We have to look at how the cost for each car will evolve over time, because new models are produced as technology improves. At this point in time, it is also very difficult for us to ascertain between the different models at what point we should equate the rebate to make them equal to conventional cars. This is a support by the Government to encourage the use of eco-friendly vehicles. And in view of our car ownership and land transport policies, it is better, at this point in time, for conventional car and green car not to be any different significantly to potential buyers coming into the market. Should we lower the difference substantially in favour of "green" cars, we may attract non-car buyers into buying such a car just because it is much cheaper than conventional cars. And that might undermine our land transport policies in Singapore.

Sir, if I may pursue the point just a little further. On the pricing of leaded and unleaded type of gasoline when this was available in Singapore, we did the right way by making unleaded gasoline cheaper. Surely this should be the principle, Sir.

Sir, I think we have to look at how the technology will evolve with time. At this point in time, the development cost of such cars is very high. As and when the technology becomes cheaper and there is a demand for such cars, then we will have to review it. But at this point in time, we feel that this is the right level.

Sir, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary when the Ministry anticipates the technology might stabilise and when, as a minimum, we can expect at least parity in the cost of owning and operating eco-friendly vehicles versus conventional vehicles?

Sir, at this point in time, we really do not have the answer because it depends on the people who are researching and manufacturing eco-friendly vehicles. At this point in time, our review was based on demands of the market. As and when there are other developments, we will review it.

asked the Minister for National Development whether there are any practical and effective solutions to resolve the bird nuisance faced by residents at the older and established Housing and Development Board estates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the main factors behind the bird nuisance problem are the easy availability of roosting places and food sources. The National Parks Board (NParks) and the Town Councils regularly prune dense foliage to reduce roosting places. Bird nests found are also removed during pruning activity. The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA), with the assistance of the Singapore Gun Club and SAFRA Shooting Club, will cull the pest birds wherever possible and safe to do so. However, these are short-term measures. The pest birds would return to the roost when the trees regain their foliage. A more long-term and effective solution is to reduce the easy availability of food sources. The Ministry of the Environment has taken measures to require food stalls, shops and households to store their refuse in covered bins to keep them away from birds. To minimise the bird nuisance problems more effectively in the long run, we will also need the cooperation of the public. The Town Councils have made concerted efforts to educate residents not to feed the pest birds such as pigeons or leave food scraps lying around. The community, as well as owners of eating establishments, should help to ensure that food wastes are properly disposed.

asked the Minister for Community Development and Sports, in the light of growing expectation and impatience with the situation where we excel in many areas such as economic performance and total defence but have not been able to deliver in the sporting arena, whether his Ministry has an overall blueprint to breed and cultivate Singaporean champions in international sporting meets, such as the Olympics. The Minister for Community Development and Sports (Mr Abdullah Tarmug): Sir, our national table tennis player, Jing Jun Hong, reached the last four in women's table tennis at the recent Sydney Olympics. This is no small feat, considering that she was competing against the top players in the world. In the 1998 Asian Games, we garnered a total of 14 medals. At the 1999 SEA Games in Brunei, Singapore won altogether 96 medals. So I think it will be unfair to say that our national athletes have not been able to deliver. However, Mr Ong is right that there is growing public expectation for Singapore to pay more attention to sports. As already announced, I am chairing a Committee on Sporting Singapore to take stock of the current sports scene in Singapore, and study how we can further develop and enhance our achievements in sports.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology, in view of the fact that electronic navigation mapping software and positioning systems have been commercially available in other developed countries for a number of years, (a) what are the factors hindering the commercial development and deployment of such systems in Singapore; and (b) whether one of the factors is the lack of accurate mapping data and, if so, whether his Ministry will consider compelling agencies that possess such information to make such data commercially available.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are companies that are already providing routing information services such as digitised maps over the Internet. There are also some companies in Singapore developing GPS-based navigation systems for use on board vehicles. Companies which intend to also develop such systems can purchase accurate digital mapping data of Singapore from the Land Systems Support Unit (LSSU) of the Ministry of Law. On Government's part, the Land Transport Authority has implemented the traffic.smart system which provides real time traffic information over the Internet. The information from this system can also be integrated into current and future GPS-based navigation systems. The LTA welcomes companies to collaborate with it as they develop such systems. 2.00 pm

Order. End of Question time. [Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Question Nos. 27-34 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 14th November 2000.]

"to amend the Stamp Duties Act (Chapter 312 of the 1997 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Goods and Services Tax Act (Chapter 117 of the 1997 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Customs Act (Chapter 70 of the 1997 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws", recommendation of President signified; presented by Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 1999 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister of State for Manpower (Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to repeal the Silver Jubilee Fund (Singapore) Act (Chapter 294 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Community Development and Sports (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second and Third Readings read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to make provision for additional expenditure of $5.2 billion which was not foreseen at the time of the FY2000 Budget when it was prepared. Of the additional provision, about $1.9 billion is required by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology for payment to SingTel and StarHub, to compensate them for potential loss of revenue arising from Government's decision to bring forward the introduction of full market competition in the basic telecommunications sector by two years, from 1st April 2002 to 1st April 2000. The net of tax compensation sum was arrived at using the discounted cash flow approach, which is the mainstream approach used by the financial and investment community to value businesses, to determine the difference in net present value terms for the two telcos under the duopoly and the accelerated liberalisation scenarios. The telcos have agreed to the compensation offers. The balance of $3.3 billion is required for the Head of Expenditure on Financial Transfers. Of this, $2 billion is for transfer to the Developmental Investment Fund which came into operation on 1st April 2000. The Fund was established to finance investments with developmental objectives so that such outlays would be properly treated as investments and not as straight expenditure, which would be the case if the outlays were funded through the Development Fund. Another $1 billion is required to fund the first tranche of the CPF Top-Up Scheme, part of the budget surplus sharing package announced by the Prime Minister in his National Day Rally Speech for this year. Under this scheme, Singapore citizens aged 21 and above on 31st December 2000 will, depending on their income levels and NS status, receive top-ups of $500 to $1,700 in their CPF Ordinary Accounts if they have contributed at least $100 as CPF contributions during the qualifying period between 1st January 1998 and 31st December 2000. The budget surplus sharing package also included a contribution of $300 million to the ElderCare Fund which was established in March this year as an endowment fund for Government funding of the entire range of elderly and continuing care services by voluntary welfare organisations. This contribution will bring Government's contribution to the Fund to $500 million, one-fifth of the targeted amount of $2.5 billion. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Companies Act was last amended in 1998 whereby a set of amendments was made as part of a wider exercise to update and modernise company legislation. The Bill before the House today represents the outcome of the review of the company legislation since then. The greater part of the present Bill is devoted to the disclosure requirements in the Companies Act for offers or invitations to the public in respect of shares and debentures. This is essentially in response to the recommendations of the Corporate Finance Committee (CFC) to make Singapore a key financial centre for international corporate fund-raising activity. The main thrust of the Corporate Finance Committee's recommendations is that Singapore should shift from merit-based regulation to a disclosure-based regulatory regime to promote innovation, entrepreneurship, efficiency and business flexibility, while protecting the integrity of the securities market. Accordingly, the present Bill seeks to improve provisions relating to the disclosure requirements in the Companies Act, exemptions from such disclosure requirements, the penalties for breach of disclosure requirements and submissions of financial statements. The other amendments are intended to enlarge the scope of the share buy-back provisions, improve the winding-up process of companies that are being used for purposes against national security or national interest, and make related amendments to the Business Registration Act. We are also taking this opportunity to incorporate miscellaneous amendments to streamline the procedures and clarify existing provisions of the Act. Improvement on disclosure requirements Section 45 of the Companies Act currently sets out the requirements for the content of a prospectus. Clause 5 repeals and re-enacts section 45 to replace the current checklist approach with a general test of what investors and their professional advisers would expect to find in a prospectus to make an informed investment decision. The new provision provides for the general disclosure test in the main Act whilst retaining the Fifth Schedule as a checklist. A new section 45A will be introduced under clause 6 to provide for a mini-prospectus or a profile statement in addition to a prospectus, subject to certain conditions. The profile statement will be an abridged version of the full prospectus. It is meant to provide essential information at a glance, and make the information easier to read and digest. Investors who wish to do so can still refer to the full prospectus. Another step to improve the disclosure requirement is to allow the issuance and lodgment of a supplementary or replacement document after the original prospectus has been lodged. This is provided under clause 10, which inserts a new section 50A that specifies the circumstances under which a supplementary or a replacement document could be lodged with the Registrar and issued to the public. This is to enable the issuer to update or rectify any statement that has already been made in a prospectus or profile statement. Currently, issuers have to either issue a fresh prospectus or press advertisement to inform investors of such changes. The new approach will be less time-consuming and costly. Exemption from disclosure requirements The amendments under clause 16 are intended to improve the existing provisions on exemptions from prospectus requirements under section 106D which are either too restrictive or outdated. For offers to sophisticated investors, the limit of 50 persons will be removed. The definition of "sophisticated investor" will also be refined. Individual sophisticated investors are now defined as individuals with total net personal assets exceeding $2 million or whose income in the last 12 months is not less than $300,000. For corporations, the total net assets must exceed $10 million. Clause 7 amends section 46 to allow the Registrar to make an Exemption Order in relation to a class of prospectuses. This allows the Registrar to grant blanket exemptions and stipulate the conditions to be complied with for the issue of "preliminary" prospectus, used by issuers to gauge market interest before the actual issue. Clause 18 amends section 119 to allow any person or class of persons to seek exemption from compliance with the requirements relating to interests other than shares and debentures. Currently, the exemption may only be granted to a public company in Singapore or a public company of a proclaimed country and is registered as a foreign company in Singapore. Clause 27 amends section 400 to allow for direct sales of unit trusts to the investor, subject to certain safeguards. Civil and criminal liability for breach of disclosure requirements In line with the shift from merit-based regulation to a disclosure-based regulatory regime, all parties that are seeking funds from the public are expected to have collective responsibility to issue accurate documents that the public can rely on. Clause 11 amends section 55 to expand the scope of civil liability for false or misleading statements or omissions in a prospectus or profile statement. The new section 55A provides that the person liable for the prospectus or profile statement is required to notify the issuer or offeror if he is aware of any material deficiencies. Section 55B provides for the defences to persons potentially liable for the prospectus or profile statement under section 55(1). Clause 12 repeals and re-enacts section 56 to provide for criminal liability for false or misleading statements, or omissions in a prospectus or profile statement, which are materially adverse from the viewpoint of an investor. Improvements on submission of financial statements Clauses 20, 21 and 22 seek to improve the submission of financial statements. Clause 20 introduces a new section 200(2A) to allow a subsidiary, which is a foreign company, to end its financial year within two months before its holding company. This is to facilitate timely reporting of group accounts. Clause 21 amends section 201 to shorten the time given for publicly listed companies to present their annual reports. Instead of the current 6 months, a public listed company must now present its profit and loss account not more than five months after the financial year-end. Clause 22 amends section 201A to allow the Registrar to exempt the directors of a holding company from complying with the requirement for consolidated accounts to be issued only after receiving the accounts of subsidiaries. This will allow auditors to express their opinion on the consolidated financial statements of the subsidiaries without all the financial statements of the subsidiaries having been signed off by their respective auditors. Extension of Buy-back Provisions Besides all these changes to the disclosure requirements, we are also making some amendments to the other segments. Let me now turn to the extension of the buy-back provisions. Currently, companies are allowed to buy back up to 10% of their issued ordinary share capital within a period of 12 months. Clause 13 amends section 76B to extend the share buy-back to preference shares, both redeemable and non-redeemable. The purpose is to give companies more flexibility in determining their capital structures and improving the efficiency of their capital deployment. There will be no volume limit on the buy-back of redeemable preference shares as such shares are not part of a company's permanent capital. In contrast, non-redeemable preference shares are part of a company's permanent capital. Hence, they cannot be returned or otherwise cancelled except in the event of a capital reduction exercise or liquidation of the company. To protect the interests of creditors, the same safeguards for the buy-back of ordinary shares will apply to the buy-back of non-redeemable preference shares. Companies will be allowed to buy back up to 10% of their issued non-redeemable preference share capital within a period of 12 months. Improvement on the Winding-up process of Companies and De-registration of Businesses In the existing Companies Act and the Business Registration Act, there are currently provisions for the winding-up of companies by the Court and cancellation of businesses by the Registrar if the company or business is used for unlawful purposes, or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order, or on grounds of national security or interest. However, the actual process and procedures of winding up or cancellation are not spelt out. The proposed amendments seek to make clearer the circumstances under which a company or business may be wound up on grounds of national security or interest. The winding up process in the Companies Act as well as the cancellation process under the Business Registration Act will be harmonised with the dissolution process under the Societies Act. It clearly spells out that the Minister for Home Affairs is the definitive authority on what constitutes a threat to national security or interest, and the process by which such companies or businesses can be wound up. Other Miscellaneous Amendments The other miscellaneous amendments are essentially to update the Act, streamline the procedures and to clarify existing provisions. These include amendments to allow the Registrar to rectify the registers where there is a typographical or clerical error, to clarify that no person shall make a public offer unless a prospectus or a profile statement has been registered with RCB, and that options or warrants would also require prospectuses if they are offered to the public. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in support of this Bill. As the Second Minister for Finance has said, this Bill is introduced with the purpose of improving the disclosure requirements of public listed companies and thereby elevating the standards of corporate governance. Sir, the importance of good corporate governance is well accepted. Deputy Prime Minister BG Lee Hsien Loong has said previously, and as the Minister has just mentioned, that world class standards of corporate governance are vital pre-requisites for Singapore to become an international financial sector. For Singapore to grow as a financial centre and to attract more foreign institutional investors, Singapore will need to have a high standard of corporate governance. However, I wish to remark that in Singapore's context, there are still occasions when rumour-mongering has affected the share prices of some counters in the SGX which led to a fair amount of speculative trading. Recent examples are counters in the electronic sector where for many weeks, there have been rumours of takeover by foreign companies which were denied by the companies themselves. Sir, such undesirable practices are detrimental to the good image of the SGX. I would like to suggest that SGX should endeavour to curb such speculative rumour-mongering and also to remind companies to exercise due care in preserving price-sensitive information, ensure early disclosure of any price-sensitive information or discussions, and avoid possible insider trading. Sir, I am in support of all the amendments that the Minister has explained earlier. It is known that the MAS has set up a few committees as part of the Government's plan to review the corporate framework for good corporate governance in Singapore. I feel that there is one proposal which deserves serious consideration and in fact quick implementation, that is, to introduce quarterly reporting of financial statements or financial results for listed companies. Quarterly reporting has already been in place in the USA for several years. Malaysia has also implemented this policy from this year and it was implemented smoothly. I would like to suggest that Singapore should also adopt this requirement of quarterly reporting so as to ensure that the local companies will disclose their financial performance on a more regular basis. Although this policy would mean more onerous accounting and reporting by companies, I believe it will ensure more transparency of the companies' performance. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Companies (Amendment) Bill which I rise in support of. Before I proceed, Sir, let me declare my interest in the subject matter. As a practising solicitor, I have, on occasions and from time to time in the course of my professional work, to deal with the provisions of the Companies Act and its amendments. This Bill seeks to improve, among other things, the disclosure requirements in the Act for offers or invitations to the public; the exemptions from disclosure requirements and to widen the scope of the share buy-back provisions in the Act. I believe these amendments are part of the ongoing review and reform which the Government is undertaking with respect to the Act and the other related legislation. Sir, while I am agreeable to the efforts of the Government to improve the provisions of the Act, I do have a number of concerns that are raised by the Bill and ones which I hope to canvass before this House today. To begin with, there is the issue of the public offer. One appreciates that an underlying objective of the Act is to protect members of the public from unscrupulous promoters. Here the Act makes a distinction between a public and a private offer. Where an offer to apply for shares or other relevant securities is made to the public, the Act requires a full disclosure of all material information in the form of a prospectus registered with the Registry of Companies. The same, however, is not required in cases of private offers; presumably because the public at large is not at risk. Singapore, as with most other common law jurisdictions, uses the concept of the "public offer" to determine whether or not an offer of securities ought to be regulated by the authorities. However, what constitutes a "public offer"? Unfortunately, "public" is an open textured word. Except for very specific exemptions, there is not much in the Act by way of guidance as to the constitution of a public offer. A random offer of securities to just one member of the public who is not known to the offeror may constitute an offer to the public. On the other hand, an offer that is made to a sizeable number of family members and friends, even if these people are just acquaintances, are not typically treated as public offers. In the first instance, a prospectus filed with the Registry is necessary whereas it is not in the second instance. For many, it is often a judgment call as to whether or not an offer to investors is really a public offer for which a prospectus is required. Sir, when you think of it, the distinction between a public offer and a private offer is both an artificial and unrealistic one. Why should an offer randomly made to just one member of the public be more deserving of protection than an offer made to a wide group of people who are tenuously linked to the offeror? From my limited experience, companies raising funds often compile information memoranda that are circulated among interested parties. I have seen many of these documents around. Such documents are intended for private circulation and consumption. Often there are express words to the effect that the information memorandum does not constitute a public offer and therefore is not registered as a prospectus for the purposes of the Act. It seems that this is an accepted practice in the industry in order to circumvent, rightly or wrongly, the prospectus requirements of the Act. Sir, you will appreciate that to prepare a fully compliant prospectus is both a costly and labour intensive exercise; and this is one reason why many promoters loathe to stray into areas that require prospectus filing and the preparation of which is subject to extensive due diligence exercises, filing and declaration requirements. In fact, in relation to the size of the capital to be raised, the effort of compiling and filing a prospectus may not be worth the while. Sometimes companies, especially the technology start-ups that do require capital are not the ones who are in a position to pay for the high transactional costs that come with the preparation of a prospectus. I suspect that the reality is far from the ideal. Many promoters, I believe, canvass the public widely for funds even if it was ostensibly done in a private manner and without the proper filing. This difficulty is often compounded by the fact that the policy of public protection has never been consistently maintained. For now, this Bill recognises and seeks to protect, in a highly regulated and demanding manner, members of the public in respect of investments in securities. However, Sir, as I have maintained in previous sittings of this House, such a regiment of protection is not similarly applied in other forms of investments. I did mention in previous sittings of this House about investment promotions in Singapore of real estates overseas, of investments in time-share apartments, and of purchases of ostrich eggs, as examples of inconsistency with which the subject matter has been approached by the Government. Sir, we have to decide on a consistent approach on the issue of investor protection. If the principle is one which I have heard before, and that is caveat emptor, then the same approach should also be applied in the case of public offer of securities. We should not just use the concept of a public offer as forming the basis of deciding whether or not the activity ought to be regulated. Rather, we should consider the issue of balance and proportion. Does it make sense to go through the whole routine of prospectus filing for a small fund raising exercise? Are there alternative ways to raise funds that would afford a better level of protection for the investors and yet at the same time not put too many obstacles and demands on the promoter? At the moment, Sir, there are some who are of the view that the onerous requirements of prospectus filing may be dispensed with for small capital raising exercise. In such cases, because the exposure to the public is rather limited in scope, a full compliance with the prospectus requirements of the Act may not be necessary or required. In Australia, for instance, under the Corporations Law, small scale offerings are permitted without the requirement of a prospectus, if a person makes `personal offers' of securities to no more than 20 or fewer persons with no more than $2 million being raised in any rolling 12-month period. The Australians have presumably applied the principle of caveat emptor. One would suppose that the limited nature of the offering in numerical terms would help to moderate the risk of massive fraud in the absence of a registered prospectus. In Singapore, for the reason that we have applied the principle of caveat emptor in most areas of investments, we should perhaps in a consistent manner adopt the example of the Australians and similarly dispense with prospectus requirements for small scale offerings. Having set out my comments on the broader picture, I now turn my attention to some of the drafting details in the Act. Clause 5 of the Bill sets out the new section 45 of the Act. Section 45 prescribes the contents which prospectuses must have. These would include, inter alia, all information that investors and professional advisers should reasonably require to make an informed assessment. Incidentally, such prospectuses should contain information only to the extent to which it is reasonable for investors and their professional advisers to expect to find in a prospectus. Sir, to require prospectuses to contain all information that investors and their professional advisers would reasonably require is to place unnecessary and overtly onerous burden on the people concerned. While every effort would be made by the directors and professional advisers to provide all information, whether or not all information has been provided is always determined with the benefit of hindsight. Until then, one can never be certain whether or not all information has been provided, and until such information is challenged, the parties concerned would always be unsure as to whether or not they have discharged their duties in this regard. I note that under subsection (2), the information required should relate to what is reasonable for the investors and their professional advisers to find in the prospectus and such information extends only to what is known and in the circumstances ought reasonably to have been obtained by making enquiries. Nonetheless, the burden still remains and the element of uncertainty will always be there. I would therefore urge the Minister to consider moderating the language of section 45 in order to reduce the extent of the burden placed on people providing such information. Subsections 3(b) and (d) of section 45 appear to be repetitive at first brush. On closer examination, it appears that information is to be provided on the corporation whose shares are the subject matter of the offer whether or not it is the corporation that is offering the shares or the person having a controlling interest in the corporation who is offering the shares. If that were the case, subsections (b) and (d) should have been drafted as one subsection. Additionally, in the way it is drafted, subsection (d) gives rise to uncertainties as there is no definition of what the word "control" means and the words "underlie the offer or invitation" could have simply been substituted with "the corporation whose shares are being offered". Clause 8 amends section 38 of the Act by replacing it with a new provision. On a plain reading of the new section 48(1) and (2), it seems that subsection (1) is repetitive and could have been done away with altogether. Sir, both subsections deal with the prohibition against advertisements unless the provisions of the Act are complied with. I fail to see, Sir, why subsection (1) should be there in the first place. Perhaps the Minister could explain. Under subsection (4) of section 48, it is a further requirement that an advertisement of an offer or an intention to offer shares must contain certain additional information. These would include, for instance, a statement that identifies the offeror and the shares or debentures or units of shares or debentures. Unfortunately, Sir, what the section does not indicate is how the information required by the section is to be passed on to members of the public. Very often, Sir, either in the print media or on television, the obligatory reference to these statements is carried out either in fine print or in quick flashes across the screen, such that it made a mockery of the mandatory requirement that the information be set out clearly in the advertisement. This is clearly an instance where the people concerned would just notionally comply with the requirements of the Act but are not necessarily in keeping with its spirit by ensuring that the information required under subsection (4) is clearly passed on to the readers or the audience. Subsection (8) of section 48 provides that an advertisement or publication does not contravene the prohibition in the section, amongst other things, if the document is a notice or report by the corporation or one of its offices about its affairs to the Exchange or is a report by the corporation or one of its offices of a general meeting. There are several other exceptions in the section. It would appear that this section presupposes documents calling attention to an offer to be advertisements. Against this white canvass, rather detailed exceptions are set out. Sir, in law, we have the principle that express inclusion is implied exclusion. While the proposed amendment seeks to set out a comprehensive list of documents that would be exempted from the advertising restriction, it nonetheless raises queries in respect of other documents that are not referred to therein and that may therefore potentially qualify as an advertisement for the purposes of the Act. For instance, section 210 schemes may inadvertently be caught by this definition because there are potentially schemes that, when implemented, would draw the public's attention to an offer of shares or intended offer of shares. Additionally, there could also be certain directors' reports which, on some occasions, may be publicly published that are not covered under the exceptions. Rather than clearing any confusion, specific exemptions on some advertisements give rise to the greater concern of whether other documents not referred to in the subsection are necessarily advertisements simply because they are not specifically mentioned in the subsection. After all, Sir, express inclusion is implied exclusion. Clause 11 of the Bill revises section 55 of the Act, Sir. Section 55, Sir, as you are aware, sets out the civil liability for false and misleading statements and omissions. Under subsection (1), the Act provides that persons referred to in subsection (3) shall be liable to compensate any person who suffers loss or damage as a result of false or misleading statements in or omissions from the prospectus or the profile statement, even if such persons are not involved in the making of false or misleading statement or the omission. Subsection (3) sets out a list of such persons and, in particular, includes a person named in the prospectus with his consent as having made the statement. That person typically would refer to the professional such as the accountants, the valuers and the solicitors. Subsection 3(e) also provides that the person named in the prospectus shall be liable in respect of the inclusion of that statement in the document. Sir, subsection (e) when read with subsection (1) is not clear. While it is understandable that a valuer who puts his report in the prospectus would be liable for the valuation and nothing else, one would like to know the scope of liability for, say, the solicitor in the prospectus whose name has been included in the prospectus with his consent but whose involvement in the drafting of the prospectus would make it difficult for him to be attributable to any particular statement. Indeed, one would have great difficulty locating any specific statement as being attributable specifically to the solicitor or the auditor since they typically provide broad and general advice on the drafting of the prospectus. Indeed, in some cases, it is the solicitors who are responsible for the drafting of the prospectus. Does it mean therefore, Sir, that the solicitor or the auditor is responsible for the entire content in the prospectus or the profile statement since subsection (1) says the person shall be liable even if such person was not involved in the making of the false or misleading statement or the omission? If it were so, the burden would be very heavy on the professional advisors indeed. The flipside, on the other hand, is that professional advisors would take extreme caution in the preparation of the prospectus and the profile statement. This would invariably add to the cost of documentation. I am not sure whether such an outcome would necessarily serve the interest of Singapore. Perhaps, the Minister could clarify the ambiguity here. Clause 13 amends section 76(B) of the Act by widening the scope of share buy-back to include, inter alia, preference shares as well. In our earlier debate when the Act was amended to accommodate share buy-back, I understand that the 10% threshold was a ceiling arbitrarily set because of the relative uncertainty as to how share buy-backs are likely to be implemented in Singapore. Looking at the overall scheme of things, one wonders why there needs to be any ceiling on share buy-backs at all. Ultimately, what matters most is that the company must be solvent at the time when the share buy-backs exercise is carried out. If the company wishes to run its capital down by a margin of more than 10%, I cannot see why we should put any restrictions on the company to undertake such an exercise if the company is solvent. I would therefore like to urge the Minister to consider, for future exercises, whether or not to lift the 10% restriction in respect of share buy-backs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments to protect the interests of investors. I agree with the need for greater disclosure and better governance. However, I am a bit disappointed there was not the same level of zeal to protect the interests of employees. The review the Minister spoke about has apparently not covered this aspect. Employees are important. They make or break the enterprise. And if the enterprise fails, shareholders will only lose the money they invested in the enterprise. Employees, on the other hand, stand to lose their livelihood if the enterprise fails. Through salaries, employees maintain their families, their standard of living, send their children to school, service their homes, housing loans and a whole lot of things. The price of losing one's livelihood compared to losing money in an investment is very much more painful. Section 328 of the Act gives greater retrenchment benefits, workman's compensation, CPF contributions, leave pay, preference in the event of a liqudiation. This is right and it is good. However, the maximum of five months' salary or $7,500, whichever is lower, was fixed in an amendment in 1993. It was seven years ago. The average wage in 1993 was $1,918. In 1999, the average monthly wage has risen to $2,813. This reflects an increase of nearly $900 or 47%. I submit that it is actually time to adjust this figure. Another aspect I would like to see is an amendment regarding judicial management. It is silent over monies owed to workers. Under judicial management, workers are not preferential creditors. Workers tend to lose if judicial management fails. This appears to be a contradiction with section 328 of the Act. I therefore urge the Minister to consider these aspects and make amendments to better protect the interests of workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. However, I would like to make a couple of comments on clauses affecting the financial statements. I would like to express relief that foreign subsidiaries will, in future, be allowed to adopt a financial end which is up to two months earlier than that of the parent company. In addition, there will be the avenue for a specified or class of companies within the group, whether incorporated in or out of Singapore, to be exempted from compliance with section 201(a)(6). For a long time now, groups have been agonising over the provision of section 200 which requires a subsidiary to have a year end which is coterminous with that of the parent company and section 201(a) which requires that the audited accounts of all the subsidiaries must be received before the audited consolidated account of the parent can be issued. It is not uncommon for groups to comprise 50 or more companies. Making it compulsory for all the companies in the group to have a coterminous year end stretches the resources of the accounting department. If some of the subsidiaries are established in countries where there is a limited accounting resource and where the accounting needs are vastly different from the standards set in Singapore, it becomes a nightmare. The proposed changes are therefore welcomed as it provides vital relief to a problem faced by a growing number of companies as they regionalise. The requirement proposed by the Bill is to gazette exemption from compliance with section 201(a)(6). As few members of the public would have access to the gazette, I suggest that the directors' report should disclose this fact on the face of it together with the grounds for the exemption. This will alert the readers of the accounts that such exemption has been granted and the reasons behind it so that they can form their own judgement and react to the exclusion. It is also a relief that public listed companies have to hold their AGM within five months of the financial year end. It has been rumoured that the change would be to require such AGM to be held within four months in the light of the forthcoming application of certain new or revised accounting standards which expands the disclosure regime. In time, public listed companies would be eager to hold their AGM even earlier to demonstrate their efficiency and good corporate governance. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me thank Members for their comments and various suggestions. Let me first explain the context by which this Amendment Bill is put up. As Members are aware, we have three committees led by the private sector to look at the whole range of issues. There is the Committee on Company Legislation and Regulatory Framework which will review the Companies Act. The second committee is on Disclosure and Accounting Standards which Mr Gerard Ee referred to. And there is a third Committee on Corporate Governance on what constitutes corporate governance and how we should bring our standards closer to the best practices in the world. While these three committees are doing and reviewing their work and they project that they will be able to come out with their recommendations some time next year, we felt it necessary to make these amendments to the Companies Act following the recommendations of the Corporate Finance Committee. So this Amendment Bill is very much a work in progress while many of the other issues which Members raised are still being resolved by the three committees. So I would like to assure Members who raised these suggestions that these issues are indeed taken care of by the three committees, as I am sure you are all aware, and in the course of their deliberations, they will take the Members' views into consideration. So I would like to thank Members for their comments. But for the purpose of putting in place some of the recommendations put up by the Corporate Finance Committee, we felt it necessary to introduce this first so that it does not impede the workings in the companies. We all know that the business world is very varied and a single Act like the Companies Act will have to cover a wide range of circumstances and therefore this requires quite a lot of deliberations and work. So I hope Members will bear with us while we let these three committees do their work and we will come back to the House some time next year with more comprehensive amendments to the Companies Act after we have done a review of the accounting and disclosure standards and after we have gone through the corporate governance standards.

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the current law on oaths and declarations can be found in three Acts: the Oaths Act, the Oaths of Office and Allegiance Act, and the Statutory Declarations Act. All three Acts were enacted in the late 1800s. Last year, a Committee established by the Attorney-General reviewed the law on oaths and declarations and recommended that it was timely to amend and consolidate the three Acts into one comprehensive Act. The Oaths and Declarations Bill gives effect to the Committee's recommendations and will repeal and consolidate the provisions of the three Acts into one Act. In drafting the Bill, we have also taken the opportunity to eliminate obsolete provisions from the three existing Acts and modernise the language used. The Bill will also sever links with the UK Statutory Declarations Act of 1835 brought in by virtue of the Statutory Declarations Act which simply states that the United Kingdom's Statutory Declarations Act is part of Singapore law. The Bill will enable us to have our own legislation on statutory declarations. Sir, let me now highlight some salient features of the Bill. Part II (Oaths) With the exception of four provisions, Part II of the Bill re-enacts the provisions of the existing Oaths Act in modern language and drafting style. The first two provisions concern the power of courts to allow oaths and affirmations in customary forms other than those provided in the Act. These provisions are largely historical and were intended to cater to our largely migrant society in the past, where different communities carried with them different customs on how oaths were to be made. They are no longer relevant. The third provision which has not been re-enacted concerns the summary power of the High Court and Court of Appeal to summarily punish a witness who has committed perjury before it for contempt of court without the need for a separate trial. This provision is unnecessary as specific powers of punishment for contempt in the face of the court are already found in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and the Subordinate Courts Act. Sir, the fourth provision which has not been re-enacted is the one which says that the Oaths Act does not apply to proceedings before courts martial. There is no reason why the provisions of the Oaths Act re-enacted in Part II of the Bill, except for clause 7 which deals with form of oath and affirmation, should not apply to courts martial. Part III (Statutory Declarations) Sir, the provisions of Part III of the Bill on statutory declarations are drawn mainly from similar laws found in Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. The provisions prescribe the form and manner in which statutory declarations may be made in Singapore, and the manner in which they may be made outside Singapore. The making, use or attempted use, of a false statutory declaration is an offence under clause 14, punishable with imprisonment of up to three years and a fine. If the false statutory declaration is made for use, is used or is attempted to be used, in any stage of a judicial proceeding, the maximum imprisonment term is increased to seven years. A false statutory declaration made outside Singapore which is used or intended to be used in Singapore is also punishable under clause 14. Sir, a consequential amendment is made by clause 20 to the Criminal Procedure Code to include the offence in clause 14 among the offences for which the sanction of the Public Prosecutor is required before a prosecution can be made. This brings the clause 14 offence in line with other perjury-related offences. Part IV (Oaths of Office and Allegiance) Sir, Part IV essentially re-enacts the provisions of the Oaths of Office and Allegiance Act in modern language and drafting style. Sir, this Bill is another example of law reform efforts undertaken by the Government to modernise and simplify our laws, to make it more accessible to the people. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In my Budget Speech this year, I announced a series of measures to encourage innovation, creativity and enterprise in Singapore. To create a more conducive environment for entrepreneurial development, one of the measures was to allow a Singapore residential property used for business activities to also qualify for estate duty exemption. This is allowed so long as the residential character of the property is not materially affected. This change will support the Technopreneur Home Office Scheme introduced last year. It will also allow small businesses to be carried out from a residential home without the property being automatically disqualified from estate duty exemption. Accordingly, the proposed amendment to section 14(5A) seeks to include residential properties used for businesses under the $9 million exemption for residential properties. The amendment in section 14(6) is a change in the definition of "dwelling house" as used in the Estate Duty Act. This amendment will explicitly exclude quarters and hostels from dwelling houses. This will make it clear that residential properties used as hostels and quarters will not qualify for the $9 million exemption. The other two amendments in this Bill seek to improve the estate duty procedures administered by IRAS. First, the estate duty affidavit will be replaced by an estate duty return. At present, affidavits are required for estate duty submissions, one for non-dutiable estates and another for dutiable estates. These are sworn documents which require the endorsement of a Commissioner of Oaths or the Commissioner of Estate Duty. The estate duty return will do away with the need for the oath. There will be a standard form for dutiable estates, and another standard form for non-dutiable estates. The return for non-dutiable estates will be much simplified compared to the current affidavit: it will ask for fewer details. The return continues to be a legal document admissible as evidence in court. The administrator has to make sure that the return is free of error or misrepresentation. The second proposal allows the Commissioner of Estate Duty to delegate his authority to his senior officers to sign the certificates, schedules of assets and Notices of Assessment under the Estate Duty Act. The delegation of authority will improve overall efficiency and allow IRAS greater flexibility in case processing. The quality of the assessment will not be compromised as the authority will be delegated only to experienced senior officers in supervisory positions. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

I rise to support the Bill. I think that it is very tidy to relook at the laws and bring them into consistency with other new initiatives. In that spirit, may I raise another anomaly in the Estate Duty Act for the Ministry to consider. Sir, in making these comments, I appreciate that the general trend in estate duty has been to make it less onerous in order to allow people who have worked hard in their lifetime to pass on property to their loved ones after their death. And this is especially for dwelling houses, an exemption of $9 million. Sir, under the present law, if a person owns a house solely and this person dies, there is no estate duty so long as his house is a dwelling house and it is valued at less than $9 million. The anomaly I would point to, however, is that it differs if he has purchased the house in the joint names of himself and his spouse - his wife or her husband. In other words, Sir, under the standing provision of section 8(1)(b), if a man buys a house with his own purchase money and puts it in the name of himself and his wife and then, if he should unfortunately die within five years, this, I understand, is treated as a gift and would be subject therefore to estate duty tax. This seems to me to be an anomaly, because, as I said, if he had purchased it and kept it solely in his name, there would be no tax accruing. It also seems to me to be a potentially unfair decision on the surviving spouse since there will be more tax payable and, perhaps, at a late stage in life, there may not be that much cash to meet the tax. I hope that the Ministry might consider this anomaly and, if it is found justifiable, to remedy it in a further provision.

My Ministry will look again into this particular clause, but I want to point out that if the transaction is made within the 5-year period, then of course the issue does not arise. It is only when a person dies before the 5-year period that the gift condition applies.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.00 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". The Bill before the House seeks to amend the Accountants Act (Cap. 2A) to enable accounting firms to be formed as accounting corporations with limited liability; and to improve the registration and de-registration procedures; as well as the disciplinary and inquiry proceedings for public accountants. Allowing incorporation as an additional business structure Currently, accounting practices in Singapore can operate only as sole proprietorships or partnerships. Hence, all partners in an accounting firm can be sued if a single partner is errant. This may have been all right in the past when accounting firms were expected to be small set-ups. However, in today's globalised environment, this is no longer realistic. The Bill will allow for accounting corporations, in addition to existing business structures. The Government is not advocating that accountants adopt any particular business structure or model. The main features of accounting corporations are: First, it allows for a better framework for professional accountability, where the innocent public accountants practising in an accounting corporation will not be jointly liable with the errant ones. The errant public accountant will still be liable under the law of tort, without a statutory cap on his liability. This is to ensure that public accountants maintain high standards of professional duty and care. Second, corporatisation allows accounting practices to raise external capital. Access to external financing increases the competitiveness and global reach of accounting corporations, and is in line with the Government's drive for regionalisation and globalisation. Third, it allows non-public accountants to be directors and shareholders in an accounting corporation, subject to regulatory safeguards. In an accounting partnership, only public accountants can be partners. Regulation of accounting corporations Accounting corporations will be incorporated under the Companies Act and will be subject to the Companies Act. The corporation must also be approved by the Public Accountants Board. Some of the key safeguards to maintain the independence and professional standards of public accountants, who are key players in ensuring effective compliance with disclosure requirements and the integrity of our corporate environment, include: First, the primary object of the accounting corporation must be to provide public accountancy services. These services include audit and reporting on financial statements and other acts that are required to be done by an approved company auditor under the Companies Act or under any other written law. They do not include services such as taxation and consultancy services. Second, accounting corporations must have a minimum authorised share capital of $50,000. To ensure that ownership and control of accounting corporations remain in the hands of public accountants, at least two-thirds of the voting shares of an accounting corporation must be owned by corporate practitioners. A corporate practitioner refers to a director or an employee of the corporation who is a public accountant and is practising as such in that corporation. Third, to ensure the independence of the accounting corporation, all shareholders must be natural persons. Shareholding by nominees and securitization of any share in an accounting corporation are prohibited. This is because accounting corporations will be auditing other companies, and we need to ensure that these audits are independent. Fourth, to ensure that parties contracting with an accounting corporation are adequately protected in the event of a breach of contract or negligence on the part of the accounting corporation, it is mandatory for accounting corporations to take up professional indemnity insurance. The minimum amounts are as stated in the Bill. Conclusion Allowing for the incorporation of accountants will facilitate the creation of a more vibrant and competitive accounting services sector in Singapore, to better meet the challenges of the global economy in this new millennium. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to the Public Accountants Board's Sub-Committee, chaired by the then Accountant-General, Mr Goh Khee Kuan, and members from the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Singapore, the Nanyang Technological University, the Singapore Exchange, the Attorney-General's Chambers, and the Registry of Companies and Businesses, for working on the issues which form the content of this Amendment Bill. Inputs were also obtained from the Association of Banks in the drafting of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Sir, I wish to speak in support of the Accountants (Amendment) Bill. Sir, I am in total agreement with the proposal that accounting firms should be allowed to form Public Accounting Corporations (PACs). Essentially, this means that local accounting firms will be allowed to corporatise. The benefit is that after corporatisation, local firms can look towards mergers to form bigger companies or to form strategic alliances with overseas firms. Corporatisation will also enable local firms to adopt more professional practices which will facilitate recruiting and retaining of good staff. It also removes the onerous responsibility of unlimited and collective responsibility as in the case of partnerships. Sir, I wish to take this opportunity to raise a point not covered in this Bill and that is on advertising by professional firms. I note that current rules which govern the conduct of professional firms such as accounting firms are that they are not allowed to openly advertise their services. I would like to suggest that this restriction be reviewed. Professional firms should be allowed to do some limited form of responsible advertising. I feel that permitting advertisement will be beneficial, especially for the smaller local firms. Large accounting firms, especially the foreign ones, are already very well-known and do not require advertising to publicise their services and expertise. Moreover, large foreign firms get ample press coverage of their activities or coverage of events which they can afford to sponsor. On the contrary, small firms have no means of publicising their expertise and services. Hence, there is a need to review and relax on the advertising rules so that small firms can advertise and let their prospective clients know more about the services that they can offer. Sir, I also wish to point out that the Government should consider similar relaxation of rules on advertising for other professional firms such as the lawyers, architects, engineers and others, and also allowing them to corporatise their services.

Sir, I stand to support the Accountants (Amendment) Bill. However, I would like to seek clarifications on several parts of this Bill. New section 18A - Approval for accounting corporation Sir, new section 18A(3)(b), c(i) and c(ii) incorporates the phrase "as may be prescribed". I am of the view that the aforesaid phrase creates an area of ambiguity as to: (i) who may make the prescription; and (ii) the mechanism prior to making such a prescription. Should there not be an additional clause added at the end of this part to clarify the aforesaid ambiguity, for example, a clause titled "Rules on Accounting Corporations"? This clause can be worded in the same manner as section 81H and of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161 of the 1997 Revised Edition), namely: (i) the Minister may, after consulting the Board, make rules for the purposes of this Part; (ii) without prejudice to the generality of sub-section (1), any rules made thereunder may provide for prescribing anything which may be prescribed under this Part. Sir, may I ask the Minister whether there is a typographical error in new section 18A(3)(b) namely, "$50,000". Is it correct to have a comma at the end of "$50,000"? New section 18(I) - Shares of accounting corporation Sir, new section 18(I)(7) does not state the commencement date of the grace period, whereas new section 18(I)(9) sets out the commencement date. In this regard, I am of the opinion that new section 18(I)(7) creates an uncertainty as to the commencement date of the grace period. I am of the view that without the necessary clarification as to the commencement date, the same is capable of being interpreted as follows: (a) the date of application to the Board; (b) the date of the Board's order; (c) the date of cessation as a public accountant; or (d) the date of cessation as a director or an employee of the accounting corporation. Would it not be better to have new section 18(I)(7) read like new sections 18(I)(8) and 18(I)(9) to clarify the commencement date for new section 18(I)(7)? Sir, I also notice that the said clause does not state the consequence of a non-transfer of the voting shares. Will it not be more complete if another clause can be added to this part on "Additional grounds for winding up Accounting Corporation"? New section 18(K) - Management of accounting corporation Sir, I am of the view that this clause, in particular, the one-month period to source for another public accountant to fill the vacancy of directorship may be difficult for an accounting corporation with only two directors cum shareholders to comply with in the event of the directorship being vacated. May I ask the Minister whether the accounting corporation can be permitted to apply to the Board for an extension of time to comply with this clause before the expiry of the one-month period? May I also suggest that an accounting corporation be granted the right of appeal against the Board's decision to the Ministry in this regard. Sir, I support the Bill.

Sir, before I proceed to comment on the Bill, I wish to declare my interest as a partner in a Big 5 public accounting firm and as the Vice-President of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants. I was also a member of the sub-committee established by the Public Accountants Board to study the incorporation of the accounting profession which led to the introduction of this Bill. Having heard this House engaged in a lively debate earlier this year to allow legal practitioners to set up law corporations, members of the accounting profession in Singapore generally expect that the option to incorporate will be extended to accountants. The introduction of this Bill to allow public accountants to establish Public Accounting Corporations (PACs) has therefore been widely anticipated. Sir, I support the Government's adoption of the principle for professionals in Singapore to incorporate. Right now, the engineering, architectural, medical and legal professions can opt to adopt the incorporation route in Singapore. The passing of this Bill will enable public accountants to similarly elect to embrace a corporate model. I applaud the Government for recognising the need to grant the professions in Singapore the option to incorporate. It is imperative that members of all professions in Singapore, including public accountants, are given the opportunity to incorporate. After all, accounting firms in jurisidictions, such as the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Hong Kong can opt to incorporate. At the moment in Singapore, however, accounting firms can only operate as sole proprietors or partnerships based on unlimited joint and several liability. If the firm's asset is inadequate to meet a claim, the personal assets of all the partners in the firm are liable for the claim. Given today's incredulously massive amount of claims, all it takes is for just one partner's deficiency to annihilate the entire lifetime earnings of the other partners in the firm. This unlimited liability factor can act as a deterrent to the growth of the accounting firm and the profession as a whole. In a PAC, an accountant's liability will no longer be unlimited in respect of his partner's shortcomings. This, it must be noted, does not mean that the clients of a PAC will not be protected. In this regard, ample safeguards have been provided for in the Bill. A minimum capital of $50,000 is required to form a PAC. A PAC is also required to have an adequate level of professional indemnity insurance cover, ranging from $1 million to $50 million, depending on the number of corporate practitioners and the gross income of the PAC. As with the legal profession, limited liability will not affect the professional standards of accountants in Singapore. Sir, my other reason for supporting the Bill is because incorporation will allow professionals to reposition themselves in the New Economy business landscape. The digital transformation has attached a high premium to the application of human know-how. In our knowledge-based economy, intellectual asset has become critical and highly valued. Incorporation will lend a hand to accounting firms seeking to counter the fierce clamouring for limited knowledge resources. It will render it easier for PACs to recruit and retain valued staff against the ardent rivalry for talents from other corporations and institutions, both locally and internationally. By offering more flexible remuneration packages, including employee stock options, PACs will be better positioned to be the employer of choice in the marketplace. Incorporation will also facilitate PACs to raise more capital to gain a wider reach for their services. The leeway to allow one-third of the PAC's shareholders to be non-practitioners will breed a more multi-disciplinary business orientation within the PAC, greatly enhancing its capacity and capability to provide clients with seamless service delivery, whilst still maintaining the PAC's audit independence. Hence, incorporation can provide our professionals with the critical structural support to elevate them to a platform to compete with the world's best. But I must qualify that incorporation is not a panacea for business woes. It is not a pill prescribed to resurrect failing sole proprietorships or partnerships. Instead, this Bill is meant to enable the accounting profession, as a whole, to move forward with the times, keep pace with world-wide development in the profession and meet the growing needs of the business community. It will create an environment that is more conducive for the development and better practice of the accounting profession in Singapore. The introduction of this Bill is therefore appropriate. I would like, however, to raise two points for the Minister's consideration. Sir, my first point is on the capping of liability. We should make a clear distinction between the PACs and other companies under the Companies Act. This is because the claims against professionals in general and accountants in particular are grossly disproportionate to the fees that they earn. Such claims are neither fair nor equitable. They are not fair, as the claims made against accountants are many manifold times the amount of fees charged. They are not equitable, as the claims made against the auditors are usually more excessive than that pursued against the management at fault. Because, unlike the PACs, the management do not need to take up mandatory professional indemnity insurance cover under the Companies Act. Sir, it is absurd to expect an auditor, who clearly did not connive to bring down a company, to be sued more excessively than the management directly responsible for the company's collapse. There is no question that if at fault, the auditor must be personally liable. But it is clearly unreasonable to penalise the PAC and auditor more severely than the management for a failure that the auditor did not directly bring to bear upon the company. If the accountant's exposure to claims remains unlimited under the law of tort, there is little incentive for a sole proprietor or a small accounting practice to convert to a PAC. As I have mentioned to the House in January this year, the tendency for escalating claims made against professionals, including lawyers and accountants, is due to the "deep pocket" syndrome. Claimants are somehow erroneously led to believe that accountants and other professionals can afford grossly disproportionate claims due to their extensive insurance cover. In reality, the indemnity pockets of the professionals may not be deep enough. This is because, on the one hand, the capacity of the professional indemnity insurance market is shrinking. On the other hand, the quantum of claims has been escalating to such astonishing levels that it has become really impossible for individual accountants or accounting firms to recover from large claims. Instead, a single successful claim can easily and completely wipe out the life-time earnings of individual public accountants. If there is a threshold for reasonable claims, the current sky-high amount of claims against professionals has crossed the threshold many times over. In reality, professionals are caught in a vicious indemnity cycle. For genuine fear of the impact of escalating claims, the professionals are usually left with little option, but to take up a high level of indemnity insurance coverage that renders them more prone to law suits and claims. Sir, there should be a capping on the amount of claims against professionals, so that the amount of claims bears a fairer resemblance to the fees charged. For example, the claims could be capped based on a fixed multiple of the amount of fees charged. When I first proposed the capping of liability for professionals in the debate on law corporations earlier this year, the Minister of State was concerned that the capping may lead a lawyer to lower his guard, and hence lower professional standards. This should not be a concern, as the capping can be at a reasonably high but not astronomical level. In any case, the Bill has provided adequate safeguards in respect of the PAC. A PAC must provide adequate insurance cover of between $1 million and $50 million, depending on the size of the practice. Negligent practitioners can be struck off the Register of Public Accountants and lose their livelihood through the practice. More significantly, as an individual public accountant will be liable under the law of tort, whilst his partners are not jointly liable in their personal capacity for claims, we can expect individual accountants to be more circumspect in their statutory roles. Hence, I am of the view that the capping of liability will not affect professional standards and substance. On this basis, can the Minister please clarify whether a capping on the liability for professionals, particularly public accountants in the PAC, will be considered? Sir, the second point concerns exempt private status. I wish to seek clarification on whether a wholly-owned subsidiary of the PAC can be deemed to be an exempt private company. According to the Bill, PACs will be granted exempt private status. A PAC may decide to give some of its departments more autonomy to manage their own finances and operations. The PAC directors may decide that in the interest of growing the business, these departments should be restructured as wholly owned subsidiaries of the PAC, so that they can be more autonomous in operations. Also, different HR policies and salary structures may give rise to a need for a line of business to be hived off under a separate legal entity. A PAC should be given the freedom to structure its business in this way, with its subsidiaries similarly enjoying exempt private status. But this should be on the basis that the subsidiaries must be wholly owned by the PAC. So long as the PAC is not disqualified and continues to be an exempt private company, can the Minister clarify whether wholly owned subsidiaries of a PAC will similarly be considered exempt private companies. Sir, with these two points which I hope the Minister can consider, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. Being the fifth speaker and speaking after the Vice President of the ICPAS, I find that much of what I have planned to say have been said. So, I shall zoom in to lend support to the two points that I share great concern. One is on the capping of liability. The objective of the public accounting corporations is to afford limited liability to the members as opposed to a partnership. As the Minister has said, under tort, the individual would not enjoy such protection and can be sued for unlimited amounts. I can see that, in practice, no individual will be willing to accept the responsibility for signing off accounts unless he obtains cross indemnity from the rest of his members. If that happens, it would negate the benefit that a public accounting operation serves to provide. Therefore, I wonder, as Mr Ong wonders, whether it is possible to legislate a cap on the quantum of a claim from a piece of work to be based on a multiple of the fees charged for that piece of work. This will certainly achieve a more equitable relationship between practitioner and client. Like Mr Leong, I would like to make reference also to a relaxation of advertising rules. The Bill hints on such a possible relaxation. New section 48(2A)(b) refers to advertising or holding itself out or describing itself in any way to be an accounting corporation or to be authorised to provide public accountancy services in Singapore. Currently, the rules on advertising prohibit a public accountant or his firm from seeking professional work by means of advertising. And "advertising" is defined as "a communication to the public of information as to the services or skills provided by a public accountant or firm of public accountants with a view to procuring professional business." I am hoping that in the spirit of new section 48(2A)(b), the rules of advertising will be amended. With a liberalisation of the advertising rules, I expect to see more articles on various business aspects to be made available which will provide nuggets of information of value to the public. As it stands, whilst in the rest of the developed world one could easily access interesting websites produced by accounting firms, we in the accounting profession here in Singapore agonise in having to tell people to log-on to our US or other overseas websites to learn more about doing business in Singapore. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I answer Members' questions, I would like to thank all of them for supporting the Bill itself. I will now take their questions in the order in which they were raised. Mr Leong Horn Kee and later Mr Gerard Ee have suggested that accountants should be allowed to advertise their services in a controlled way, in particular, the smaller firms which are not well known and therefore are unable to compete with the larger firms. I would like to point out that the rules governing advertising by accountants are determined by the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Singapore (ICPAS). I understand that ICPAS is reviewing the issue and I will refer the Members' suggestions to them. I would like to thank Dr Lily Neo for the questions that she raised as it gives me the opportunity to clarify the ambiguities. Dr Neo is concerned that the use of the word "prescribed" in new section 18A(3)(b), (c)(i) and (c)(ii) may create ambiguity. The word means prescribed by the Act or subsidiary legislation made thereunder, as provided under Part I, section 2(i) of the Interpretation Act. In the case of the Accountants Act, it is the rules made by the Public Accountants Board with the approval of the Finance Minister under section 58. On new section 18A(3)(b), the comma after "$50,000" is not a typographical error. It is common practice to insert a comma before the qualifying phrase "or such other sum as may be prescribed." Dr Neo is also concerned that uncertainty could arise because section 18I(7) does not state the commencement period of the grace period. I do not believe that there should be ambiguity. Section 18A makes it clear that only corporate practitioners can own two-thirds of the protected fraction or more of the voting shares. If the protected fraction of shareholding is not affected as a result of the shareholder ceasing to be a public accountant or corporate practitioner, neither the accounting corporation nor the person will apply to PAB for a grace period. They will apply only if the protected shareholding fraction is affected. The grace period they will ask for will be from the date of the event of disqualification which took place. Otherwise, the accounting corporation cannot be said to be in compliance with section 18I at all times, thereby rendering it open to disciplinary action. Dr Neo also notes that section 18I is silent on the issue of the non-transfer of voting shares. The consequence of non-transfer of voting shares is addressed in new section 21A(1)(f). In the event of a non-transfer, the accounting corporation will not be in compliance with section 18I and its status as an accounting corporation can be revoked. After revocation, the company can still provide professional services other than public accountancy services in its capacity as a company registered under the Companies Act and according to its articles of association. The company cannot then hold itself out as an accounting corporation and would have to operate under revocation under a revised name, subject to the approval of the Registrar of Companies and Businesses. Dr Neo is also concerned that after the one-month period allowed for the filling of a vacant directorship, it might be insufficient in the case of an accounting corporation with only two directors. In this case of an accounting corporation with only two directors, only one of them needs to be a public accountant. If the vacancy created is for a director who is not a public accountant, filling the vacancy should not be a problem within the one-month period stipulated. If the vacancy created is for a public accountant and the accounting corporation has difficulty in filling it within the one-month deadline, it may apply to the Public Accountants Board for an extension of time. Finally, I would point out that if an accounting corporation is dissatisfied with the Public Accountants Board's decision on this issue, it can appeal to the High Court, as provided under section 21A(1)(f) and under section 22. Mr Noris Ong, and later Mr Gerard Ee, have both said that they would want a cap on the accountant's personal liability, otherwise there would be no incentives for sole proprietors to form accounting corporations. I would like to say that, as far as the Government is concerned, the intention of this Bill is neither to encourage nor to discourage accountants from setting up accounting corporations. It is to allow for an additional form of business structure for accountants over and above partnerships. A statutory cap on auditors' liability suggests that we can statutorily pre-determine the potential damage caused by an errant auditor. There are also two main disadvantages to statutory capping. First, setting such a cap on the auditors' liability may be unfair to the plaintiff as he may suffer damages caused by the public accountant in excess of the cap. Second, high standards of public accounting are crucial to the development of Singapore as an international financial and investment centre. Statutory capping may indirectly compromise the standards as the incentives for public accountants to be thorough in their work may be lowered with the knowledge that they will not be hurt badly in the event of a law suit. Other professions have been allowed to incorporate in Singapore, namely, the lawyers, engineers, architects and doctors, and none of them have statutory capping on their liabilities. Finally, Mr Ong has also suggested that the subsidiaries of accounting corporations should also be treated as private exempt companies. I believe it would depend on the activities of these subsidiaries. In most instances, I would assume that the subsidiaries of auditing firms are formed to do mostly non-auditing work. If this is the case and the subsidiaries are performing non-auditing work, there would be little ground for granting them private exempt status. However, this is an area which I will undertake to study further.

Just a clarification, Sir. The advertising rules actually appear in the Public Accountants Board's Rules as well, verbatim from that which appears in ICPAS. I wonder whether the Public Accountants Board could lead the way in liberalising advertising.

We can look at it. But if ICPAS makes the recommendations, I think the Public Accountants Board will consider them very seriously.

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

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

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.00 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.37 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Introduction Sir, the Public Entertainments Act plays an important role in maintaining law and order and public safety, as well as safeguarding public morality and decency. The Act regulates the different forms of entertainment to which the public has access, ensuring that the entertainment is not carried out, for example, in places not suitable to its nature, or with little or no regard for public safety, or in a manner that is indecent, immoral, offensive, subversive or improper. We do not, for instance, allow discos and nightclubs to be set up within residential estates, or game centres to be set up in HDB shophouses. We also ensure that the operators of entertainment outlets and organisers of events, such as rock concerts, take proper and adequate crowd control measures to ensure public safety. The Act was last amended in 1979 to ensure its relevancy. MHA is now proposing several amendments to the Act to improve the administration of public entertainment licences. Essentially, these amendments will encourage licensees to exercise self-discipline whilst making it easier and more convenient for businesses to apply for and renew their public entertainment licences. Changes are also proposed to update the scope and penalties of the Act. Demerit Point System Sir, first, let me touch on the demerit point system. Police will be introducing a demerit point system in the administration of public entertainment licences of permanent establishments such as computer games centres, pubs and discos. Conceptually, the demerit point system will be similar to the Road Traffic Driver Improvement Points System (DIPS). Under this system, Police will adopt a graduated enforcement approach against licensees for infringing any licensing conditions. Licensees would be given demerit points for breaching any licensing conditions. Depending on the number of demerit points accumulated, appropriate action would be taken against the licensee. This can range from curtailing the operating hours of the licensee's business, or requiring the licensee to put up a security deposit. When the licensee accumulates the maximum number of points, which will be prescribed in the rules, the licensing officer can cancel the PE licence and forfeit the security deposit. Details of the demerit point system will be contained in the rules, which will be published in due course. The new demerit point system improves the administration of licences in that a licensee would know the number of demerit points that he accumulates for breaching any licensing conditions. He also knows that if he were to breach any licensing condition again, he would face tougher actions. Hence, there is greater transparency in the administration of licences compared to the current system. Currently, the licensee does not know with certainty what he would face if he were to breach a licensing condition. He could, for example, receive a warning, have his licence suspended or cancelled, or face court prosecution. Indeed, the new demerit point system provides early warning for minor breaches and encourages the licensee to exercise self-discipline. Each time the knot is tightened, he would have prior notice that action is contemplated against him. He would then have an opportunity to explain why such action should not be taken. Further, the licensee can appeal to the Minister if his explanation is rejected. Clauses 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14 of the Bill make the necessary amendments to the Act to put in place the framework for a demerit point system and related procedures. The licensing officer would still retain the powers, as provided under section 14(1) of the existing Act, to suspend or cancel a licence immediately, if the situation calls for it. An example would be where the public entertainment is wholly or in part indecent, immoral, offensive, subversive or improper. The Act would also be amended to give the licensing officer discretion to cancel or suspend a licence if he is satisfied that the licensee is no longer fit and proper to hold the licence. What is contemplated here is where a licensee is convicted of a serious criminal offence during the term of his licence, such as drug-related offences, serious sexual offences and violent criminal offences. This is to safeguard public interest. Improving the Administration of PE Licences Validity Period of Licences and Renewal of Licences Sir, this Bill also introduces changes to the validity period of public entertainment licences to make it easier and more convenient for businesses. Clause 6 of the Bill amends section 8 to remove the maximum validity period of 12 months for a licence. Clause 7 amends section 9 to remove the requirement for the renewal of a licence to be treated as a fresh licence application. Hence, the new approach will allow the licensing officer to issue licences with longer validity periods exceeding 12 months, as well as renew licences without the need for licensees to submit fresh applications. These changes will not only simplify the administration of public entertainment licences but also reduce business costs for licensees. Consequently, clause 10 of the Bill amends section 13 to allow the licensing officer to refuse the renewal of a licence. It also provides an avenue for the licensee to appeal to the Minister against the refusal of the licensing officer to renew his licence. Sir, let me now move on to the other amendments in the Bill. Composition of Offences Currently all offenders under the Act or rules either receive a police warning or are prosecuted in court even if the licence is cancelled or suspended. This rigid approach is not satisfactory. Why? Because some cases are not serious enough for Police to charge the offender in Court but letting the offender off with just a warning is inadequate. To deal with minor breaches more effectively and expediently, clause 14 inserts a new section 18B to empower the licensing officer to compound offences under the Act or rules. For example, licensees who fail to display their licence prominently or breach licensing conditions, may be offered composition fines instead of being charged and prosecuted in Court. The amendment gives the licensing officer the flexibility to deal with minor offences quickly. Offences to be made compoundable would be prescribed in the rules. Updating the Scope of the PE Act Clauses 4 and 16 of the Bill seek to amend the Act by transferring the definitions of "public entertainment", "film" and "pin table" from section 2 to a new Schedule to the Act. Under the new subsections 2(2) and 2(3), the Minister would be empowered to amend, add to or vary the Schedule by order published in the Gazette, which will be presented to Parliament. This approach provides the necessary flexibility to the Ministry to update the definition of "public entertainment" in the Act to keep up with latest developments in the public entertainment industry. The definition of "public entertainment" as specified in the Schedule has also been updated. Activities that are already covered in other Acts, for example, the display of fireworks, which is regulated under the Dangerous Fireworks Act, have been removed. Activities that no longer pose a threat to public order, such as charitable distributions, auctions and sales of goods for philanthropic or charitable purposes, garden parties, and trade fairs have also been removed. This will make it more convenient for organisations and businesses to conduct these activities, as they would no longer need to apply for a PE licence. The revised definition of "public entertainment" will expressly include "computer games centre" and "amusement centre" to remove any doubt that a licence is required under the Act for such forms of public entertainment. On the other hand, obsolete provisions such as "exhibitions of abnormal persons" will be removed. Exempting Statutory Bodies from the PE Act Paragraph 3(e) of the proposed Schedule to the Act seeks to make it clear that public entertainment provided by or under the auspices of the statutory bodies listed in the Schedule are exempted from applying for a PE licence. There is no need for the licensing officer to license the activities provided by statutory bodies as they are already subject to the supervision of their respective parent Ministries. The Schedule sets out a list drawn up in consultation with the parent Ministries of 38 statutory bodies. These are statutory bodies which provide public entertainment from time to time. Security Deposit for Ad-Hoc Licences Currently, the licensing officer is unable to forfeit the security deposits imposed on ad hoc licences for one-off events, for example, rock concerts, even if there is an infringement, as the infringement is usually detected or reported after the event is over and when the licence has already lapsed. To overcome this problem, clause 9 of the Bill inserts a new subsection 11(4)(c) to empower the licensing officer to forfeit the security deposit, even after the licence has lapsed, if the public entertainment was provided in contravention of the Act. Increase in Penalties Currently, the maximum fine for offences under the Act is $5,000. This was last revised in 1979. Clause 13 of the Bill amends section 18(1) to increase the maximum fine to $10,000 to ensure that deterrence remains effective. The revision would give the Courts the discretion to impose a higher penalty where appropriate. Change of Name Finally, clause 3 of the Bill seeks to amend the title of the Act from "Public Entertainments Act" to "Public Entertainment and Meetings Act". The change in name is to reflect more accurately the scope of the Act, which also includes public meetings like rallies, talks and forums. Exempting Other Activities via Exemption Orders Besides these amendments to the Public Entertainments Act, MHA has also reviewed other areas relating to the licensing of public entertainment. It has decided to exempt from the ambit of the Act, certain activities, such as shows for children, fashion shows, and busking, subject to conditions that safeguard law and order, public morality and safety. Community activities, such as dance performances, karaoke singing and magic shows, organised by or on behalf of the elected Member of Parliament in his constituency, would also be exempted. To safeguard law and order, public morality and safety, these activities will similarly be subject to conditions such as no vulgar or obscene gestures or remarks being made by any of the performers and the performers are not to be indecently attired. These changes will be effected by way of exemption orders and do not require amendments to the Public Entertainments Act. Police will announce the details in due course. Finally, Sir, the Police is studying the feasibility of setting up a One-Stop Licensing Centre to coordinate the processing of licence applications, so that businesses need to go to only one place to apply for all the licences required to set up an entertainment outlet. Mr Speaker, Sir, as society evolves, people's aspirations change. MHA will continue to regularly review the Act from time to time to ensure its relevancy. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Amendment Bill moved by Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee. With the passing of this Bill, the existing Public Entertainments Act will become the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act. A notable amendment is in new section 14A, that is, the demerit point system. This demerit point system is similar to the one applicable to our driving licence. From the social point of view, this can be said to be very special, because under the Bill, there will be an element of self-discipline for those licensees to conduct themselves in accordance with the law. I think this is an indication of the maturity of our society. I also notice that the amendment to the Bill does not take away the power of the police to revoke any licence whenever necessary. The power still remains. In the case of any performance, which is obscene, vulgar or immoral, or touching on the racial or religious sensitivity in Singapore, the police reserves the right to revoke the licence in keeping with the interest of the public. I think this is right and proper. The Amendment Bill, in my view, will not have much impact on commercial activities. But I feel that the amendments may affect some of the non-commercial activities. For example, I have in mind some of the customs and traditional practices of the Chinese community, particularly the seventh-moon festival or the Hungry Ghost Festival. This new Amendment Bill may have some impact on them. We know that the Hungry Ghost Festival is a kind of gathering for the Chinese community which incorporates some kind of charitable activities, like the auction of auspicious articles with the proceeds going to charitable causes. Most of these activities would include getai (song performances), puppet shows or even traditional provincial operas. In his Second Reading speech, the Minister of State mentioned that activities such as the auctions at the Hungry Ghost Festival may be exempted from the Act. In other words, the organisers do not need to apply for a licence to conduct auctions. I think it is a piece of good news for the Chinese community. But it is not very clear whether the staging of getai, puppet show or traditional provincial opera in connection with the Hungry Ghost Festival will also be similarly exempted. According to the Schedule, the so-called "public entertainment" is defined very widely to include performances such as drama, singing, music, dancing. All these come within the definition of "public entertainment" and therefore licences are required. So my question is whether getai, puppet shows, etc, could be exempted. I hope that the Minister of State could clarify on this. During the Hungry Ghost Festival or Seventh Moon Festival, activities are usually conducted within the densely-populated HDB estates. Generally speaking, the organisers of such activities will have to apply for permission from the town council or the HDB to make use of the car park or the vacant land for the conduct of such activities. In the past, they also had to apply to the police for a public entertainment licence as well. Now, they do not have to do so. So I think it is a good way to help them. If we can consider such activities are traditional in nature and exempt them from having to apply for a public entertainment licence, it will be a great convenience to the organisers. I hope the Minister of State will consider my suggestion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to start by welcoming some of the changes that the Minister of State has announced and emphasised in reading the Bill. The demerit point system seems to me to be a good one to enhance self-discipline and transparency for the permanent establishments. When the Minister of State was discussing discos, pubs and entertainment centres, I was more concerned about artistic performances and political and public talks which are also covered under the Act. I think the Public Entertainments Act (PEA) may be covering in that sense too many types of different entertainments of very diverse and different character. For while I am sometimes entertained by public political speeches, sometimes in this House too, it is clearly a very different form of enjoyment from a pub or disco. And I wonder whether the system and the personnel who can administer one are really suitable to administer both and all types of entertainments and meetings. The amendments then go on to remove some activities from the list that require licensing. It is however widening the title to reflect their work brings in these political meetings under the Schedule (I believe it is paragraph 2(m) "any play-reading, recital, lecture, talk, address, debate or discussion"). I think in that sense, we have probably to consider if the time may have come for us to have separate schemes and personnel to distinguish between entertainments, such as discos and meetings, and these public talks and artistic performances. There has been controversy and change in the administration of the Public Entertainments Act of late concerning these areas. Allow me to quickly point out four examples of this controversy and change. First, the Government has seen fit to establish a Speakers' Corner. Second, as clarified in the last sitting of Parliament, elected Opposition MPs from now are allowed to speak at community functions in their own constituencies and, I believe if I have heard the Minister of State correctly, that they can now sing at these meetings too without real problems. And both of these measures increase the freedom of people to speak in public. The third and fourth examples go the other direction. Recently, it was reported that a group of gay and lesbian Singaporeans wanted to organise a public forum in Singapore, but was refused. And fourth, and more recently, the performance of the play "Talaq" by the civic group Agni Kootthu was refused. This is despite an initial approval by the National Arts Council. In these latter two examples, the licensing authority had used the PEA to restrict freedom of speech. These trends may seem contradictory to some. On what basis should we allow or restrict freedom of speech and assembly under this Act? A process should govern the decision making. Article 14 of the Constitution enshrines the right of Singapore citizens to speak freely and to assemble peaceably in public. These rights are not absolute, of course. The right to assembly can be restricted in the interest of security and public order, which the Minister of State has emphasised. But how do we decide when security and public order are at stake? Who decides? The Government, of course, is the primary actor. It should not, however, in my view, be the only one. To balance our freedom to speak, with due concerns of security and public order, we must have a good reading of public opinion. After all, it is not just what somebody might say, but how it is said and, most importantly, how people react to the speech. The example of the play "Talaq" points to the diversity of opinions among Singaporeans. The play had been performed before. It attracted some controversy and attention. Similarly, in the past, when the licence was permitted for "M Butterfly" with a nude male figure on stage, this also attracted some controversy, perhaps a little curiosity too. But none of these things led to violence or public disorder and disturbance. Instead, we have actually benefited from the discussion of the issues that ensued. Even in the denial of the licence to have a forum on gays and lesbians, there was a spirited debate, both for and against, in the Forum pages of the Straits Times. And I believe such discussion is healthy in a democracy. It therefore has disturbed some people in Singapore to hear how decisions are made - one moment allowed, another moment disallowed. And it is hard to see, it is hard to be assured that the state's view really reflects the majority view or whether it reflects the objections of really a vocal minority. It should therefore be welcomed to have a one-stop centre for licensing, as the Minister of State says the police will now consider. However, one should guard against a one-stop centre becoming a place to stop one. That is to say, we put such an emphasis on a one-stop centre to ensure that this centre is truly reflective of the broad society and decisions therefore need to be more transparent. They cannot be left to a policeman or bureaucrat sitting by himself in the isolation of his office. Nor can a decision be captured by a particular interest. Otherwise, we risk acting on each and every special sensitivity. Every one has its sensitivities - every ethnic group, every religious group, political views, animal rights, gay activists, women's groups, whatever. We cannot make our decisions as an accumulation and aggregate of all these prejudices. We have to decide for the broad majority and to allow diversity. Because public debate and artistic performances, in particular, will almost always challenge the ideas that some people will hold. It provokes us to think, and that is good. So long as the line is that we provoke thought rather than violence and disorder. In this sense, my first suggestion is that we must include citizens in the decision-making about public entertainment licences. We should have an advisory panel for the Public Entertainments Act. If we want to cover an even wider array of activities, it is critical to have expertise and a broad and diverse range of opinions, not captured by any minority interest. The Government, of course, in the end will have to make the decision after hearing the different views. But it should do so after hearing all sides and weighing the overall interest of the wider society. My second suggestion, Sir, is that the Government should use its powers to impose special conditions for the approval wisely. It does this already. But I want to point out that it may continue to have performances in form or even warn the respective audience beforehand of its contents, and then those who may be offended simply need not attend. These suggestions are not new. They are in line with the practice of censorship of films and publications in Singapore. Under the Ministry of Information and the Arts, a panel of citizens gives advice to the bureaucrats on what to censor and gives them a good sense of the pulse of the people of Singapore. And so we have "RA" classification, advisory statement of the content, etc. And in this sense, my suggestions on this Bill are simply to bring it into line with the practices on film and other areas. My third suggestion, Sir, relates to the Speakers' Corner. This experiment has been running for some months now. There have not been, to my knowledge, any breaches in security or public order and I do not believe there have been any other breaches of law, such as defamation. In this regard, the Speakers' Corner should be seen as a success. People have spoken and nothing has caught fire. Yet, there are also concerns that the success of the Speakers' Corner will be limited, in part this is because of the venue and the means of communication. In our tropical city, both weather and traffic noise work against an open air venue where microphones are not allowed. I therefore ask the Ministry to consider designating an indoor venue for a second Speakers' Corner with a speaker system to support the speakers. Members of the civic society group, the Roundtable, of which I am one, first proposed free speech venues with a variety of places and types. When the Government took up this idea, it only licensed Hong Lim Park. This is because it is a historical site and I have got nothing against it. But I do hope the Government will review the scheme to add more supportive venues.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to express my distaste for this Bill. But may I make it clear that my objections do not flow from the requirement for proper licensing and regulation of animal circuses and those who operate pin tables and games of chance. My objections to this Bill and, indeed, to the main Act itself, stem from the fact that the main Act and this Bill make a mockery of our Constitution in that, as Mr Simon Tay has pointed out, it seeks to include public meetings and to lump them together with circuses and exhibitions of animals and operations of games of chance, and what else. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked several times by foreign correspondents and visitors whether I did not think that the Government was liberalising its restrictions on the freedom of speech, and my answer has always been "No", and they then wonder why I take this view. This Bill confirms my view. One would have thought that the Government might have considered that the time has now come to remove the restrictions on public meetings, talks and lectures. But no, it seeks to include public meetings, lectures and talks in this total control over any form of public expression in this country. It makes, as I have said, a mockery of the constitutional right expressed by Article 14 of our Constitution. Mr Simon Tay would appear to suggest that there should be a separate scheme for meetings and talks. I do not agree with that. I am saying the time has now come to lift completely, and, I repeat, to lift completely any restrictions on public meetings and talks or lectures of a serious nature and allow complete freedom of speech, as is required by the Constitution. That is why I felt very unhappy when I saw this Public Entertainments (Amendment) Bill. The Government, in spite of all its avowed statements that there was freedom of speech, freedom of expression in Singapore, the Deputy Prime Minister telling the BBC that anyone is free to debate in Singapore, they still see fit to introduce a Bill tightening further, if I may say, the restrictions on meetings of a serious nature. I say it makes a mockery of our Constitution. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Public Entertainments Act violates Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution. If you look at Article 14(1)(a), Mr Speaker, Sir, what do you find? "Every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression." May I repeat: "Every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression." However, it continues, by Article 14(2)(a), to give Parliament the right to impose "such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof." I do not wish to read the rest of it, but the operative part of this is, to impose "such restrictions as it considers necessary". It does not say that you can abrogate the right of the citizen. The right of the citizen must remain. By requiring the citizen to first go and obtain a licence from a police officer is to take away his right under the Constitution. If one has to obtain a licence, then one cannot truthfully say that one has the right. His right is made dependent on the whim of the officer to whom he has to make the application. It is no longer a right. It becomes a licence granted by the Government, and not a right of the citizen. So, I say, Sir, that the Act itself is a complete negation of Article 14(1)(a) of our Constitution. And this Act should have been amended, once the Constitution was brought into force, to take out of the Public Entertainments Act the provisions relating to meetings, lectures, talks of a serious nature, and, particularly, meetings organised by registered political parties. That should have been done, but was not done. May I remind the Minister and the Government that the Constitution itself enjoins, requires the Government to modify the law so as to accord with the right given by the Constitution. But nothing was done to modify the law, and the total ban on public expression in the form of meetings and talks was continued. So, I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, the whole thing is a mockery of the Constitution. If you look at section 13 of the parent Act, what do you find, Mr Speaker, Sir? It reads: "The licensing officer may, in his discretion, refuse any application for a licence." There you have it. The Act says, forget about the Constitution. We can refuse any application for a licence to speak and we can stop anyone speaking out in public. One would have thought that, in the Amendment Bill, perhaps an attempt would have been made to spell out clearly the grounds on which the licensing officer may refuse the application. Instead of that, this carte blanche freedom is continued. I suggest that perhaps we should consider now changing the designation of the officer as "Licensing Officer" to "Licensing Czar" under the Government. That perhaps will explain clearly that the Government continues to hold unrestricted control over the right of anyone to speak in public. If you look at section 14 of the parent Act, it again gives this "licensing czar" grounds to cancel or suspend any licence without again tying him down. I say this because, if you look at section 14(1)(d), you will find the words "If it is contrary to the public interest." So this official is given the authority to decide what is the public interest. But the Constitution says clearly, in no uncertain terms, that it is in the public interest that every citizen should have the right of freedom of expression without any restriction put upon it, except in the very limited areas specified under the Constitution. And what is more, the Act did not provide an appeal to the courts against any decision and this is continued in the Bill that is now before us. On a matter so important as the right of citizens to speak up, should not the decision be left to the court rather than to the official, and from him to the Minister? I mentioned not very long ago that the licensing officer, in a case where we were charged with violating the Public Entertainments Act, said on oath in the witness stand that applications from political parties are automatically referred to the Minister. The decision is taken out of his hands and the Minister decides whether it should be granted or not. If that is the case, what on earth will be served by allowing the political party to appeal to the Minister? He is asked to review his own decision, not the decision of the licensing officer? If the Government is sincere in its oft-stated desire to invite our citizens to speak up, there should have been an opportunity for the citizen to take his case to the court so that the court may decide whether the right under the Constitution is being violated by the decision of the Minister. I would seriously urge the Ministry to refer the whole Act, not just the Bill, to the Constitutional Court for an opinion whether the Act and the scheme of licensing provided under the Act violate Article 14(1) of the Constitution. I see that the Minister for Home Affairs laughs at my suggestion that it should be referred to the Constitutional Court. That is what I always have had when I suggest that it be referred to the court. It shows very little respect for the court. And please do not tell me in reply that I can always take it up to the court. If the Government is accountable to the people, as it says it is an accountable Government and it is transparent in its decision-making, it would immediately, upon a complaint that any legislation violates the Constitution, refer it to the Constitutional Court. So please act responsibly as the Government is accountable to the people and not laugh away at any suggestion that we should refer the matter to the court. May I commend to the Ministry that if they do not wish to refer the Bill, along with the Act, to the Constitutional Court, it should now withdraw this Bill and reconsider whether it should proceed with the Bill as at present before the House. I would ask the Ministry to consider taking out completely from the Bill sub-paragraph (m) in the Schedule which defines "public entertainment". Sub-paragraph (m), of course, relates to play-reading, recital, lecture, talk, address debate or discussion. And introduce in this Bill, other provisions that require not the applicant to get a licence but require the police to object for grounds stated to any intention on the part of any political party or any party or association to hold a public meeting or talk. May I ask what is the objection, and I do want a serious answer to this. What is your objection to a public meeting in a private closed place like a hotel or somebody's house or building? One can understand some objection if it is to be on a public street or in a public area, but what is the objection to a meeting in a closed room where the public is invited to attend? The OSC, of which I am Chairman, has held two forums. True, we got licences, but after having to satisfy the licensing officer that we were not going to be talking about subversion, and we were only given the licence almost at the last minute. I say, Sir, that if this Government wishes to show itself as law-abiding and respects the Constitution, it should take away this requirement for the licence and bring in provisions to require the police to lodge any objections with a Magistrate to any proposed meeting of which the applicant should give three weeks' notice before the meeting and then the Magistrate or some officer, hearing both sides, decides whether the meeting should be allowed or not. That would accord with the Constitution and would prove to the world that this Government is serious when it says that it wishes to promote public debate and discussion by its citizens. Mr Simon Tay says that the Speakers' Corner has been a success. I do not know on what grounds he says that. It was only yesterday that I read in the Straits Times which asks, "Is the Speakers' Corner dying a natural death?" There are very few speakers and very few people listening to them. I, for one, may I say, am glad that it has been completely ignored by responsible Singapore citizens because I have said it right from the beginning that I was not going to show myself up there. That would lend credibility to the Government's claim that the Speakers' Corner is proof of democracy in this country, where there is no such thing. The Speakers' Corner was intended to be a showpiece, like the wayang kulit and to proclaim to people that, there you are, we have got democracy, we have got freedom of expression, when this Bill and the Act completely take away that freedom of expression of the citizens. So I do seriously urge the Government to do one of two things. Withdraw this Bill and refer the Act to the Constitutional Court for a pronouncement on whether the ban on talks and lectures violates Article 14(1) of the Constitution and if the Government is not willing to do that, as I have said, to reconsider whether the whole scheme of licensing should now be revised in relation to public meetings, talks or lectures, particularly those organised by political associations and that would include not only political parties registered under the Societies Act, but NGOs and civic groups, groups like my organisation, the Open Singapore Centre. Then, as I have said, it would speak volumes for this Government's sincerity to promote discussion and debate in Singapore. If it does not do that, may I say it is all empty words, all hocus-pocus, that Singapore enjoys freedom of speech, freedom of expression. 5.00 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I wish to express my concern about the possible negative impact the proposed amendments will have on arts and civil society. I, like many other Singaporeans, am delighted to have witnessed the growth of arts in Singapore. I must compliment the Government for the vision and effort to nurture the development of arts here. But I feel that it is timely that we have specific legislation that will be able to guide this development. Of course, we also need to ensure that the social norms and the acceptable moral standards of our society are protected and not compromised. Artistes are like scientists - researching, questioning, experimenting and sometimes pushing and testing conventional acceptable norms of the day. Therefore, the Bill must reflect the tolerance for a possible negative outcome of this experiment, but make clear the boundaries within which the arts groups are allowed to operate. I am therefore concerned that instead of taking this opportunity to refine the Bill to be more specific to the arts, we have enlarged it to include perhaps just about anybody else by including meetings under this amendment. I would have preferred that all other matters of public order be included in other legislation, such as the Penal Code, the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act and the Societies Act. There are enough legislation to regulate such public meetings. Otherwise, as it stands now, the legislation may be seen as too restrictive for an otherwise very liberal and growing arts scene. By enlarging this Bill, I am afraid that we will not be able to solve the perception problems caused by the charges brought against Chee Soon Juan when he launched his book at Raffles Place sometime ago. Many outside Singapore interpret the use of the Public Entertainments Act and the Environmental and Public Health Act as a desperate attempt by the Government to use inappropriate legislation against an opposition figure. Clearly, we do not deserve such a reputation but neither do we need to give others an excuse for perceiving us as such. Although Singaporeans are fully aware of his defiant attitude resulting in the charges being made against him, the use of the Public Entertainments Act, for example, has caused some confusion. Therefore, we should take this opportunity to make this Bill purely for public entertainment and not for any other offences. We must separate arts from politics and make a clear distinction between the regulations for entertainers and that of politicians. Even if this amendment is made purely to enhance our image overseas and ensure that people have the right view on this matter, it would be a worthwhile exercise, because what others think of us matters. Let me touch on a number of specific issues. Clearly, section 13 should be read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees citizens the right to free speech, assembly and association. I have very different views from Mr J B Jeyaretnam, because I think the significant point in Article 14(2)(a) empowers Parliament to impose any restriction it considers necessary and expedient to serve the purpose inherent in eight stipulated grounds of derogation. Thus, when someone puts in an application for a licence, the licensing officer is constitutionally required to approve the application unless it falls within one of the eight heads of Article 14(2)(a). If the licensing officer feels that he must reject the application for one of these reasons, and for those reasons only, he must give reasons. Therefore, amendment should be made to section 13(2) to reflect this default position. Thus, the onus is on the licensing officer to give reasons for his denial of an application. The applicant need not have to ask for the grounds for the decision. Clearly, in the recent Talaq case, the licensing officer has consulted other relevant bodies. But why not embody this process in the Bill to reflect a more participatory and consultative style of government? Why not spell out the bodies or organisations which need to be consulted? Or establish a body which has a representation from a wide cross-section of the society to advise the Public Entertainment Licensing Unit? It will then give some of the bodies a legal status to make its decision and recommendation and possibly avoid the confusion caused by the recent issue. In this instance, the licensing officer has consulted the National Arts Council and other bodies. But who really is making the decision? Is it the Public Entertainment Licensing Unit? Is it the National Arts Council? Or is it the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura? If these groups are to be relied upon to give advice, what and how much weight must be given to their views? Should not the licensing officer consult these bodies first before making a final decision? Thus, the procedures and processes in making this decision must be clearly spelt out. For civil society, Sir, it does not exempt groups organising talks and seminars and the like from applying for a licence unless it is a "members only" meeting. Thus, if a civil society group decides to hold a talk for an "invitation only" audience, technically, the group will still have to get a public entertainment licence. This is not helpful at all. The creation of a demerit point system is interesting, but totally lacking in detail. Why? What is the rush in pushing this Bill through? Although the Minister has stated that details of the demerit point system will follow, why can we not come up with the scheme before voting on it? I would have thought that the demerit point system should be debated and scrutinised in Parliament. Otherwise, this is very much like having traffic rules and demerit point system, but the driver does not know what are the rules and how the demerit point system works against him. If there are OB markers, as it should be in some cases, why not spell them? Otherwise, the vagueness and the lack of clarity make it confusing for arts groups and civil society. Mr J B Jeyaretnam spoke about the Speakers' Corner. I am extremely disappointed with his attitude. I would have thought that with the establishment of the Speakers' Corner, it is precisely the Opposition groups who will take advantage of this, because they have been clamouring for more space and opportunity to speak to the public at large. And the fact that Mr Jeyaretnam has taken the attitude and the fact that he is not here to listen to the reply from the Minister is something that I find very disturbing myself. The Speakers' Corner is not just a reflection of the society at large but, certainly, the state of the Speakers' Corner is a reflection of the Opposition members themselves and other groups who want to have an additional platform to make their views known.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure the Minister of State will answer Mr Jeyaretnam's points, but I would just like to say one thing. Frankly, I am quite astonished at the suggestion or the legal theory propounded by him that there is a duty on any government to challenge its own Bills on constitutional grounds. I have never heard of such an argument put in any jurisdiction that I know of. Obviously, the simple case is that if a citizen feels aggrieved and he has a locus standi or standing to raise an issue before the courts, he can always go to the courts for a declaration. There is no such thing also as unrestricted constitutional rights to freedom of expression, even in that most democratic of democracies, the United States. Now, Sir, if I may be allowed to speak in relation to the Bill. I support this Bill in so far as it seeks to update the law and especially by removing activities that no longer require licences and by streamlining procedures for issue and renewal of licences. This is an important Bill, coming as it does in the wake of earlier concerns in January this year about the operations of the Licensing Unit and, more recently, of course, about the play Talaq that was not allowed to be staged. Sir, in this debate, I would like to touch on two sets of issues. The first relates to issues of substance, ie, what are the factors to be considered in the granting of licences and whether there will be changes in this regard after the enactment of the Bill. The second relates to the process and procedure of obtaining a licence. In the area of public entertainment, there is always an issue of balancing the objective of encouraging creative and new art forms, and what may be called the maintenance of public decency and order. In the Films Act, for example, we have an elaborate system of obtaining licences or permits to show films and to have films censored. In the case of public entertainment falling within the Public Entertainments Act, the same concerns arise. What is the proper balance to be struck between allowing our artistic talents to entertain the public and maintaining public decency and order? In the sitting on 17th January this year, the Minister for Information and the Arts gave an answer which is quite relevant in today's debate. The Minister referred to the need for artistes to obtain licence for new art forms, such as forum, theatre and performance arts, where there is no script and encourages participation of the audience. Controversy arose in this case because of some indecent and unconventional behaviour on the part of actors during a performance several years ago. The answer given by the Minister - may I be permitted to summarise - contains four factors that should be taken into account. First, the broad factor of risk to public order and decency; second, the exploitative nature of the art form to educate audiences on volatile issues; third, the propagation of beliefs and messages of deviant groups; and, finally, the use of the art forms as a means of subversion. I refer to these factors because the fundamental issue of substance for having a licensing scheme to regulate public entertainment is striking that proper balance between artistic freeedom and maintenance of public order and decency. The Bill appears to make the Licensing Unit and the Minister in charge, namely, the Minister for Home Affairs, responsible as the guardian of public order and morality, unlike the Films Act, for example, where there is an appeal to a wider body known as the committee of appeal. In substance, both the showing of a film and the staging of a play, for example, are not different. I am puzzled that there is such a distinction made here and that there is no appeal body in this particular piece of legislation. It can also be seen from the factors referred to that there are very broad considerations that involve public morality which probably could be better gauged by a body of individuals culled from various segments of society. I know, for instance, that in the recent controversial play, the permission to stage it was withdrawn after objections from MUIS. Why not have an appellate body comprising representatives from organisations such as MUIS or National Arts Council, who could then recommend to the Minister on a more regulated basis? If we are serious about improving the cultural arts scene in Singapore, we may need more civil society mechanisms to ensure that we are not erring from excessive caution. I would like therefore to urge the Minister of State to consider such a scheme as appropriate for the Public Entertainments Act, as it is for the Films Act. Sir, the Bill also proposes to implement a demerit point system. Such systems are common in Singapore, principally in matters relating to public health and road safety. Again, I should like to ask the Minister of State for clarification, as some of the speakers earlier have done so. What purpose would such a demerit system serve in the area of public entertainment? We can see the need for such a scheme in the areas of public hygiene and road safety, where the public may be subject to daily risks of dirty food or unsafe driving. But in public entertainment, the harm that may result is surely not as direct or severe as to require a demerit point system. Has the situation deteriorated so much that we should consider implementing a demerit point system? I am sure the Minister of State can provide an explanation as to why such a system should be put in place and how it would operate. And, in particular, I echo the issue that was raised by Mr Zulkifli whether it would have an undesirable effect on the cultural and arts scene in Singapore. The harm that we would want most to avoid is that our most creative artistes go abroad and develop their talents instead of remaining at home. This must not happen, as a result of a scheme that is seen to be too restrictive. I would urge the Minister of State to let Members of this House and the public know what are the principles that will be used to administer this demerit point system. And it is unfortunate that the rules relating to such a scheme are not placed before the House at this time. Sir, I turn now to other issues that arise from the Bill. While matters of substance are very important, matters of procedure may also be important in that a long drawn out procedure to obtain licences may be viewed as unsympathetic to the growth of a vibrant public entertainment scene in Singapore. While the Bill positively aids in promoting public entertainment maybe in the new provision that groups performing under the auspices of certain statutory bodies like the People's Association, National Arts Council, MUIS and the National Library Board can now provide public entertainment without requiring a licence. There are many statutory bodies that are given this exemption. But there may be a case for including other bodies such as the Singapore Academy of Law and Info-Communications Development Authority of Singapore. These are not in the list. The question is: why are they not because they too have on occasions put on public shows? On the other hand, it is odd to find the inclusion of the Professional Engineers Board or the Board of Architects on this list. In fact, not all professional bodies are on the list. For example, the Law Society of Singapore, which regularly runs meetings and road shows to advise people of rights and so on, is not on the list. Perhaps the Minister of State can clarify how this list came about and whether it would be revised at regular intervals. I come now to the problem I raised earlier in January concerning the time taken for processing applications. In January this year, the Minister for Home Affairs answered a question relating to this matter and his answer was as follows, and I quote: 'Police has publicly pledged to process 90% of all establishment licence applications within eight weeks and ad hoc licence applications within three weeks.' It further added that in 1999, more than 50% of all applications were processed within a week while 91% were processed within three weeks. This may suggest a situation that is relatively under control and that the police acted reasonably speedily and they should be congratulated for that. But I hope that the Minister of State can reassure us that there will be a better effort made to expedite licensing procedures and also ultimately to cut down on the number of activities for which a licence is necessary. Sir, creative talents require a certain space where involvement of people should be spontaneous and immediate. Such situations are not likely to occur in Singapore if we exert too much control over the expression of creativity in public. I agree that there must be some control where public safety, health or order is threatened by such activities. It may be right in such situations to expect licensing. But there must be many other situations where we should be able to enjoy the public performances of our multi-talented population and others with a minimum of red tape. The need for the Public Entertainment Licensing Unit to take a balanced view is critical and I hope that the new measures will not be a step back from cultivating a vibrant art and culture environment in Singapore. Sir, on this note, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me thank all the speakers for speaking on the Bill and thank all the other speakers, except Mr Jeyaretnam, for supporting the Bill. Sir, the speakers have caught the spirit behind these amendments. PELU does not stand still. The Public Entertainments Act does not stand still. It has been fine tuning its regime over the last few years. For example, some Members who know will realise that now for rock concerts, dancing is permitted provided safety conditions are satisfied. Also, in some of these pubs where jazz music is played, if the space is appropriate and if the operator is confident that there will be no law and order problems, members of the audience can also join in. Indeed, over time, not so much in a major way, certain activities have been exempted from the Act, for example, films that are shown in cinemas. This is a big exercise because the time is ripe to look at how the Act can be further amended to make regulation even lighter, a lighter touch to regulation. One approach will, of course, be class exemptions. Mr Goh Choon Kang has asked whether or not getai will also be exempted. Indeed, getai will be exempted from the Public Entertainments Act. Already this year a lighter touch was used to regulate the Seventh Month Festival where there were exemptions given under the Miscellaneous Offences Act for auctions. But if we do this for auctions and do not do that for getai, there will be anomaly. For this year, public entertainment licences were still required for getai. But under the class exemption approach, public entertainment licences will not be required. So Seventh Month Festival operators will know that there is a regime here where there is no need for exemptions but they will have to satisfy certain conditions, which is fair. As long as they satisfy those conditions, they will be allowed to organise their functions. One condition would be for them to notify police at least seven days in advance of the event. This is not to hinder them or to put a blanket on their activities. It is good for police to know where some of these getais will be operating because in the Seventh Month Festival period many will be performed all over Singapore. So Police will have pre-knowledge of where possible problems may arise. It is not that they will arise but it is good for the local police division to know that. That is something which I am sure all Seventh Month Festival operators will be very happy about. This year's event went off well despite the fact that many people had to adjust, including the operators, grassroots leaders and so forth. When we take this approach, it will be a win-win situation. Sir, another point is the scope of the Bill. Here again, these amendments signify the fact that the Ministry, Police and PELU know that the Act cannot be over-reaching. As Members read in the amendments, certain categories have been removed from the ambit of the Act, events that are already covered in other Acts like fireworks display and also events that do not pose law and order problems. This shows an active mindset on the part of the Ministry, the police and PELU to see which activity can be taken out. Indeed, with class exemption, even more activities will be taken out. But the question then arises: can more be taken out? A point has been made by many speakers whether or not talks and meetings should be regulated, in particular indoor talks and meetings. Mr Jeyaretnam may call for the total taking out of all talks and meetings. But I think many Members in this House will agree that for outdoor talks in particular, it is very important to have the public entertainment licence because in outdoor settings, law and order problems can arise. But does it therefore mean that in an indoor setting there is no need to regulate these talks? The answer is no, because in multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore, there is still a need to see what are the talks being conducted on the ground, in particular talks that may be subversive or inflammatory in terms of race and religion. There may be also other topics, for example, one of the indoor talks that PELU rejected was a talk on picking of locks. This was rejected in January 1999 because police felt that this is not a very good topic. It may attract all kinds of people who may want to learn how to pick locks. We learn, for example, over the Internet how to make bombs. That is coming on stream. If we allow people just to give talks without some regulation in compact, multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore, that is not advisable. But the real question is: has the regime hindered the giving of talks? Here the answer is a clear no, because PELU has all these years administered the Act with a light touch. Indeed, in 1999, out of about 6,000 applications processed, only 64 applications, ie, 1%, were rejected. These were rejected for good reasons. The point I want to make is that some of these perceived hardships that people very loosely talk about do not exist. In fact, even Opposition party members will know that though they are required to apply for licences from PELU, these have been very freely granted. They have organised many talks and forums. If they apply in good time they are also approved in good time. Indeed, the class exemption will also benefit Opposition MPs on the ground because in a community event some of these activities like karaoke singing and so forth will now be exempted. That is an important point to note. The Act is not to catch targeted groups of people. Mr Zulkifli talks about civil society groups. Civil society groups will, if they put hand to heart, know that the Act also does not inhibit them. Indeed, some will even say that over the last two or three years there has been a renaissance in this area because many talks have been organised by many civil society groups over this time, including Mr Jeyaretnam's Open Singapore Centre. The Think Centre has organised some forums. Other groups like the Partner for Active Community and the Working Group Committee on Civil Society, and those Members who are in the societies will know that they have been able to secure licences for these talks. There is no question that these amendments or PELU or the Public Entertainments Act inhibit the growth of civil societies. A fundamental point is this. Is the Act unconstitutional? Mr Jeyaretnam makes a song and dance about it. Again, he makes no new points. He repeats old points and he does not make correct points. Worse, he does not stay in the House to listen to what is the correct position. He is not here. As Mr Zulkifli, a layman, points out, section 14 does not say that every Singaporean has a right to free speech and he can say whatever he wants, wherever he wants, whenever he wants. If that happens, what happens in some other countries where there may be freer speech will happen in Singapore. The courts have in fact decided that the Act is constitutional. That is the main point. This is really a red herring. How about the discretion that is exercised under the Act? Mr Jeyaretnam again makes a song and dance about it. Mr Zulkifli mentions it. The Act does give discretion to the licensing officer. But let us not forget that he does not act alone. He acts in consultation with relevant agencies. For example, he will consult, if it is an establishment of a pub, the local police division, and look at the suitability of the site. He will consult the NAC. In fact, except only in those rare cases where, for example, there may be racial and religious sensitivities, NAC's views have prevailed. That is what PELU tells me because NAC is, in fact, the body to advise on arts topics. But all of us would agree here that in those instances where there may be higher overriding considerations, as happened in the recent Talaq example, where MUIS had come out with very strong objections on the performance of the play, even with the conditions that were proposed by NAC, PELU ultimately decides. It takes all these views into consideration. It may accord greater weight to some of these views. But ultimately it will decide. A suggestion has been made whether or not PELU is the correct agency to do this. PELU currently is a one-stop agency for all these activities. Prof. Chin makes the argument, and Mr Simon Tay makes a strong pitch, that the arts should be treated differently because it may not be strictly law and order. There may be a need to balance the need for artistes to express themselves against the wider public interest. Let me first say that there is reason for PELU to be involved because there could be law and order considerations. For example, if a play does invoke racial and religious sensitivities and does agitate a community, it may lead to unhappiness in the community and disharmony in society. Having said this, in the specific area of arts performances, there is some basis for a review to be done by PELU on whether it should be the one-stop agency. Let me assure Members that the point is taken and PELU will do a review and MHA will consult MITA on what is the best position for Singapore, taking into consideration the development of the arts and also the need to preserve public interest and public safety. Back to the licensing officer's discretion. He does not exercise discretion in vacuo. Because if you look at the Act, section 14 states the broad grounds on which his discretion will be exercised, whether it may lead to a breach of peace, whether it may be offensive, immoral or subversive, or whether it would lead to any injury. So these are the broad factors. Within this framework, there are also specific factors, both for ad hoc licences and for establishment licences. Indeed, Mr Simon Tay has raised a parliamentary question on this, asking what these factors are, and we have replied. So it is no secret. For example, PELU will look at the suitability of the applicant, whether he has got an adverse record, and also look at the suitability of the place. If it is an establishment licence, is it in a residential area? PELU will look at what is the nature of the entertainment being provided. So these are some of the factors PELU will look at. I will say that in practice, especially for establishment licences, when there is this to-ing and fro-ing between PELU and the applicant, and ultimately if the application is turned down, he will have a sense as to why his application has been turned down. And indeed, if he does not, he can ask for reasons. Mr Zulkifli makes a point - why not PELU give the reasons upfront. So let me assure him that PELU has nothing to hide. The Act provides for the applicant to ask for reasons within seven days and when he does that, reasons are given, after which he has 14 days to appeal to the Minister. So even though the licensing officer does have a discretion, ultimately should there be a rejection and an appeal, it is the Minister, a representative of the Government, who will determine according to policies that are laid down, in particular public interest, public safety, public order, whether or not the event should go ahead. And I think that is constitutional and proper because the Minister is an elected representative and he has to bear in mind all these wide considerations. If the appellant is still unhappy, he can go to court. He can ask for judicial review. So the courts are always there. Mr Jeyaretnam seems to allude that there is no recourse to court. He is not correct. Prof. Chin Tet Yung makes this point about the demerit scheme which I think Mr Zulkifli also makes. Let me assure the Members that this scheme is not something to catch the applicants or make it more difficult for them to comply with conditions. You must understand this scheme and the spirit of the Bill, which is to liberalise it, which will make punishment more transparent, more certain and more graduated. This demerit scheme only applies to establishment licences, not ad hoc licences. So there is nothing to fear that with a demerit system, ad hoc applications for performance of the arts or meetings or talks will be affected. The scheme cannot fit into an ad hoc mould, but only for establishment licences, because there is a standing relationship where the licence is granted for one year, two years, three years, and the person runs the pub. And there will be conditions given to him when he is given a licence to run the pub, for example, closing hours, maintenance of register of employees, he must not employ illegal foreign workers or there must not be gambling or drug taking. So these are conditions. Some of the conditions, of course, are more serious than others. So not maintaining a register may not be so serious. So just like the Driver Improvement Points Scheme (DIPS), all these will be set up, and then the points will be allocated. So he will know where he is at this scale, and what he must not do. Because he will then know that if he breaches these conditions, then this number of points will be added on and this penalty will then befall him. Even in terms of penalty, this demerit scheme gives flexibility to PELU because new penalties will be added, like imposition of a security deposit - that is a penalty that will be added on this list - or curtailment of closing hours. At any point in time along this scale should he commit an act whereby a certain penalty is attracted, he will be given notice. Like I have said in my speech, he will be given notice that this action is impending and then to explain to the Minister or to plead his case. So that is the spirit behind the points scheme. It should work well because it would mean that people can operate their businesses more effectively and more efficiently. Mr Simon Tay asked whether or not the Speakers' Corner can be extended in concept to indoor stadiums. Again, this is not a new point. I think he will know that. But like I have said just now, there is no need to do that because if you have a talk inside a hotel or other premises, you apply for a licence, you will get it. It is better in fact not to restrict people to one venue. In fact, under the present scheme, there are so many venues. You want to have a talk inviting the public, you apply for a licence, and the point, like I have said, is the ease with which applications are granted. Prof. Chin asked about the timeframe. Yes, in an earlier answer, we have said that for establishment licences, the current target is eight weeks; for ad hoc licences, the current target is three weeks. All these will be lowered. Because now with the improvement in the Act in terms of administration, with less applications coming to the PELU officer, these timings would be lowered. So PELU will work towards lowering the timeframe taken for application. I am quite certain that with all these improvements, the time will indeed be lowered. So that is something that all applicants can look forward to. I think those are the main points that I have answered.

May I have a clarification, Sir?

Yes, Mr Chiam.

Sir, regarding these ad hoc and establishment licences, in the case of Potong Pasir, we have a series of events throughout the year, can we apply for an establishment licence in the sense that we get one licence for the whole year's activities?

That is a series of ad hoc events. So it is not like operating a pub or a lounge, that is an establishment licence. So I am afraid Mr Chiam would have to apply, but it is not a problem applying. He has been granted many of these licences.

But is the Minister willing to consider giving the Potong Pasir Town Council one licence for the whole year? Then we do not have to apply again and pay separate fees. Instead, we just pay one fee alone.

Sir, I think Mr Chiam knows that, first, events may change. You are not sure what you will do nine months down the road. I think Mr Chiam did apply for a licence for a talk in his Potong Pasir Neighbourhood Park, but then there was a last minute change because his organisers said that Mr Chiam could not make it. That happens, you see.

I am talking about the regular events that we normally have. We have got table tennis, we have got ---

Mr Chiam says it is regular. I think all of us who work the ground know it, even PAP MPs. You may say it is regular, you may have a schedule, but then nearer the time of the event, you may travel, or you are indisposed. So I think it is only fair to PELU, for you to apply when the event is more certain, and if it falls within the ambit of the Act, and now it has been relaxed, you will get your licence.

May I seek a point of clarification from the Minister of State. The first point of clarification is about the advisory panels. The Minister of State has said in his reply that they do listen to some other people, but we are not certain, it is not predetermined who will be heard most. What is his reply to the suggestion about a fixed advisory panel on the lines of the Films Act and censorship of films? Why is it any different? The second point of clarification I seek from the Minister of State is his reply on the suggestion for an indoor version of the Speakers' Corner. His reply was that one can apply for a licence anywhere, and therefore is that not better. But surely, Sir, does the Minister of State not realise that the efficacy of a Speakers' Corner (Hong Lim) is the speed of the licensing process? You go down there, you get it within 15 minutes or half an hour, and that is the same idea that would distinguish an indoor Speakers' Corner from the `apply three weeks in advance you can speak in any hotel' idea.

I will take Mr Simon Tay's first point. On his suggestion for a panel involving citizens, the films model, when the review is being done, this can be considered, because if MITA takes over the function, I am sure they will look at what model works. On the other point, let us look at the timeframe. Currently, it is three weeks. But, like I have said, PELU is determined to bring it down. So with the shorter timeframe, the time lag that Mr Simon Tay talks about will be less. The other point, of course, is whether we want to have a setting of a Speakers' Corner in an indoor setting with microphone, with people in close proximity and speaking whatever they want. Because for a Speakers' Corner, as it is, as is well known, even the topic is not known. So in an open setting where it is visible, where you do not use the microphone, the possibility of law and order problem arising is reduced, which experience has borne out. I think it is quite different in an indoor setting with a microphone where there will be more heckling, people are in close proximity, and adherents of different opinions will then jostle for attention and who knows, fisticuffs may take place. So I think the system now is a better approach. Let us leave it at that where if there are indoor talks where the public is invited, tell us what the topic is, and if PELU sees that the application deserves approval, it will be approved.

I understand that the Act exempts activities organised by grassroots organisations like the PA. Would the Minister of State consider also giving exemption to community activities organised by Opposition MPs, like Mr Chiam has just raised, activities organised by the Town Council, or activities organised by my constituency's committees?

Sir, for the community events which involve magic shows, puppet shows, karaoke, under the class exemption, they will already be exempted. But the talks, I think, is another matter. Not that we want to restrict your desire to speak to your residents. The reason is because the relaxation - in fact this was a relaxation announced in Parliament just at the last sitting - is so that the elected MP can speak to residents of his own ward in an outdoor constituency, community setting. Right now, it will be up to PELU to decide, based on the facts of the case whether or not this requirement has been satisfied. So I think it is better for PELU to make a decision, because if you think that, yes, this is a constituency community setting, so you fall within the Act, and you organise it, and lo and behold, 800 people turn up, half of whom are from outside the constituency, then you will be caught by the Act. So let us not go through that trouble. I think Mr Chiam's experience has shown that if you apply, PELU looks at it objectively, if it falls within the ambit of the relaxation, the licence will be given in good time.

I will allow one last clarification.

The Minister of State in his clarification earlier has mentioned a review. Can I ask him whether this is just simply an ongoing constant review, as he alluded to earlier, or would he commit to a definite review on certain points such as an advisory panel, with a reply to this House at a definite date?

As I said, a review will be conducted. So it is a specific review looking at whether this should be done by some other agency.

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. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Sir, we have done about three-quarters of the order of business. Many of us think that we have made quite good progress for today. We will come back tomorrow for the remaining two items - the Traditional Chinese Medicine Bill as well as Dr Lily Neo's motion on the family, which I am sure many of us would want to hear and give more time to it. Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes to Six o'clock pm.

asked the Minister for Finance (a) how many persons receive pensions from the various Government and Government-linked Pension Funds, and (b) what was the total payment made over the last 5 years.

The Civil Service Pension Fund is currently paying 24,660 pensioners. Total payment made from FY95 to FY99 is $3.5 billion. The Singapore Armed Forces has the SAVER-Premium Fund to cater to the savings and retirement needs of its officers. The number of pensioners under the Fund is 104, and total payment made from the time the Fund was set up in April 1998 is $69.1 million.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in the event of a police officer appearing in a house with an arrest warrant for the parents, what is the management guideline that has to be observed when the children of the offenders are minors and alone without any relatives to look after their welfare.

When Police officers need to arrest a person, they will explore all available options for the immediate care of the person's children who are minors. If there is a responsible person* present, he/she will be given temporary custody of the children. If there is no such person present, Police officers will allow the offender to contact the spouse, next-of-kin or friend to look after the children. Alternatively, the offender would be asked to consider asking his/her neighbour to help take care of the children while waiting for the spouse, next-of-kin or friend to arrive. * An adult or older child assessed to be sufficiently mature. This judgement will be exercised by an officer.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether believers are allowed to burn joss sticks and incense in front of their house in a private housing estate and how a police officer will mediate in a quarrel and a fight started by a neighbour who disagrees with such practices.

The burning of joss sticks and incense is governed by guidelines issued by the Ministry of the Environment. ENV does not object to the burning of joss sticks and incense in front of houses in a private housing estate as long as these guidelines are complied with. When a quarrel or a fight between neighbours is reported, the Police's main role is to maintain law and order and ensure that there is no breach of the peace. On Police arrival, if no fight has taken place, or a non-seizable offence such as voluntarily causing hurt has been committed, both parties will be interviewed and advised to observe the peace. Where appropriate, they will be advised to either seek a legal recourse or to go to the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) to resolve their dispute. On Police arrival, if a fight is taking place between the neighbours in a public area, an offence of affray under section 160 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 would have been committed. In such a case, Police would be empowered to arrest both parties involved in the fight and initiate an investigation.

asked the Minister for National Development, in view of many maids who have fallen off lately from window ledges that they were cleaning, whether it is the management committee's duty to maintain the external window surfaces since these and the external surfaces of buildings are considered common property under the Land Titles (Strata) Act.

For strata-subdivided buildings, windows installed in the external walls of the buildings, unless otherwise specified, are common property and the Management Corporation (MC) is responsible for the maintenance. However, the MC may, under a resolution, decide on how to discharge this responsibility. For example, they can pass a by-law to make the owners responsible for cleaning the windows in their units. Nevertheless, owners have sometimes taken it upon themselves to clean the external windows when they are dirty, since they have the access from inside their flats. The MCs may have difficulty stopping the owners from doing so. Although there are some domestic workers who have fallen to their deaths from heights, the number is small in relation to the population of more than 100,000 domestic workers working in Singapore. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is very concerned with the matter. There are many reasons why domestic workers fall from heights. Hence, it is not possible to solve the problem using any single solution. MOM has adopted a multi-pronged approach in dealing with the issue. It has mounted several initiatives to educate both employers and their domestic workers on the importance of safety at work in the home environment. These include producing an information kit for the employers, an orientation video for the workers and the recently launched "Handy Guide for Foreign Domestic Workers". MOM will be coming out with new programmes to enhance the level of professionalism of employment agents in Singapore, including a review of our existing regulatory framework. It has also worked with CDCs to help organize safety courses for domestic workers. In this regard MOM will continue to work with community and non-governmental organizations to conduct safety courses for domestic workers. Employers who are criminally negligent in unnecessarily exposing their domestic workers to work hazards will be prosecuted under the Penal Code. Employers also have a moral responsibility to ensure that their domestic workers work safely and are not exposed to unnecessary work hazards. This responsibility cannot be passed on to a third party including the Government. Employers would have to be prudent in using a safe method when they or their family member or domestic worker clean the window.

asked the Minister for Health (a) since Mifepristone is not dispensed in Singapore, whether the Government sees a need to adopt appropriate measures to stop any transaction of this drug through the Internet; and (b) whether the Government has the intention of legalising this drug in due time to be consistent with FDA guidelines in the United States.

Under the Medicines Act, importers and distributors of medicinal products must be licensed by the Ministry. Buyers of unregistered medicinal products such as Mifepristone can be prosecuted for importing or procuring medicinal products without a proper licence. The Ministry of Health has strongly advised the public not to purchase unregulated medicinal products through the Internet as the quality and source of such products cannot be vouched for. Given the nature of e-commerce, it would be difficult to prevent Singaporeans from buying prescription drugs through the Internet. However, any postal items that are suspected to contain prescription drugs from overseas are referred by the Customs and Excise Department to the National Pharmaceutical Administration for inspection. NPA will continue to monitor local internet sites and take appropriate action against sites found to be offering prescription drugs for sale. My Ministry has not received any application for the registration of the abortion pill, Mifepristone, widely known as RU 486. All drugs are evaluated for quality, safety and efficacy before they are registered for use in Singapore. The Ministry considers all the scientific and clinical data submitted, including information available from other established drug regulatory agencies. We also consider the clinical applicability of the drug to our local population and its potential side effects. Local clinical experts and the Medicines Advisory Committee, an expert committee appointed under the Medicines Act, are consulted. While we take note of decisions made by overseas regulatory agencies like the FDA, the decision to register a pharmaceutical product in Singapore will need to take into consideration our local clinical context and our healthcare practices.

asked the Minister for Health, in view of the recent demand from the community for parental consent in teenage abortions, whether he will (i) seek broader discussions and consensus on this matter by forming a review committee to reappraise the issues and (ii) adopt a fresh look in reviewing the Termination of Pregnancy Act to strengthen some level of monitoring on teenage abortions.

My Ministry reviews the regulations and procedures in the Termination of Pregnancy Act regularly. We welcome feedback and suggestions on how to improve them. Many of the points raised in the recent debate on parental consent in teenage abortions are not new. If there are specific suggestions on how to improve the monitoring of teenage abortions, we are prepared to incorporate them.