Sir, let me thank GPC Chairman, Prof. Chin, for supporting the Bill. He has expressed some concerns which I will address one at a time. Sir, first, let me clarify that IPOS is not in a unique situation. It is not a unique institution, because it has also similar counterparts elsewhere in other countries. For example, the UK Patents Office is responsible for the registration of patents, designs and trade marks, as well as for the development of IPR policy generally. Another example is Hong Kong. Hong Kong also has an IP office which has taken on the administration of the whole spectrum of IP rights and has also undertaken public awareness programmes. So we must also move as, in a sense, these are other centres which also want to create and develop a culture of IP. It is a competitive environment and Singapore must keep in step. His next point is whether IPOS can handle the task. Sir, let me assure the GPC Chairman that IPOS is poised to take on its enhanced role. As I have mentioned in my speech, IPOS, over the last five years or so, has indeed been assuming more and more responsibilities. In a sense, it has been preparing itself for this new challenge. As I have said in my speech, for example, IPOS has taken on an active role in the development of new IPR policies and legislation. The new Trade Marks Act, an entirely new Act, is an example. The Copyright (Amendment) Act to deal with the advent of electronic commerce, the Geographical Indications Act, the Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits Act, and the Registered Designs Act, all these are very clear examples. So it has been actively involved in helping the Ministry of Law to formulate policies and draft these new Acts. IPOS has not just stayed within our shores, but it has also gone into joint ventures with other agencies at international, regional and national levels, to increase IPR awareness by organising workshops, seminars, exhibitions and training courses. Some of these agencies include WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organisation, the Japan Patents Office, the European Patents Office, universities, National Science and Technology Board, Trade Development Board and PSB. IPOS, in addition, is one of the first few in the region to have joined the Madrid Protocol, which allows for the international registration of trade marks. I have also mentioned some products and packages which IPOS has worked with industry to put together including computer searches and, indeed, even a new portal called the Surf IP, which offers a holistic, comprehensive and integrated search for information on IP. And I understand that this is the first portal of its kind in the world. I want to thank Prof. Chin for pointing out that IPOS indeed has an enormous and difficult task ahead. This is precisely why IPOS needs to be given adequate resources and the flexibility to fulfil its new responsibilities. And this is precisely why we are converting IPOS into a statutory board to give it the flexibility to develop its resources and capabilities to meet these new challenges. So, indeed, IPOS would have to do more. I have outlined what it has done, and it has reached a certain stage. But Prof. Chin is absolutely right. In order for it to be able to carry out its functions effectively, it will do more. It will do more in terms of training its manpower, and gearing up its staff to meet new challenges ahead. Let me just make one clarification. Prof. Chin says that IPOS is not a statutory board. It is a statutory board. If he were to look at previous Bills on statutory boards, the phrase "public corporation" found in the explanatory note is a standard phrase found in all such Bills. So it is a statutory board in the usual sense of the word. The next point is about the investment powers. The clause that Prof. Chin has mentioned on investment powers in fact reflects the result of a recent review of statutory boards' investment powers. They should be given the freedom to maximise the investments of their own funds in order to respond effectively to changing investment markets and to allow them to invest in new forms of investment which are appropriate for its purpose. This clause is, in fact, a new standard clause adopted as a result of the review, and is not unique to IPOS. The same clause is found, in fact, in the other two statutory board Bills going for Second Reading today, ie, the Health Sciences Authority Bill and the Health Promotion Board Bill. But the point really is that having the flexibility of powers does not mean that it has full say without any safeguards. Safeguards are also important and, indeed, there are safeguards. For example, their investment power will be subject to control by the board members of the statutory board who come from a wide range of backgrounds. So these people would be culled from the private sector, public sector and academia who will decide on what investments to make. A further check would be that this investment power would be subject to the approval of the Minister. So, that is a key safeguard. Furthermore, there are the usual audit provisions, and IPOS has to submit an annual report to Parliament every year. As Members know, if necessary, and if Members so desire, further questions can also be asked in this House about IPOS, including its accounts and investments. This is something which private companies would not be subject to. Let me now deal with Prof. Chin's main point. Prof. Chin has expressed concern about the wide powers of IPOS to regulate intellectual property advisers. Let me address his concern and put it in context. First, let me describe briefly the work that is being done now on the creation of a new patent agent profession. This will help put the issue in context. This move is needed to ensure that Singapore develops a sufficiently strong patent agent profession to provide support services to the industry in the area of intellectual property. This is in line with our vision of becoming a competitive and knowledge-based economy, capable of attracting innovators to create, and innovators and investors to register and trade their products and services with the assurance of a strong intellectual property infrastructure here. The details of the proposal will be announced soon. But I can inform the House that, so far, 40 persons or so have already signed up for the NUS' IP Law Course. So it is a very keen activity. People want to come on-board and, in fact, the vast majority are non-lawyers, people with scientific background preparing themselves for qualification as patent agents under the new proposal. In formulating the proposals, IPOS consulted extensively with the Law Society of Singapore, the Singapore group of the Asian Patents Attorneys' Association, and the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys. Apart from patent agents, let me say that there are no plans for IPOS to regulate any other intellectual property related professionals in the foreseeable future. Sir, like all Acts of Parliament, this piece of legislation will be in our statute books for many years. We should therefore ensure that the Bill provides IPOS with the necessary mandate to promote the development of professions and to advise the Government on measures to be taken concerning these professions, not only to cater to present needs, but also to deal with future needs that cannot now be all foreseen. Why do I say this? I think this is especially important in an area as fast moving as intellectual property. These vast developments are now bringing us into largely uncharted waters whose tributaries may lead us to limitless and exciting discoveries in diverse areas such as cyber law, information technology law, bio-sciences, bio-technology and life sciences. Therefore, in crafting this law, we have taken a forward-looking and long-term approach to provide IPOS with the necessary mandate to promote the development of IP-related professions and to advise the Government accordingly as the state of these professions can affect the quality of our intellectual property infrastructure. Prof. Chin may be right that the term "intellectual property adviser" is very wide, and is a term that is used to describe the full range of IP-related professions. The idea is to give IPOS the mandate to promote and develop these professions. I think that is the point, ie, not to be restrictive or to curtail, but to bring in the flexibility as and when the need may arise. We do not see that arising in the foreseeable future, to have a profession that will push the industry forward, like what we are doing for patent agents. There is certainly no intention in the immediate future to put in place a regulatory regime to indiscriminately cover all IP-related professions by one stroke of the pen. Any proposal to regulate any type of IP-related professionals will be tightly focused and carefully targeted at the relevant segment and would only be introduced for the good of the industry, not to its detriment. Like what I have described, the whole manner in which we have approached the formation of patent agents as a profession which involves not only lawyers - I think Prof. Chin's focus was on lawyers - but indeed when a new profession is created, other people would also benefit because they would have more work to do, they would be able to be involved in a new capacity in the development of IP in Singapore. Let me assure Members of this House and the legal profession that should the need ever arise to consider regulating other types of intellectual property professionals, the Law Society and all other relevant parties would be consulted in the formation of any new regulatory mechanism, just as what we have done in formulating our proposals in the patent agent profession. I am sure that at that time, the concerns that have been raised by Prof. Chin in this House would be addressed. Sir, my officials have, in fact, also met with representatives of the Law Society to explain the rationale for these provisions and to assuage their concerns.