Hansard, 2001-08-13

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 (2001)(2001) Mr Loh Meng See 31 Jul31 Jul Mr Peh Chin Hua1 Aug2 Aug 15 Aug2 Sep Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap1 Aug2 Aug 14 Aug16 Aug Mr Tan Soo Khoon2 Aug3 Aug Mr K Shanmugam3 Aug6 Aug 10 Aug13 Aug Encik Sidek bin Saniff4 Aug6 Aug 20 Aug22 Aug NameFromTo (2001)(2001) Mr Leong Horn Kee4 Aug7 Aug Dr Tan Cheng Bock6 Aug8 Aug Mr Goh Chee Wee11 Aug18 Aug 27 Aug29 Aug 3 Sep13 Sep Mr Davinder Singh 13 Aug13 Aug Mdm Claire Chiang 13 Aug13 Aug Mr Goh Chong Chia13 Aug22 Aug Dr Ker Sin Tze13 Aug31 Aug Mr Seng Han Thong14 Aug18 Aug Mr Hawazi Daipi20 Aug29 Aug Dr Ong Chit Chung22 Aug24 Aug Mr Abdullah Tarmugi22 Aug25 Aug 27 Aug30 Aug 8 Sep14 Sep 16 Sep24 Sep Mr Ang Mong Seng23 Aug28 Aug Mr Bernard Chen24 Aug30 Aug RAdm Teo Chee Hean2 Sep5 Sep 7 Sep11 Sep Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee7 Sep10 Sep Mr Heng Chiang Meng7 Sep14 Sep Mr Chng Hee Kok7 Sep23 Sep 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: 30 July 2001 (i) Income Tax (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Land Titles (Amendment) Bill; (iii)Official Secrets (Amendment) Bill; (iv) Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill; (v) Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments and Repeal) Bill; and (vi) Civil Service College Bill. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Manpower whether he can give an update on the retrenchment situation and projection of job creation for this year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a total of 3,248 workers were retrenched in the first quarter of this year. In the second quarter, preliminary findings of our survey on private sector establishments with at least 25 workers show that some 5,600 workers were affected by retrenchments. Based on voluntary notifications by companies to the Ministry, the number of workers affected by retrenchments in the third quarter would be higher than the figures registered in the first and second quarters. For the whole of this year, the estimated number of workers who may be retrenched could reach 20,000. This is significantly higher than the figure of 11,624 recorded last year but is lower than the figure of 29,086 retrenched in 1998. Total employment in the first quarter of this year rose by 23,210, seasonally lower than the 35,066 in the last quarter of 2000. However, based on changes in employment up to May and forecast of economic conditions ahead, total employment for this year is likely to be flat or slightly negative as against a sharp employment gain of 108,500 in 2000. Unemployment is expected to rise to around 4% by year end. However, the forecast of annual average unemployment for 2001 is lower in the range of 3% to 3.5% because of the generally lower figures in the first half as unemployment tends to lag economic activities.

In view of such a high number of retrenchments, does the Ministry have any plans to help the retrenched workers?

Sir, I will give the Member the answer when he asks the next Question.

asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there are sectors currently facing a shortage of workers and, if so, which are the sectors; and (b) how Singaporean workers can be given assistance to qualify for jobs in these sectors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the employment situation, as I have just mentioned earlier, has deteriorated over the past few months due to the economic downturn. The construction and manufacturing sectors have been badly hit, with net employment declining by 2,160 and 1,075 respectively, in the first quarter of this year. In contrast, the services sector has continued to register positive employment growth of 28,200 over the same period. Job vacancies were highest in the transport, storage and communication industries, which saw nearly 3,000 job openings in the first quarter of this year. Other services industries such as financial services, wholesale and retail trade also had high job vacancies. While the situation may have worsened since then, there are still job opportunities. According to industry feedback in recent months, there continue to be job vacancies in the services sector. For instance, there is a shortage of housekeepers, receptionists, waiters/waitresses and cooks in the hotel and restaurant sector; ambulance attendants, healthcare assistants in the healthcare sector; and childcare assistants in the education sector. The transport and logistics sector is also hiring vehicle mechanics and warehouse assistants. We are still facing a shortage of nurses, pharmacists, radiographers in the healthcare sector; and administrative support staff in the education sector. There are also vacancies for network analysts and software developers in the infocomm sector; actuaries and underwriters in the finance sector; and engineers and technicians in the pharmaceutical and aerospace industries. While manufacturing industries such as the electronics industry are cutting jobs, there are still jobs available in the services sector. However, the skill sets required in the services sector may be different. To help our older and lower skilled retrenched workers make the switch to new jobs, we started a pilot programme called the 'People for Jobs' Traineeship Programme in June this year. This is like an apprentice programme for mid-career workers. Under this programme, my Ministry provides financial support of up to $3.80 per hour or $600 per month for 3 months for companies which employ the older retrenched workers. This will encourage employers to recruit retrenched workers and ease their transition to a new industry and work environment. To date, more than 30 companies from various industries like the hotel, retail, security service sectors have already signed on with this programme. They have made available 1,000 vacancies for room attendants, sales assistants, cashiers, security officers and others. In addition, to help Singaporeans better qualify for the available positions, my Ministry works closely with relevant organisations to enhance the short and long term re-employment prospects of retrenched workers through training. For instance, under the sponsorship of surrogate employers such as the NTUC and self-help groups, retrenched Singaporeans can benefit from Skills Redevelopment Programme training. To encourage these surrogate employers to reach out to more workers, from 1st August 2001, the Skills Development Fund will increase its course fee support for trainees aged 40 and above under the surrogate employer scheme from 80% to 100%. As for trainees below 40 years old, my Ministry will provide a separate grant from the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund to surrogate employers to help offset part of their cost. These measures will equip displaced workers with the right skills for available jobs. We will also supplement training efforts with employment assistance to match individuals with jobs. The Career Centre at my Ministry, CareerLink@mom, provides free employment assistance services to Singaporeans. From this month, my Ministry will also be starting a series of community based job fairs to bring together job seekers and employers. We target to organise an average of one job fair per month for the rest of the year. The Government will do its best to help retrenched workers transit to new jobs in new industries that require different skills. However, we urge retrenched workers to be flexible and adaptable, and make the necessary adjustments to take on these jobs, such as accepting shift work and even working occasionally on weekends.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the quality of our services sector could be further improved compared to many countries, especially the consumer services? May I also ask the Minister whether now is the opportune time to address this issue and how would his Ministry address this issue?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot say that my Ministry is an expert on the quality of service in the retail sector. But we have seen reports or comments where people have felt that the quality of service of the retail sector personnel needs further improvement. If we look at the experience of some other countries, I remember in the middle of the 80s, Hong Kong underwent a severe economic downturn. Prior to that, Hong Kong had a rather poor reputation for service quality but, as a result of the economic downturn, there was a dramatic transformation. Hong Kong's retail sector, in particular, and the services sector, in general, made a really dramatic improvement in the quality of service that they were offering. Perhaps, in the same way, with this downturn and the loosening of the labour market where jobs do not easily come by, people who move into the services sector should make a greater effort to provide better service to ensure that they can hold on to their jobs and, in general, that will help to raise the quality of service. At the same time, training will also make a difference. That is why in our programme like `People for Jobs' Traineeship Programme, one of the key factors is to require the employer to provide proper training for the new recruits and part of this training will include providing better service quality. We are also providing community-based CREST training modules. These are basic learning-to-learn skills which can help workers to better understand how to relate to customers' requirements and how to improve the service quality that they have to provide. In fact, there are several programmes that will help to enhance the skills and service quality of our retail and services sectors.

Sir, it may be more difficult for us to shift the existing manufacturing workers to jobs in the healthcare sector like nursing and administrative support staff in MOE. But I think it is easier for us to consider helping the manufacturing workers to move to jobs in the hotel and transport sectors. Would the Ministry consider some concrete plans or conversion programme to help these workers and, more importantly, to assist the employers so that they will also change their mindset to accept these older workers from the manufacturing sector?

Sir, the `People for Jobs' Traineeship Programme will in fact address the concern raised by the Member. Those who are shifting from the manufacturing sector into jobs, whether it is in the transport, warehousing or services sector, will receive some training by the employers who will also receive Government support of up to $600 per month for the first three months of the worker's employment. This will help them to overcome the initial difficulties. As to whether the jobs in the healthcare sector are suitable for those in the manufacturing sector to be redeployed to, there are some jobs in the healthcare sector that require almost professional qualifications and I understand it will not be easy for people to shift over to these jobs. But there are also jobs in the healthcare sector, for instance, nursing assistants or nursing aides who help in the general running of providing basic services in the hospitals, which can be taken but, of course, with some form of training, because it is a totally different working environment and the requirements are quite different. But we are prepared to help employers who are ready to recruit the displaced workers from the manufacturing sector and to put them into these jobs in the healthcare sector.

Sir, may I ask the Minister three questions. The first is, while I commend these extra efforts, may I enquire how much this would cost. The second question is: are there targets? How effective do we hope to be in creating the number of jobs that we hope to create or match? And thirdly, can I ask the Minister if there will be a special effort to target or differentiate the higher educated, the white-collar and managerial people who will lose jobs?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we set out with a modest budget to start off as a pilot project for these people for a jobs programme in June this year. But since the situation has got worse since then, we are prepared to raise the budget and, as my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, said on 25th July when he announced the package of measures, the Government is prepared to put in as much financial resources as necessary to keep this programme running as long as there are takers from the employers and there are workers who are prepared to make the effort to acquire the new skills to work in the jobs that are available. How effective? We will measure the effectiveness at the end of the day by the rate at which we can redeploy the displaced workers from the manufacturing sector into the services sector. In a way, it is to avoid increasing the degree of structural unemployment among our workforce, because if we do not succeed in making this redeployment, and knowing that many of the manufacturing sector's low-skilled jobs are unlikely to return even if the economy turns around, we may well be saddled with a very high level of structural unemployment. So at the end of the day, we can measure how effective our programmes are if we are able to keep structural unemployment as low as possible. On the question about special efforts to differentiate the higher skilled workers, as I mentioned in my main reply, there are also jobs for the higher skilled workers that are available today in the infocomm sector. For instance, in the healthcare sector, there are also jobs for professionals. As I have also mentioned previously, for most of the higher educated, it is not so much a question of further skills upgrading, because they are already highly skilled, highly educated individuals. So they may be far more adaptable to take on different kinds of jobs with different requirements. Their job skills may not perfectly fit what is available now. Nevertheless, we are prepared to help them acquire a set of skills that can help them in taking on the new jobs, and I refer specifically to a programme that we launched in 1999. This is called the Strategic Manpower Conversion Programme. This is a programme that will reach out to the better educated who need to acquire a different set of job skills, eg, those who are already degree or diploma holders but do not have sufficient expertise in the infocomm sector. And this is one sector that is still generating job vacancies and looking for people. So we are prepared to help them undergo a short period of training to acquire the infocomm skills, then they can go into these jobs. We have extended the programme from infocomm to e-learning and we will be looking at other areas where we can likewise provide a similar conversion training for the better educated so that they can take on the available jobs.

asked the Minister for Education (a) how many schools have established Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs); (b) whether schools with PTAs (i) are effective in fostering shared responsibility between teachers and parents in the children's education; and (ii) have less complaints by parents against teachers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, about two-thirds of our schools have established parent support structures. Out of these, about 5% of them have registered parent-teacher associations (PTAs) and about 65% have established parent support groups (PSGs). Parent support groups are more informal, allowing parents to contribute their time and effort whenever they are able to do so, and the remaining schools are in varying stages of setting up their parent support structures. These structures have helped foster a shared responsibility between parents and teachers in the children's education. The PTAs and PSGs serve as a channel of communication and feedback between parents and the school, and help develop better parent-school understanding. The PTAs and PSGs also participate in the organisation and execution of school activities for the school children. Many of them bring valuable expertise and experience for the benefit of the school children. Sir, up to now, we do not have data on the number of complaints by parents against teachers at the school level. However, the general feeling among principals is that the regular dialogue between PTAs, PSGs and the schools, and their participation in school activities have resulted in an improvement in the relationship between the schools and parents.

asked the Minister for Health whether his Ministry will consider reviewing the guidelines to include the use of Medisave for annual medical check-ups.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Medisave scheme is primarily designed to help individuals meet their personal or immediate family's hospitalisation expenses, especially during old age. However, over the years, we have extended Medisave to certain outpatient treatment, such as chemotherapy. My Ministry has considered extending the use of Medisave for health screening, including annual medical check-ups, and decided against it. First, there are many types of health screening, of which many are not cost effective. Second, for certain cost-effective health screenings, such as mammography and pap smear, my Ministry has already made them affordable by providing heavy subsidies at the polyclinics. Also, we have introduced the Community Health Screening Programme for the elderly to detect diabetes, hypertension and high blood cholesterol. Again, the cost is minimal, as the elderly pays up to $5 for the screening which costs around $20. Therefore, Singaporeans need not rely on Medisave to pay for cost-effective health screening. There is always the temptation to liberalise Medisave for various types of healthcare services. We have to guard against such a tendency, as an overly liberal extension of Medisave will result in even higher rates of contributions into the Medisave Account.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he will consider reviewing the various types of medical screening that are available, because we all know that with advancements in technology, certain kinds of test can actually help one detect serious illness early enough and, with early detection, it will help Singaporeans manage their Medisave savings better in the long term. So I would like to ask the Minister whether he will consider looking at the various kinds of screening again to see whether these can be introduced at some point of time in the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is indeed what we have done. We all believe in evidence-based medicine, and we regularly look at the tests which are done. If the clinical trials and the tests show that certain types of screening are indeed effective, then we introduce these and we make these mass-based. This we have done for pap smear and mammography, and we have also done, for the community health screening, for diabetes and high blood cholesterol and hypertension. But there is a wide range of medical screenings. So we look at the evidence and, if the evidence shows that a nation-wide mass screening is effective, we do indeed undertake this screening.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can think of one example of screening that would help manage the patients' medical resources in the long term. For instance, if we can scope Singaporeans intensively and aggressively, we can help detect some form of stomach cancer and colorectal cancer. And early detection in these areas of cancer would be useful for the patients concerned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no evidence right now that a nation-wide scoping, as Mr Sin puts it, is going to be cost effective in preventing or detecting these cancers early enough. There are just too many false positives and false negatives involved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister for Health whether he agrees that prevention is better than cure. If it is, would he not encourage more people to practise this concept using their own funds by allowing them to go for health screening for the common cancers, such as colorectal cancer as mentioned earlier by my parliamentary colleague, Mr Sin Boon Ann, and breast cancer using their Medisave?

I do believe that prevention is better than cure and, therefore, I urge all Singaporeans to have a very healthy lifestyle. Screening is not a key mechanism for prevention. If we all undertake to have a healthy lifestyle, we will go a long way in making health care affordable and reducing healthcare costs. As I have said, I have not ruled out health screening as a useful device. But before we undertake a mass health screening and also allow Medisave to be used for health screening, we have to be very careful. First, we have to be convinced that the health screening based on trials and evidence is effective, otherwise we undertake a major health screening and we get people all worked up, too many false results and it is not money put to good use. Secondly, we must remember that Medisave is really intended as savings for medical treatment for old age. The amount of money that we put aside for Medisave is estimated, for the average Singaporean, to pay for about 10 or 11 hospitalisation episodes. So if we ask our constituents, those below 60 years old, as I do regularly in the dialogue sessions, to put up their hands if they had been hospitalised more than twice or thrice, very few had done so. In fact, most of the hospitalisation episodes are when we are old, when we are 65, 70 or 75. That is the whole purpose of the Medisave account - to save for the day when we are retired and we have to pay for our hospitalisation. When we are still active, earning and have our own savings, we should use these to pay for the other types of health screening which different people want to undergo, and reserve the Medisave accounts for hospitalisation in our old age.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister what other new healthy lifestyle programmes his Ministry will be promoting.

We stick to the old one, ie, do not smoke, eat healthily, exercise, manage our stress.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your patience and indulgence of the hon. Members of this House? I beg to differ with the Minister for Health on what he has just said. Sir, last year, 4,220 Singaporeans died from cancers, constituting about 27% of all deaths. Colorectal cancer is the commonest cancer among Singapore men and women, and breast cancer is the most frequent killer of Singapore women.

Dr Neo, can you ask your question?

Sir, can I seek your patience? I am coming to my question.

Can you ask your question now?

I will come to it, Sir, because I need to state the facts.

I am sorry. You will have to frame your facts in your question.

All right. Mr Speaker, Sir, the most important factor is early detection. Therefore, may I ask the Minister for Health whether he will facilitate more people to go for early detection by allowing them to use their Medisave?

I do not dispute the number of people who died through cancer. People also die through heart disease, strokes and many other causes. The approach is, really, for effective mass screening, we do encourage. For mammography, we have it in our polyclinics, and we subsidise it up to 50%. I do not think cost is the main deterrent in people coming forward for screening. We have run free mammographies, and the take-up rate is still very low. So it is a whole process of education and getting people to come forward. Cost is not the key issue here. Other forms of health screening, where there is evidence that they are effective, we would do so. Colorectal cancer is one of the key cancer killers in Singapore. We are looking at other tests, not necessarily scoping, as a way of doing some kind of screening. We are still in the process of evaluating the efficacy of such tests. But I would urge against a trigger-happy use of our Medisave. Medisave should be largely utilised for hospitalisation episodes in the later stages of our life.

Sir, may I ask the Minister whether it is correct to say that mammography in the polyclinics is only applicable to women aged 50 years and above on demand, that there is no population screening programme and there is also a co-payment fee of $50 for each screening? But since an average of three women are diagnosed with breast cancer, half of them are below 50 years of age, and that breast cancer is curable if detected early, should not the Minister facilitate more women to go for early screening and save lives?

We have to use our Medisave carefully. I sympathise entirely with women who want to do their breast screening early. I would urge them to do so. My usual reply to them is: save on one hairdo and use the money for breast screening. I have been taken to task by many of my hairdressers in Telok Blangah but I think this is still my main message.

May I ask the Minister whether it is better to use Medisave to detect early diseases and save lives rather than safeguarding the Medisave for old age and end-stage diseases by which time, the funds in the Medisave would have been made redundant in the case of cancers for such patients?

Sir, if the Members here support an increase in the Medisave contribution rate, I would allow Medisave to be used for such screening.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to register my thanks to the Minister for Health for his consideration and may I also urge the Minister to expedite this reconsideration. But, Sir, would he also comment on the colonoscopy for colorectal cancer, please?

I have already said so in my reply that there is no strong evidence that mass screening through colonoscopy works. There are studies done in the United States and other countries and there is no evidence to say that mass screening works. We are looking at the evidence. We are looking at such clinical tests and when we are convinced that it is effective, we would do so.

Sir, may I ask the Minister whether I am correct to say that colonoscopy is actually the most widely and currently advocated screening test for colorectal cancer and is, at the moment, being adopted by America because they have very high incidence of colorectal cancer just like Singapore?

I have had this debate in my Ministry many times and my doctors tell me that right now, there is no evidence, on efficacy grounds, to do it in Singapore.

Is the Minister suggesting therefore that the annual executive health screening programme that some of us go through is not really an effective form of medical detection?

It is an effective screening and I think you should use your cash to pay for it. For the bulk of Singaporeans, if they all just turn up for the community health screening, I will be very happy as the Health Minister. Even if I allow Medisave to be used for executive health screening, it would not be the bottom 50% of Singaporeans who will go for this screening and this is the group that presents the greatest challenge for us, not the top 30%. And even if you go for executive health screening, you do not scope every year. The doctors would tell you if you are in the high-risk group, and you only scope if you are above 50 years old. If you can afford it and you want to do it every year, by all means, do so. But please do not use Medisave.

Sir, would the Minister not agree with me that it is precisely for the bottom 50% of Singaporeans who cannot afford the cash outlay that they need to use these Medisave resources, which is their own money, for the purpose of this health screening?

For the bottom 50%, if they turn up first for the community health screening, it will go a long way to minimise the health problems faced by them. That is our priority. That is our main challenge - to get the older folks and lower-income people to do regular health screening. The $20 health screening will go a very long way in minimising all these chronic illnesses.

Sir, I essentially think that we probably are alarmed. I would like to ask the Minister, before I get called to order, if we could have the reassurance that for all the efficacious screening tests that can be done, his Ministry will do the best to expeditiously implement such screening programmes so that, in fact, we do not have to resort to liberalising the use of Medisave. I think that may be a better way of going about it.

My Ministry would definitely do so. We are in charge of healthcare. We want the best outcomes for Singaporeans. If we are assured that health screening is effective, you can have my assurance that we will do it quickly.

"to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 1999 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Manpower (Dr Lee Boon Yang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read. 1.05 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill seeks to modify provisions in the Patents Act concerning the regulation of patent agents and to introduce a number of minor amendments to streamline patent administration and strengthen the patent legal framework. First, I would touch on the modifications of patent agents provisions. Sir, clause 14 seeks to amend sections 104 and 105 of the Patents Act to improve the provisions governing the regulation of patent agents. Let me explain, Sir, that when the Patents Act was brought into force in 1995, we delayed the entry into force of sections 104 and 105, in so far as they relate to patent agents. The reason for that was that we wanted to allow time for fledgling patent regime to mature before starting our own patent agent profession. More than five years have now passed since Singapore first had our own indigenous patent regime. I think the time is now right to start our own patent agent profession. However, sections 104 and 105 will have to be modified before bringing them into operation. We seek to modify those provisions after the corresponding provisions in the UK patents law. They place no restrictions on the categories of persons who can provide patent agent services. They merely prohibit persons who are not registered patent agents from describing themselves as patent agents. That situation, Sir, is peculiar to the United Kingdom. All the other major jurisdictions we have studied, for example, the United States, Australia, France, Japan, Germany, and the European Patent Office have a more rigorous regulatory regime. They all require a person to attain certain minimum qualifications before he is allowed to practise as a patent agent. We believe that Singapore should adopt a more rigorous system of regulation in order to promote our drive to be a regional dynamic intellectual property hub. We should be mindful that a single high-profile mistake, made by an unqualified patent agent whom we have allowed to practise here, could easily damage Singapore's reputation as an IPR hub. The revised sections 104 and 105 therefore provide that only registered patent agents and lawyers are allowed to provide patent agent services. This model was adopted in Australia. Individuals will only be allowed to be registered as patent agents if they meet the qualifying criteria set by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore or benefit from the transitional provisions, all of which will be provided in the Rules. With this amendment, only registered patent agents will be allowed to hold themselves out as patent agents. The qualifying criteria to be set by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore will be similar to those in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Japan. First of all, applicants will have to attend a 16-week foundation course in intellectual property law conducted by the National University of Singapore Law Faculty and obtain a Graduate Certificate in IP Law. Secondly, they will have to undergo a one-year internship programme under the supervision of a prescribed registered patent agent. The Asian Patent Attorneys Association, International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys (FICPI) and the Law Society of Singapore will assist in the securing of both overseas and local placements. The National Science and Technology Board will assist in co-funding the course fees and payment of an allowance to the applicants during internship (if the applicant is co-sponsored by a corporate body), through its Manpower Upgrading for Science and Technology (MUST) programme. Thirdly, the applicants will have to pass a qualifying examination set by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore. Provisions would be put in place to enable flexibility in meeting certain registration requirements such as waivers of certain components, courses, as are adopted in other countries. As regards transitional arrangements for IP lawyers currently practising as patent agents, some lawyers today are already using the term "patent agent" to describe themselves. As such, provisions will be made in the rules to allow lawyers who currently have an active patent practice to register themselves as patent agents, without having to go through the qualifying examinations. This approach has been worked out in consultation with the Law Society of Singapore and the Asian Patent Attorneys Association (Singapore Chapter). But we have to be satisfied that they indeed have had an active patent practice. As regards rights of audience, clause 13(a) of the Bill will amend section 94(1) to provide that only registered patent agents and lawyers may represent parties in proceedings before the Registrar of Patents. Clause 13(c) will amend section 94(2) to provide that only lawyers may represent parties in an appeal from the Registrar to the High Court. The current section 94(2) would have allowed registered patent agents to appear in Court. But then this again is a provision adopted from the UK law. In the United Kingdom, this provision posed no difficulties as they have a specialised Patents Court. Our system is more in line with that of Australia, where there are no specialised patents courts, and thus no special rights of audience in the courts for patent agents. Let me stress that no accrued rights are affected by this change as there are as yet no registered patent agents in Singapore. Let me touch on other minor amendments, Sir. First, as regards the removal of dependency on a patent being in force in the United Kingdom, section 36(4) provides for rules that require the submissions of renewals of patents registered under the repealed Registration of United Kingdom Patents Act, to be accompanied by a statutory declaration that the patent remains in force or has not been revoked in the United Kingdom. We are removing this restriction as the renewal of a Singapore patent, in our view, should not be dependent on whether it is in force in the United Kingdom, and a proprietor should be free to maintain his Singapore patent. This is provided in clause 8(b). Next, section 116(3) is a transitional provision that provides for the continued validity of patents previously registered under the repealed Registration of United Kingdom Patents Act, as long as the patent is not revoked in the United Kingdom. We are similarly removing this condition. Finally, Sir, the Bill also includes amendments that will modify certain procedural requirements relating to applications and grants of patents, facilitate the implementation of an electronic patent register and the maintenance of information in an electronic environment, and dispense with the need to gazette new entrants to the Paris Convention and WTO as convention countries. It also extends the protection of visiting aircraft and ships from patent infringement proceedings to ships and aircraft from WTO countries, and will remove doubts concerning the Minister's rule-making powers. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of this Bill, which is a further step in building the legal infrastructure necessary to sustain a knowledge-based economy. This House debated the setting up of the Intellectual Property Office (IPOS) only in February. Now we are looking at another dimension of intellectual property, namely, patents. In particular, this Bill seeks to regulate further the patenting system in Singapore, which means the provision for a register of patent agents in Singapore. This is an important legal institution in an economy that places a premium on creativity and enterprise. Sir, I would like to seek clarifications on a couple of matters relating to the registration of patent agents and their practice. First, if I read clause 14 correctly, no one, individual, partner or director, can refer to himself, the partnership or the company respectively as a patent agent or patent attorney unless the individual, partner or director is a registered patent agent. Can the Minister confirm that this is the position? If so, would this mean that no lawyer or law firm can actually say that they are in the practice of patent law? Clause 14 contains a new section 105(4) which describes what the practice of a patent agent is. This seems to describe also what certain law firms currently are doing in their intellectual property departments. Can they continue to do so if they do not have a partner or director who is registered as a patent agent? This interpretation could cause immense problems for the well-established law firms, which usually employ foreign patent agents, to draft the technical parts of a patent application. Once the new provisions come into force, will these firms still be able to call themselves as being in the practice of patent law? If not, would this not be regarded as a drawback to developing a strong legal practice in patent law and indeed in intellectual property law? On the other hand, I am also concerned that by employing just one registered patent agent as a partner or director, a law firm can then immediately advertise itself as being in patent law practice. I am sure that we do not want law firms who are not adequately equipped with intellectual property law expertise to elevate themselves into this lucrative but specialised practice of patent application. I agree with the Minister that a botched patent application can cause an inventor millions of dollars. Should we then not look very seriously at other criteria concerning this matter of who or what firm can be called properly patent law agents or patent law attorneys? Secondly, I am also troubled by the fact that in February, when we debated the IPOS Bill, there was then a provision requiring intellectual property advisers to be registered. I raised the concern then that this might be over regulating and that the scope of that section was too wide. Here, I wonder whether we are also drawing the correct line in specifying that a firm with a registered patent agent as a partner can describe itself as being in the business of patent law but not otherwise. While I support the Bill in general, I hope that more attention would be paid to this issue. I also hope that some attempt be made to rationalise these provisions with the provision in the IPOS Act concerning intellectual property advisers. Otherwise we shall be requiring multiple registrations. For example, lawyers who want to be in patent law practice, they may have to register as intellectual property advisers, patent agents and, of course, advocates and solicitors. Is this really what we intend? Sir, I hope the Minister would be prepared to look into the prospect of future amendments, if needed. And on that note, I support the Bill.

Sir, I thank Prof. Chin for supporting the Bill. He has raised a few questions which I have to clarify. Let me first explain the present situation and what the Bill seeks to do. Under the present situation, any lawyer and any law firm can advise on patent law and patent application process. Any lawyer and law firm, at the moment, can hold himself and the firm as a patent agent. What the amendment seeks to do is to restrict the instances of any lawyer or law firm holding themselves out as a registered patent agent. But we will not prevent a law firm or lawyer from continuing to be engaged in the practice of patent law. I will make that overall clarification first. Now, I will turn to his specific question. First, he asked whether he has read clause 14 correctly, ie, no one, individual, partner or director, can refer to himself as a patent agent unless the individual is a registered patent agent or the firm has at least one partner or director as a registered patent agent. Indeed, that is so, and his reading of it is correct. But Prof. Chin is not correct when he goes on to extrapolate from this that this means that a law firm from now onwards will not be able to say that they are in the practice of patent law. This is incorrect, because lawyers and law firms can continue to be engaged in the practice of patent law. In fact, I would say that they will even be able to advertise the fact that they can advise on patent law. What they cannot do is to say that they are registered patent agents or firm of patent agents. Let me stress why this is important because we do not want the public to be confused and to be under the impression that partners in the firm have gone through this rigorous qualification process and have obtained the qualifications to become registered patent agents when they are not. This position that we have in this amending Bill has, in fact, been adopted from the model in Australia, and it has worked well there. I am told that it has not raised any problems concerning the legal profession there. Prof. Chin, in a sense, in his comments, has expressed concern whether the provisions are too strict. And in the closing part of what he said expressed concern whether it would be too wide, that illustrates the problem which we have to attend to. In the present model, any lawyer can practise patent law. Any lawyer can hold himself out as a registered patent agent. Sections 104 and 105, which we are now seeking to amend, as they stand, would require a law firm or a company to have every one of the partners and every one of the directors to be a registered patent agent, which I think is too strict. So, what we are seeking to do is to say that at least one of the partners ought to be a registered patent agent. I think this is a reasonable balance because, in a law firm, you may have many other partners being conversant and competent in different areas. And, as I said, this practice has worked well in Australia and I think it ought to work well for our purposes. Sir, Prof. Chin has expressed concern over the possibility of over regulation. I hope that, to some extent, I have allayed that concern because, partly, it stems from his interpretation of the provisions that it may prevent lawyers from engaging in the practice of patent law. But he also based his concern on the IPOS Bill when he said that there was a provision requiring intellectual property advisers to be registered. I think Prof. Chin might have misinterpreted the provisions in the IPOS Bill, because there is no provision which requires IP advisers to be registered. What he might be thinking about is the enabling provision in the IPOS Bill which at some time in the future, if and when the situation requires, would enable the statutory board to bring about a situation of registration. But there is, as such, no requirement now under the law for an IP adviser to be registered, and we explained in this House why the situations can arise where the enabling provision might have to be invoked. So his concern that there may be multiple registrations is, in fact, not the case. Sir, I hope I have explained all the concerns of Prof. Chin and I am glad that he has noted that there can be serious consequences if persons who are not qualified to act as registered patent agents were to do so and in the course of doing so, commit a serious mistake.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his clarifications. I would just like to confirm that even under the Bill, if passed and brought into force, a law firm can therefore still engage in the practice of patent law. But do I understand him to say that they could also advertise themselves as being in the practice of patent law, even if they do not have any partner registered as a patent agent?

Sir, perhaps I should be a bit more circumspect in talking about law firms advertising, because that must be dealt with by the profession, as to the circumstances in which law firms can advertise and so on. But as far as this Bill is concerned, it does not prevent a lawyer or an advocate and solicitor from practising patent law. And perhaps if you look at the bottom of page 6 of the Bill, new section 105(1) says: 'An individual shall not carry on a business, practise or act as a patent agent unless he is a registered patent agent, or an advocate and solicitor, [this is the key point] .' Then you look at page 7, paragraph (4)(c) which says, "giving advice .. about the validity, or infringement, of patents." New section 105(1) deals with the situation of practising as a patent agent. New section 105(5) is a provision which deals with holding oneself out as a registered patent agent. It says: 'An individual shall not -

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

Order for Second Reading read. 1.30 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Parliamentary elections are of vital importance to Singapore and should be conducted in a fair and orderly manner, free from distractions and undue influence. Our electoral processes also need to be updated to take into account new developments such as the Internet. This Bill proposes amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act to, firstly, regulate political campaigning on the Internet; secondly, prohibit the publication during the election period of the results of opinion surveys on how electors intend to vote; and, thirdly, disallow a person from contesting simultaneously in more than one constituency. I will cover each of these issues in turn. Internet Political Campaigning The General Election in 1997 took place under rules that predated the Internet and did not allow political parties to post election materials on their websites during the campaign. At the time, few people had access to the Internet. In the five years since, the popularity of the Internet has grown tremendously. Singapore already has the highest Internet penetration rate in Asia at 48%. Broadband access, which currently stands at around 90,000 subscribers, will become even more widespread in a few years. Mr Speaker, Sir, contrary to what the media have been speculating, the Government has decided to allow political campaigning on the Internet in the upcoming General Election. However, a free-for-all Internet campaigning environment without rules is not advisable. The Internet is a double-edged sword. Whilst it facilitates discussion and communication, the seriousness of political debates may be cluttered by noise, mischief or frivolities during the election period. Worse, the anonymity in the Internet opens a door for surreptitious elements to mislead, distract and confuse the public. On the Internet, once a false story or rumour is started, it is like water that has been spilt. It is almost impossible to remedy matters, especially in the limited period of an election campaign. The Government has always maintained that politics should be based on factual and objective presentation of issues, and reasoned debate. Regulations are therefore necessary to protect the integrity of our electoral process, and guide responsible use of the Internet during the elections. Let me now highlight the new provisions on Internet campaigning. Clause 7 of the Bill inserts new sections 78A to 78E. Section 78A will empower the Minister to make regulations concerning Internet "election advertising" (as defined in clause 2) during the election period from the day the writ of election is issued to the close of all polling stations on Polling Day. These regulations will apply to political party websites and non-party political websites which are required to be registered with the Singapore Broadcasting Authority under its Class Licence Scheme. The regulations will stipulate the features which these websites may contain. For party political websites, the allowable features will include party posters and manifesto, candidate profiles, announcements of party events, party position on issues, moderated chats and discussion forums. However, non-party political sites should not campaign for any party. For example, they should not display party banners or candidate profiles. Such restrictions are necessary to ensure a level playing field and that political parties do not make use of non-party political sites to circumvent the rules on election campaigning, including accountability for all election expenses and political donations. The full list of Internet features will be released when it is finalised. New section 78B will prohibit new displays of, or changes in, election advertising in all media on Polling Day. This is in line with current rules to disallow campaigning on Polling Day. This practice allows voters to reflect and vote in an atmosphere free from new election advertising messages on Polling Day. Section 78B, however, does not prohibit the publication of any news or current affairs coverage of the election in newspapers or in radio and television broadcasts. The penalties for contravening section 78A and 78B are, upon conviction, a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both. "Election Survey" and Exit Polls Sir, let me now turn to the issue of the impact of opinion polls on the electoral process and election outcomes. Opinion polls or surveys often give the illusion that they reflect public opinion on certain issues and could mislead the public. Quick polls often use small sample sizes, bad question design and improper sampling, leading to inaccurate or slanted results. For instance, in the recent US Presidential Elections, the early projections of election results by the major media networks were faulty and might have influenced the election outcome. The Internet makes it easy for anyone to conduct a survey online without proper controls, often leading to misleading or confusing results. Let me cite a recent example. A local website ran a poll on whether the death penalty in Singapore was supported. During the first seven days of the poll, some 83% of the respondents had voted in favour of the death penalty. Within the next four days, however, there was an about-turn resulting in the converse finding that 69% of the respondents were not in favour of capital punishment. How did such an about-turn occur? Opinion polls can also give rise to a "horse-race" mentality, which can distract voters from learning the candidates' qualifications and their positions on key issues. This unhealthy preoccupation with survey results distorts and trivialises the election process and the seriousness of purpose of a General Election. Laws governing the publication of opinion poll results will need to be put in place to prevent this from occurring. Some 30 countries in Europe, the Americas and Asia have imposed embargoes on the publication of election opinion polls and exit polls prior to, and on, Polling Day. For example, in Luxembourg, the embargo period is more than 30 days, for Italy 28 days, Venezuela 15 days and France 14 days. For Switzerland, Chile and Mexico, it is 7 days. Clause 7 of the Bill will insert a new section 78C to prohibit the publication of the results of any "election survey" which is defined as an opinion survey of how electors will vote at an election in respect of any candidate, group of candidates, political party or issue identifiable with them. This embargo will apply to all media, during the election period from the day of the issue of writ of election to Polling Day. The existing Act already prohibits the publication of exit polls. To remove any ambiguity, the new section 78D explicitly disallows the publication of exit poll results in all media on Polling Day. The penalty for contravening the new sections 78C and 78D would be, upon conviction, a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both. Multiple nominations Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now deal with clause 5 of the Bill on the issue of multiple nominations in an election. Currently the Act does not prohibit a person from contesting in two or more constituencies in an election. He may even be returned successfully in all the constituencies. However, Article 47 of the Constitution requires him to give up all but one seat, as it stipulates that one cannot be a Member of Parliament for more than one constituency. An election candidate must be committed to a constituency when he contests there. Since the candidate can only take up one seat even if he wins in more than one constituency, there is no reason why he should be allowed to stand for election in more than one constituency. The existing law dates back to 1947, when the Singapore Legislative Council Elections Ordinance 1947 was enacted, and has its origins in Victorian England. Multiple candidatures are disallowed in Australia, New Zealand, UK local elections and European Parliament elections. As there is no good reason for this provision to continue to exist in Singapore, the Government has decided to amend the Act to disallow multiple nominations. Clause 5 inserts a new section 32A to deal with multiple nominations at a general election or when two or more by-elections are being held at the same time. The new section provides that if a candidate does not withdraw from nominations in all the electoral divisions for which he has been nominated except one, he will have all his nominations invalidated by the law. If his nomination for a Group Representation Constituency is invalidated, the nomination for the rest of the group would also be invalidated unless it can quickly file a fresh nomination before the close of nominations. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. With rapid advances in technology and with one of the highest Internet penetrations in Asia, it has become increasingly more difficult to monitor and control political activities on the Internet in Singapore. This move by the Government to further relax Internet campaigning based on a `positive list' approach, stipulating contents which are allowed into political sites during election is indeed a step in the right direction. Sir, this is also in line with our gradual move towards liberalisation of our censorship policies and the media as we become a more developed country. We would recall that the General Election in 1997, just four years ago, prohibited political campaigning on the Internet. This amendment is therefore a step forward. I am sure in the years to come, this `positive list' will be extended to allow more contents on the Internet during election campaigning. Sir, the Bill, while regulating political campaigning on the Internet, also prohibits the publication of voter intent polls during the elections. I support this amendment as I am convinced that there is good reason for Singaporeans to be concerned about the potentially disruptive impact of pre-election opinion polls. There is no assurance of fairness in the conduct of such polls, which could cover anything from specific issues to pure speculation on the outcome of particular electoral contests. Hence, there is a grave concern that such polls may be cynically structured to produce desired outcomes for promoters, whose primary motivation may be to mislead, to misinform and to unduly influence the election outcome. The risk is particularly high for polls conducted on the Internet which, as we all know, may be rigged, or have a degree of participation from individuals outside of Singapore who have their own agenda and may not necessarily have the interest of Singaporeans at heart. These foreigners will not be here to bear the consequences of their actions, should their actions lead to undesirable outcomes. To some extent, Sir, the fixation of opinion polls in other countries, such as the USA on peripheral issues, some even bordering on the frivolous and scandalous, will only confuse the electorate who may inadvertently focus on single issues, instead of national issues, which are crucial when choosing a government. At worst, it could allow the electoral proceedings and process in Singapore, which has always been conducted according to the highest standards, to be trivialised and be manipulated by parties with agendas that may be inimical to the interest of Singaporeans. The over-reliance of such polls, which are of less relevance than the actual outcome of electoral contests, could undermine the legitimacy of the results and discredit the well-regarded system that we have built up over the years. Sir, one only has to look at the negative effects in the last Presidential Election in the USA, for example, when the international community congratulated the "wrong" President, only to then have to retract and reinstate their messages. For this reason, Sir, the legal restrictions on voter intent polls during the election period is not new. As the Minister has explained, it is being practised in many countries in Europe, the Americas and Asia. This amendment should therefore be viewed positively in this light, ie, we are aligning our laws to be in line with international practices. Sir, coming back to the Bill, some critics have complained that the powers being legislated in this Bill run anathema to Singapore's ambition to be a regional media hub. I beg to disagree. Responsible journalism has always been held in the highest esteem by the end consumer, ie, the public. I am convinced that both the local and foreign broadcasters and other media players in Singapore fully appreciate the fact that responsible reporting does not constitute censorship or restrain their obligations to report, inform and educate. What this Bill does is to make it clear and transparent where the goal posts lie, in order for them to operate effectively. Nevertheless, Sir, the Minister could perhaps comment or give an assurance to this House that the intentions of the Bill have taken into consideration our overall ambition to be a media hub. This affirmation should greatly allay the fears and worries of those, both local and foreign, whose business and employment interests lie in the success of our media hub strategy. Finally, in the enforcement of some of the specific provisions of this Bill, I would like to raise the concern on whether in the way the Bill has been drafted, innocent bystanders will be criminally liable for offences under this Bill. For this, I refer to clause 6 of the Bill which makes it a corrupt practice for any person to publish on the Internet, any election materials without identifying the name of the printer, the publisher and the person for whom or at whose direction the election advertising is published. And where any contravention occurs, the printer as well as the person for whom and at whose direction it is published shall be guilty of an offence. Sir, given the nature of the Internet, and the fact that sites can be hosted on a world-wide basis, there is no way printers can assure themselves that someone, somewhere, sometime may not post a message or host a site displaying election advertising without their authority or consent. Similarly, organisations which are non political in nature may not be able to prevent completely someone from picking up something on their open discussion forums, information listings, or even hijacking their site and publishing such information on their own political sites. Section 78E of the Bill puts the onus on such persons charged with these offences, to prove that the contravention of the provision arose from circumstances beyond their control and indeed all reasonable steps and due diligence have been taken to ensure that the contravention would not arise. It is not clear then, and it is quite subjective what would be "reasonable steps", since it is so easy in this information age for abuse to be conducted without the consent or indeed the knowledge of the producers of such advertising. Could the Minister therefore elaborate on how effective can any enforcement take place when an event like this occurs and how innocent parties to these infringements can adequately be assured that they will not be prosecuted indiscriminately? Finally, Sir, the last amendment to the Bill is to plug a loophole in our law. It disallows a candidate from contesting simultaneously in more than one constituency. I agree with this amendment as, I think, it is impossible for an MP to serve more than one constituency given the demands of an MP's work nowadays. Indeed, this amendment is long overdue. In conclusion, Sir, I hope the Minister would address some of the concerns I have raised in my speech.

Sir, I refer to clause 5 of the Bill. I cannot understand why the Government wants to prohibit multiple nominations. As it is, the Government has already pegged the election deposit at a prohibitively high amount. If a candidate wants to risk losing his deposit, it should be his prerogative. What happens if multiple nominations are allowed and the candidates are returned to, say, three constituencies, either in the GRCs or single seats? If it is a GRC, then there should be no problem. By-elections in any event are not allowed in GRCs. Therefore, there shall always be other Members of Parliament in the GRC to look after his ward if that Member is busy looking after his other constituencies which he has been returned, or in the case of Jalan Besar GRC, the party that has won that constituency can always send one of its Members to be a caretaker MP there. In fact, since such a precedent has been set up in Jalan Besar GRC, the same principle can be adopted for a candidate who has been returned to multiple constituencies. If he is too busy working in one or two of his constituencies, his party can always delegate one of his party members to take care of his ward in another constituency which he has won. In the case of a single seat constituency, the same can be repeated as in the GRC. The single member must run from one constituency to the other constituency to take care of them. If he is unable to do so, then his party will have to delegate one or more of its members to stand in for him. It is the PAP which has set the precedent of sending one of his party members to stand in for a colleague who has left Parliament for whatever reason. I cannot see why a candidate who has been elected to multiple constituencies cannot do the same if voters in those constituencies are willing to vote for him. Voters must be given a free choice to vote a candidate they like. The Government should not legislatively deprive them of their right. Now, I wish to speak on the other amendments in the Bill. I also cannot understand why the Government, on the one hand, spends millions of dollars to promote IT in the schools and ask workers to upgrade their skills but, on the other hand, its use in relation to elections at election time, in some instances, is prohibited. As long as we know who are the people behind the publication advertising the poll findings, other advertisements, or news, I think it should be all right. The Government should allow the people of Singapore to grow up, think for themselves and make their own decisions. Those publications should be allowed as long as we can identify and catch them, if necessary, the persons responsible for those publications and make them accountable for their libel, sedition, or other disseminated matters which are criminal in nature. The Government should give them the freedom to publish, even if the PAP risks losing a few parliamentary seats at the polls. The bigger issue of freedom of publication and allowing our citizens to mature is surely more important for nation building than the party losing a few parliamentary seats. In fact, for years now, the Opposition has been suffering the problem, that the ruling party is afraid of, that is, voters at the last moment may be influenced not to vote for the Opposition. The local press, during the electioneering period and especially on Polling Day, nearly always publishes sensational headlines which are detrimental to the Opposition, so much so that the Opposition has to tell the voters not to read the newspapers on Polling Day, knowing that the headlines in those papers will be devastating to the Opposition. The Opposition is certain that the ruling party is aware that, during election time, the local press almost always gives a bad press to the Opposition. Yet it allows the local press to carry on that practice simply because it knows that it is good for them. My query to the Minister is: will the present amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act cover local press as well? To me, it appears to be so under clause 2 of the Bill. Will the Minister please clarify?

Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. This Bill will have a great impact in shaping the way in which we conduct elections in an information technology environment. In cyberspace, individuals are empowered to communicate their thoughts and ideas to others quickly and extensively. It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, but I have no doubt at all that the computer keyboard is the mightiest of them all. This would be more apparent in the context of an election campaign when claim and counter-claim can be made as fast as one can think and type. Political exchanges taking place in the physical world can be easily dwarfed by those taking place in cyberspace. Individuals and parties can debate and campaign to their hearts' content, literally sitting in their rooms or offices. This Bill and the regulations will eventually provide the rules of engagement for political campaigning in Singapore. It is important therefore that they are seen to be fair to all parties. I also believe strongly in the Minister's statement that politics should be based on factual and objective presentation of issues and reasoned debate. It does not follow of course that such a situation cannot arise in a cyberspace environment. The real question is: if left unregulated, will an undesirable situation arise? By which is meant a situation where voters are not able to judge objectively what is true and what is not. One may argue, for example, that the laws of defamation and other forms of mis-statement would be available to control such excesses and, therefore, further regulation would not be necessary. Be that as it may, the Bill opts for control through regulation, and it is to this approach that I now turn. It is unfortunate that we are debating this Bill without having a complete idea as to what sort of features or items would be allowed on a political website. The Minister mentioned just now that a full list of features will be released when they are finalised. Firstly, may I ask the Minister when we can expect to see such regulations and, in particular, the list? Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister what is the extent to which individuals, as distinct from political parties, can be involved in Internet discussions on political issues? Clause 6 contains a provision that allows individuals to communicate with each other "on a non-commercial basis". This is, to me, a puzzling phrase. Unless these individuals are in the business of political lobbying, I should have thought that all would communicate political views on a non-commercial basis. Even in the case of a candidate writing to a prospective voter, I do not think that he would be acting in a commercial capacity. It must surely be in the public interest that candidates and voters should be able to communicate with each other without being regarded as being in a commercial capacity. Sir, the only type of person that would be caught would be those employed by politicians to answer email or respond to messages, presumably because he is doing so in the course of his employment and, therefore, can be regarded as acting commercially. If this is correct, and I do not say that it is, I wonder whether this is actually Parliament's intention. I should have thought that the objective would be to stop commercial posters using the Internet to bombard individuals with political advertisements. If so, I am not sure that the legislation, as drafted, would achieve in the purpose for restricting such people from doing so. Sir, I would also like to know whether in the case of a political website, is it permissible for such a website to host a page where supporters can, for example, send their messages of support for the party or its policies? Would individuals doing so be regarded as infringing regulations, existing or proposed? I ask this because, again, the amendment exempting individuals from liability only speaks of communicating between individuals, not between individual and political party, for example. So I hope the Minister can clarify this particular point. Sir, I hope that the Minister will make it very clear to every Singaporean that the regulations are not intended to stifle political comment, especially during election time. That would be inimical to the democratic process that we are fostering, and I believe that it would also be against the idea of active citizenry, because the exercise of political judgement and political will is, if one may call it, one of the fundamental attributes of exercising actively one's citizenship. I agree that there must be some regulation so that the stated objective of having a clean and fair election can be maintained, as it has been in the past. But I do hope that the regulations will be seen to be clear and transparent to all parties concerned. Finally, Sir, I express strong support for the restrictions on exit polls and the like. I have often wondered why voters would be swayed simply by numbers rather than issues, so I think this is indeed a very proper thing to exclude from the political campaign period. In general, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that the Government has decided to allow political campaigning on the Internet, albeit with certain ground rules. This should certainly allay the fear of some that the Government would ban the use of Internet for political campaigns. Whilst we recognise the Internet as an easy medium to reach many people and for many people to access information easily, we must also concede that the Internet will be abused by some. Rumours, gossips and unsubstantiated stories can also be relayed instantaneously, which may cause irreparable damage. The proposed section 78A empowers the Minister to make regulations governing non-printed election advertising in an election period and election advertising on the Internet in an election period by political parties, candidates or persons. It states that the Minister would regulate the Internet advertising by prescribing the features that must or must not appear in any election advertising. Sir, I am glad to note that the Minister, in his speech, has chosen to use the "positive list" approach in making these regulations as it would provide clear guidelines to those involved on what is permissible for election political campaigning. It would also help set clear markers to other non-political web masters on what is legal and illegal under the Parliamentary Elections Act. Sir, at first glance, it appears to be a rational move in the light of the fact that the use of the Internet for political purpose is something new here and also in many other countries. Some skeptics, however, claim that it is an uphill battle to try to control the use of the Internet during election periods because of the sheer multitude of users and also by the cross-border nature of Internet traffic. This raises the interesting question how overseas websites which engage in local political activity during election periods will be monitored and censured. Sir, if I recall, very recently, when an election took place in a neighbouring country, a lot of foreign websites were sited overseas and a lot of political discussions involving this particular country's politics were all discussed in these overseas websites. So this certainly poses a challenge to the proposed amendments, and I wonder how the Minister would tackle this issue. Sir, I appreciate that not doing anything is also something no responsible government can afford to do. I would like to ask the Minister for some clarification on the use of the Internet by political parties, candidates and agents during the election period. Firstly, Sir, would the positive list allow mass emails by these political parties' candidates or agents to those who have registered themselves with these political parties and are willing to receive them, ie, those who are willingly submitting their emails to these political parties and candidates and are willing to receive these emails? Will they be subject to these regulations? Secondly, can these individuals send these emails containing political information or advertisements to friends, and will they end up in breach of these regulations? Thirdly, the proposed section 78B seems only to allow the sending of email by individuals to other individuals of his own political views. If one endorses the written viewpoint of candidates or a political party and states that it is also his viewpoint, will it also be in breach of the proposed regulations? Fourthly, Sir, how are individual emails going to be monitored if there are thousands, if not millions, of emails being sent around? Can the monitoring be done without intruding into the privacy of individuals? Fifthly, Sir, are bulletin boards, chat rooms and other websites that discuss political matters permissible during the election period? Let me now move on to the topic of election polls and exit polls. Sir, it is common in many countries, prior to the closing of voting, for opinion polls to be conducted by different organisations. The results of such opinion polls are published in newspapers, magazines and other periodicals, and sometimes telecast or broadcast on the electronic media. The dissemination of such results of opinion polls receives wide publicity and coverage in the print and electronic media, and such dissemination, particularly on the eve of polls, has the potential to influence the electors when they are in the process of making up their minds to vote or not to vote for a certain political party or candidate. Sir, the methodology followed by different organisations conducting such opinion polls varies from organisation to organisation or the agencies conducting such polls. Similarly, the sample size of the electorate covered by such polls and geographic spread of the survey also differs substantially in each case. Sir, apart from opinion polls, exit polls are also conducted by some organisations on the days of polls. Many would agree that opinion polls, the way the same are conducted, are not scientific. There is considerable bias, in the size and nature of the sample drawn, to make such an opinion poll and they tend to influence the voters in an unbecoming manner. It is common fact that many of the polls are motivated and are not impartial, because of the known leanings or prejudices of some of the organisations conducting such polls, towards or against certain political parties and/or their leaders. Sir, I have carefully looked into the existing legislation covering the subject in many countries. I observe that in many states, eg, Canada, France, Italy, Poland, Turkey, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, etc, restrictions in one way or another are placed on the conduct of opinion polls and exit polls. For example, the Canadian Elections Act peremptorily prohibits the publication of any results of any opinion poll two days before the voting begins. Similarly, the Italian Decree Law of 18th November 1995, entitled "Urgent Provisions for Equal Access to the Media during Electoral and Referendum Period" provides that: "Starting from the 20th day before the elections till the closing date of voting, it is forbidden to publish or circulate the results of exit polls, even if such surveys were carried out before the above mentioned period."

Sir, in this context, the provisions of our Parliamentary Elections Act, namely, sections 80 and 81, deserve to be specially noted. Section 80 prohibits canvassing in any manner on polling day. Section 81 prohibits anyone from dissuading any person from voting at an election from the day of nomination and polling day. Sir, the existing law is a clear manifestation of recognition of ground reality by Parliament in its collective wisdom that the voter needs a period before the completion of the poll, during which he should not be disturbed in the process of weighing the merits and demerits of political parties and contesting candidates in the electoral fray, so that he can absorb what he has heard or witnessed during the election period in a tranquil and balanced frame of mind. Sir, viewed in the light of the above statutory restrictions, allowing results of opinion polls and exit polls to be published on the eve of polls or during the polling process would be a deleterious intrusion into the mind of the voter, which is already prohibited by law during the aforesaid period of 24 hours. Sir, in a worldwide study by Nils Rohme on the Freedom To Publish Opinion Polls in 1997, which was highlighted in the Minister's speech, it was reported that 30 of the 78 countries covered in the survey applied legal restrictions on the publication of public opinion surveys, mostly comprising an embargo prior to general elections. It extends anywhere from one day in some and up to six weeks in the case of South Africa. It is also clear from the survey that many countries in the world were not covered in the survey because they do not have regulations governing opinion polls because opinion polls do not exist or are very new in these countries. Sir, I am comforted by the fact that in introducing this piece of legislation we are in the company of many progressive countries in the western world who have recognised the weaknesses and abuse of opinion polls in the democratic process and have placed controls on them. In supporting the Bill, I would like to ask the Minister for three clarifications in this area: Firstly, what is the position if an election survey is done and the results of the survey are put up on a website before the issue of the writ of elections? Is the person in charge of the website obliged to remove the details of the survey during the election period? Secondly, will political parties, candidates and the media be allowed to conduct opinion polls using their website during the election period which is not disseminated to the public, and whether, in the political list which is to be put up for political parties and candidates to observe, they will be allowed to conduct opinion polls for their own use or which they may want to use after the election is over, and this includes the media? Thirdly, Sir, what action will be taken against foreign parties who conduct opinion polls and publish the same overseas during an election period, as criminal laws are territorial in nature, and whether this law has any extraterritorial implications? Perhaps the Minister can comment.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this Amendment Bill is to enhance the control of the form and manner of election campaigning so that the opposition parties and their supporters could not make use of the new technology for effective publicity during the election period, to suppress the limited space where the opposition parties have to communicate with the masses, and thereby reducing the influence of the opposition parties and their chances of winning. Although the Minister mentioned a moment ago in his Second Reading speech that this amendment has allowed the use of Internet during elections, this is, however, only the cosmetic surface of the Bill. What we should pay attention to is that this Amendment Bill redefines election advertising. Under clause 2 of the Amendment Bill, election advertising is defined as follows: "Election advertising means any poster, banner, notice, circular, handbill, illustration, article, advertisement or other material that can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure the electoral success at any election for one or more identifiable political parties, candidates or groups of candidates, . and such material shall be election advertising even though it can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve any other purpose as well and even though it does not expressly mention the name of any political party or candidate."

Sir, from this definition, any expression or article, so long as it is related to the election, can be regarded as election advertising and comes under the control of this Amendment Bill, if this article or expression is published on the Internet. The webmaster of the site can even be fined. For example, if someone puts on the Internet, "Keep it up, Workers' Party", that can be regarded as election advertising too. If someone attends a mass rally and subsequently writes a review on it, it could also be regarded as election advertising. In other words, anyone who gives any view on the Internet, whether to support or to go against any particular party or candidate, can be deemed to be election advertising and come under their control. As to how to control and whether or not it could be published, it will be determined by the Minister. More importantly, this Bill has also given the Government the power to deal with the webmaster of the site who publishes these expressions or articles. As a result, no webmaster would be willing to accept for publication on his site any of these articles. Consequently, this Bill will disable the effective use of Internet during the period of the General Election. Why is it necessary to move this Amendment Bill now? This is because, in the past, only the newspapers and television have the capability to transmit messages to the voters and all these media come under strict control of the Government. During the elections, they all play the same tune. They will inevitably take the side of the Government, and there will be no coverage that is favourable to the Opposition or unfavourable to the PAP. But now, with the arrival of the new media era, the Internet is becoming more and more popular and has become an effective channel to transmit messages to the voters. People also have a new space and channel to express their views and comments. Inevitably, there will be no guarantee that someone who will publish something over the Internet that supports the Opposition party and criticises the PAP, and this may affect the PAP! That is the reason why the PAP Government wants to move this legislation to block all these expressions, articles and comments that are unfavourable to the PAP. This is the true purpose of this Amendment Bill to control the usage of Internet during election. Similarly, why is there a need now to ban the publication of opinion poll and exit poll? The PAP is worried about the effect of Internet. In the past, there was no need to legislate because all the media were under the control of the Government. We all know that during the election period, whether or not the party or the candidate could effectively transmit their messages to their voters is of great importance. All this while, the opposition parties, besides holding election rally, the only way of mass communication was to print and distribute flyers by inserting them into the letterboxes of the voters. It takes a lot of resources to print and to distribute these flyers, particularly in the GRCs. A lot of people, time, energy and money would be needed. Now, with the Internet, a relatively effective channel to transmit the messages is readily available. We do not have to depend on the newspapers and television to send our messages across to our voters. But the PAP Government is blocking this channel, and the Minister now can regulate and restrict the use of the Internet. Hence, the Opposition is again landed in a situation of being disadvantaged. Is this what the PAP Government claims to be fair competition? More apparently, in order to block all these expressions that are favourable to the Opposition, the Government has already classified the SINTERCOM, a non-political party website, as a political website - this move brings the website under the ambit of this amendment. It is regrettable that the PAP is so very kiasu. This Amendment Bill once again reveals the true colours of the PAP - to make use of the power and convenience of Government to legislate to block all channels that Opposition parties could more effectively use to transmit their messages and to communicate with voters so that Opposition party and its supporters are not able to be effective during election. This is the hypocrisy of the PAP's claims to fair competition, democracy and openness!

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill involves the question of principle and the question of rules. I have no doubt whatsoever on the question of principle. Mr Chiam See Tong too commented only on the rules aspect, but not on the principle. I agree with the principle, but on the question of rules, I have some reservations. Mr Chiam asked why a candidate cannot stand for election in more than one constituency. This is like one husband wanting to have many wives. In Singapore, the law prohibits polygamy. Likewise, in an election law, the candidate must contest only in one constituency and serve his constituents there. Mr Chiam must have been eyeing the Jalan Besar GRC in addition to his own Potong Pasir. He is not sure whether to move to Jalan Besar, or to stay in Potong Pasir. So, to have the best of both worlds, he wants to contest in both. Well, he may end up with nothing. I feel that we can support the general principle, and that is, we must have fair competition, to compete on a level playing ground. As we all know, election propaganda or advertising is a very serious matter. Whether it is the political parties or the individuals standing for election, their agenda and views on major national and international issues must be clearly communicated to the voters to win their votes. They should not hide themselves behind the cover of the Internet. They must stand up and say the right things at the right time. They cannot say things indiscriminately, without taking responsibility of what they are saying. On the question of rules, the Member for Hougang, Mr Low Thia Khiang alleged that our liberalisation on the use of Internet for the purpose of election was, in fact, a suppression of the political parties. If someone is to post a slogan, "Keep it up, Workers' Party" on the Internet, I do not think anybody would take any objection to it. So be it! You do not have to worry about anyone going after you just because of that. If you want to participate in politics, you must have the political courage, political intelligence and say what you want to say. If you are not sure, then you should go and do something else instead. On the question of rules, Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the Government is liberalising election advertising on the Internet. Political parties can advertise their platforms with pictures inserted, and the surfers can hear their voice and see their pictures. As the Chinese saying goes, you sheng you se (full of sound and colour). This shows that our legislature and legislation are in pace with the development of technology. But we are allowed to display only still pictures, but not films. So no election advertising motion pictures over the Internet! Full of sound and colour, but no motion! With the advancement of technology, our information providers can string together a series of pictures to animate them and turn these still pictures into some kind of motion pictures. Can the Minister please enlighten us on whether this is allowed under this Bill? I feel that we should review our law on video-tapes so that our manner of election campaigning can keep pace with the development of technology. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on this Bill. I have some sympathy for this Bill and I have more questions than protests or answers. I have sympathy for the Bill because it clearly is a new kid in town, a new medium, the Internet, which is potentially destabilising. I also sympathise in the sense that, at this point, with elections looming and talked about, any change or any new rules would be scrutinised very heavily, especially by the Opposition which has been patently clear from their speeches, believes that the existing media is very much skewed against them. In looking through the nature of the changes, I have looked for some ideas of trying to be balanced about it, trying to have rules that help more and more rational discussions of politics and a maturing of Singapore's young electorate, while avoiding the dangers of, frankly, rules being made to suit the ruling party. Firstly, I would disagree with Mr Chew Heng Ching that I do not think this Bill liberalises the rules. I do not think the positive set of what a political party can put on the website is actually a step in the right direction. I would have much preferred a short, specific negative list. This would then allow much more creativity between the different political parties in dressing up their websites, in doing many more things. In this sense, this positive list, which the Minister has told us, is perhaps the wrong approach. Secondly, I also cannot agree with Mr Chew that it is all clear and transparent. As the Minister himself has noted and the Bill states, there are many more regulations that would be made. Some of the details that the Minister has given are clearly not in the Bill and we will have to wait for a later date to find out what these regulations are. The devil will be in the details. In the same breath, there have been many questions raised by MPs before me and I believe Mr Ravindran himself asked them. There are the details because the making of legislation creates more intricacies. Before Nomination Day, clearly things would be allowed and after that, not so. The question of the timeline and what is allowed by whom are increasingly complex. Let me move on to my next point and that is to seek some clarifications. I am sorry, but I do not think it is clear whether the very basic point if I, as an individual, write an e-mail to one or even a thousand friends with my political opinion, I am not sure that the Bill could not catch me if I were to endorse one candidate or one party. This is particularly because of the definition of political advertising that Mr Low Thia Khiang has pointed to. Secondly, I am not clear as to the ability of non-party sites to allow for debate, to host letters or even to positively endorse one candidate or one party, that is to say, the political party's site obviously can do so. I am not sure what the non-party sites can do. In the real world of real print, I am reminded that the Straits Times, quite traditionally, does endorse one party, the PAP. The question is whether new sites on the website can do the same thing. Let me move on to my next point of even-handedness. Mr Speaker, it does disturb me that the regulations will be made by the Minister because during the campaigning period there is a question of even-handedness when the Minister is to be contested as well. This is particularly as regards to the proposed amendment in section 78B(f) which would allow for exceptions to be made, not only as to (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) which are all quite specific, but (f), an exception to be made to election is banned on "such other circumstances or activities as may be prescribed by the Minister by order in the Gazette." It is not at all apparent to me what these other circumstances or activities may be. We are looking for transparency and even-handedness. I think there needs to be some clearer projection of what this might be. Sir, I also want to pause here to disagree with two other things that Mr Chiam had said. First, if I understood Mr Chiam See Tong correctly, he is in favour of multi-candidature, that is to say, a candidate could stand in more than one constituency, hope to win perhaps in a GRC and a single seat, and then give up his GRC seat and leave it to the rest of the team. From my reading of this, Mr Chiam has exposed his election strategy, moving from by-election to two elections. But as a citizen, I do not think this serves the voters or electorate well. It cannot be in the citizens' interest to have somebody run for two seats, win one and give one up, and hope that the rest of the team can make up for the lost man. I beg to disagree with Mr Chiam there. The second point is that Mr Chiam and Mr Low, in their speeches, have made very easy targets of the local press. However, it is true that surveys do show public opinion, among Singaporeans, believes that the media is not fully impartial. However, I do think there are many good journalists and there is a new dynamic in the print media as well as television, that the competition the Government has fostered in the last year will, I hope, breed competition, freedom balanced with responsibility. This brings me to my last point. My appeal to the Government and to the Minister would be that elections in Singapore should not be too quiet. There are elections in many one-party states which come and go and no one knows. There is no heat. There is no sense of people really registering their views. I think Singapore, so far, has avoided this. But this Bill, like the Bills on the foreign media before, takes us in little steps towards increasing the regulations that might bring down the temperature. Sir, it is true that we have seen some overheated elections which people maraud, cause damage, even lose lives, and I would not wish that to Singapore. But I think, whether in cyberspace or on the ground, we do need an election period where people feel that they are allowed to discuss issues freely, fairly, whether in person, in print or on the Internet. And there are many difficulties in administrating this new half-way house between print and talk. Internet is bound to have some level of rumour-mongering. That is because it is so accessible to all. But I would ask the Minister to consider whether we really need to go so far. After all, if we have talked mainly about the Internet, how about other forms of communication, such as SMS on the handphone? Would this be another target? What I am hoping, Sir, is that we should move towards not just allowing political parties and their sites to have a free and fair debate but rather elections must be about people, voters and their opinions, and that these regulations, if anything, must err on the side of freedom in order to give people their say.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of this Bill. There are two main schools of thought on the prohibitions imposed by this Bill. On the one hand, some people regard unbridled democracy as a sheer form of tyranny, as it imposes upon the will of others. Hence, we need to balance the right to be democratic with the need to be responsible. We need to balance the right to information with the need to discern the person supplying the information, whether they have a personal stake in the well-being of Singapore or they are acting on their personal agenda. We need to balance the right and freedom of the individuals to express themselves freely with the need for those opinions to be expressed in a responsible manner. In a way, it is like parenting. I like to give my teenager sons as much freedom as possible to access information. But as a responsible father, I will restrict pornography, violence and the like. And if I know that drugs and smoking are bad for them, why would I even want to consider letting my children try them out? In the same way, if I know that misinformation and manipulating of information by persons with their own selfish agenda is against the well-being of Singapore, why would I want Singaporeans to be exposed to such information without safeguards, especially on a matter as important as electing leaders of the nation? Sir, in our age of live broadcast, we do not want opinion polls to be conducted by third parties or foreign broadcasters who may misrepresent or manipulate public opinions. In this regard, I agree that we should not allow decisions regarding our future to be influenced by persons who may have their own private agendas. Singaporeans may have the right to information but it is the duty of the Government to ensure that our citizens are entitled to information from responsible persons. In this IT age, we are flooded with all kinds of information. On issues affecting the future of the nation, we want to have information generated by persons with a strong regard for the well-being of our citizens rather than opinions generated by third parties with no personal stake in the nation. Sir, the greatest irony of our age is that having more knowledge does not necessarily make one any wiser. Giving a man too many options does not lead him to make a better choice. At the end of the day, voting is something personal and sacrosanct to the voter. The choice of the voter should be based on his knowledge of the political party or candidate rather than knowledge of how other voters choose. Voting should be based on the political platform and confidence that the voter has for the party or candidate, not on the opinion of other voters. We do not want a situation where materials are circulated during the election period without any names on it. We do not want a situation where candidates and political parties go beyond their means and limits in election advertising. We do not want to have our political parties and candidates to be dependent on the purse of third parties who may have their own private agendas in supporting their election advertising. This can lead to money politics. Where possible, we must remove any danger and possibility of money politics taking place in Singapore. Sir, I believe that the Bill can help to minimise the manipulation of public opinions prior to and during an election. The requirements in the Bill can also help to ensure greater accountability on the part of the political parties, candidates and third parties engaged in election advertising. The Government should also be commended for its alertness to the potential dangers that advancements in info-communications technology can present. In this regard, I also applaud the Government for its courage to make tough decisions to deal with them. There is another school of thought on this Bill. Some purists of democracy will readily cite these prohibitions to substantiate their perception of Singapore as veering towards a police state, that the Bill impinges on the freedom of the individuals and political parties to contest freely in an election. These people would consider the prohibition of the publication of election opinion polls as an affront to the individual's freedom of speech and expression. They would consider the prohibitions on the Internet as unnecessarily authoritarian and even dictatorial. This group of people will ask why do the United States of America, widely regarded as the epitome of a democratic nation, allows election opinion polls to be freely conducted and yet the Singapore Government wants to ban it. Surely our citizens would be sophisticated enough to make the correct choice of electing their political leaders, regardless of what the opinion polls may suggest. Surely those who are IT savvy enough to surf the Internet would be able to discern and brandish the gimmicks and electioneering ploys on the Internet. If we place limits to the freedom of expression on the Internet, we appear to go against the grain of Prof. Michael Porter's recent advice for us to loosen up. If we define "election advertising" and "publish" so broadly in the Bill, we may unwittingly send a wrong message to our already politically apathetic younger generation of Singaporeans that they cannot communicate anything with a political flavour, especially during the election period. Sir, the concern in this regard is whether we have defined the terms "election advertising" and "publish" too broadly that they become catch-all tools that cover too extensively non-political party activists who may want to express their views on the election. For example, someone attends an election rally and becomes a converted follower of that political party, be it the ruling or the opposition parties. He sends an e-mail to ask all his friends and relatives to vote for that particular political party. On the basis of his personal conviction, he proceeds to ask all his friends and relatives to canvass their friends to vote likewise. He even includes in his e-mail that out of the 50 friends that he has asked and polled, 40 of them have decided to vote for that political party. Does the Bill prohibit him to carry out the above actions, even though he may be acting on his personal conviction? If it does, I would suggest that we review the definition of these terms, as they are deemed to be too broad. Sir, with these concerns, which I hope that the Minister can clarify, I support the Bill.

Mr Chiam, I believe you wanted to seek clarification.

Thank you, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to ask the hon. Member for Ang Mo Kio to clarify. For a moment, I thought he was debating an amendment to the Women's Charter rather than the Parliamentary Elections Act. Sir, I would like to put on record that I do believe in monogamy. I do not believe in polygamy. Can I clarify with Mr Seng Han Thong that he is not insinuating in any way that I am a polygamist?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I mentioned just now that we must have some moral principle. As a husband, one can have only one wife and be faithful to her. But as a Member of Parliament, he can only serve one constituency and be faithful to his voters. Just now the Member for Potong Pasir said that he should be been given the liberty to serve many constituencies. He mentioned that he wanted to contest in Potong Pasir and the Jalan Besar GRC, and serve whichever constituency he wins in. I am afraid if he does that, he would end up losing both constituencies. I hope that he will be more faithful to his own constituency. Since Mr Chiam remarked about my analogy of yi fu duo qi (one husband many wives), I would change it to yi fu duo qu (one person many constituencies).

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.05 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.42 pm to 3.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.05 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. I just wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the penalties for offences of publishing information conducted through the new technological media. Sir, with the advent of the world wide web, electronic mail and short message service on mobile phones, information can be disseminated at literally lightning speed. Unlike the traditional media, new technologies allow for mass circulation of information at the click of a mouse. Unlike the traditional media, a website may also be published by any other party's sympathiser or person in an unfriendly jurisdiction and is made available to all Singaporeans. The ease, convenience and cost of sending an e-mail to one person is no different from sending to one million persons. Worse, the e-mail may be just as easily propagated. The malicious e-mail may also be re-routed through another country or sent anonymously which, I understand, can be done. How will this be controlled, Sir? The short is that information, whether true, false or malicious, may be most easily disseminated than at any time in human history. The damage of false information done through the modern media can be most devastating. The propagation of poison pen letters is as old as there are elections. In the traditional media, it is very difficult to mass mail a poison pen letter and get away with it. But in the new technological media, much harm can be done. In the recent election at one of the branches of the Singapore Airlines Staff Union, just for a branch election, there were a lot of poison pen letters being sent out blackening the various candidates who were standing for election. Poison pen letter is also one of the common features found in use in other countries. Sir, one cannot appreciate the enormity of the problem of a poison pen letter unless he is a victim. Imagine the power of a poison pen e-mail done in the midst of a general election. By the time the truth is established, if it can be established at all, the harm is already done. In politics, although the allegations may be malicious and false, the mud sticks. Hence, I am of the view that the penalties should be enhanced manifold when falsehoods are propagated by the new technological media. Penalties under the Bill for offences committed through the new technological media should be considered separately from the traditional media. In other words, penalties for offences committed through the use of modern technology should be higher than the traditional media.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to join in the debate on this Bill on which I rise to support. Sir, the introduction of this Bill has generated much interest and debate in the public forum, not least of which is the issue of political campaigning on the Internet. As you are aware, Sir, the Bill, in principle, broadens the scope of election advertising to include publications on the Internet. What the Bill tries to do is to regulate such form of publication by requiring to make known the names and addresses of the publisher and the person for whom or at whose direction the election advertising is published. It does not in any way seek to prevent anyone from publishing his political views or inclinations so long as it is in compliance with the prescriptions of the law. It therefore surprises me, Sir, that the Opposition party should be so quick to jump at this new Bill to make wild allegations that the Bill is yet, to quote, "another sorry attempt by the PAP to prevent the Opposition from effectively reaching out to voters during elections". In making this comment, Sir, the Opposition has failed to see the real issue. We are not afraid of criticisms or comments, no matter what these comments may be. There is nothing in law at the moment to prevent one from harshly criticising, in the open, Government's policies. What we do require, however, is that the people who are willing to criticise must be prepared to come forward, to come out in the open, to stand by their statements. Nothing can be more cowardly than for one to take potshots at another and choose to remain anonymous for fear of shouldering the responsibilities that come with the public statement. It is true that democracy protects and upholds the freedom of expression. However, democracy is also as much about responsibility as it is about right. Therefore, if somebody were to defame another person's name or someone who were to make seditious statements, he must take responsibility for his action. Why should anyone be less deserving of protection of the law simply because he is in the public limelight? What the Opposition is asking for is to give people the liberty to say whatever they want without taking responsibility for it. Sir, I do not find this acceptable neither do I think the rest of Singaporeans necessarily find this acceptable. The Internet is a new frontier that we are still trying to grapple with. The latest edition of The Economist dated 11th-17th August 2001 recognises that the imposition of local rules may be better than the alternative of having no regulation at all. It further states that a complete lack of regulation gives a free hand to cheats and criminals. It generally recognises that the Internet, like all new frontiers, will be wild for a while and eventually the policemen and the law will come round to enforce law and order. The regulation of publications on the Internet is consistent with the policies that we have taken over the years with respect to printed documents. These policies apply equally to all, including the PAP. If the PAP has done such a lousy job in running this country, then no amount of regulation, whether on the Internet or otherwise, is going to prevent people from spreading their views to members of the public. In looking at this Bill before us, Sir, let us take a proper perspective on the issue. This Bill is not so much about regulating the content as it is about prescribing the manner and form in which the content is disseminated to the public at large. Democracy is not only about individual rights but also about respect for the others. To suggest that the law should be removed to allow people complete liberty to say whatever they want without having to identify themselves with it, is to bring about anarchy and not the rule of law. Sir, I therefore support this Bill and in particular the attempts of the Government to regulate election advertising on the Internet.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many who disagree with this Bill see there is an attempt to curb perhaps the only available and accessible avenue for anyone, big or small, who can have their say without fear or retribution. More often than not, the Internet provides the only level playing field as other channels sometimes tend to be more accessible and biased towards the bigger man. This is a special feature, a sacred quality of the Internet. The basic question, therefore, is whether the Internet should be regulated like in other news medium. Indeed, it is ironical that in new section 78A(1)(b), the Bill makes an exception for election news for newspapers, on TV and radio, but no exception is made for election news on standalone Internet site. Is the Internet then not a legitimate news medium? I hope the Minister would clarify this matter. Sir, the Bill does not prohibit Internet advertising, as many have misunderstood, but it makes it mandatory for a person to register with the SBA to identify the name, publisher and printer of the advertisement. In my view, Sir, if the purpose of the advertisement is to promote a candidate, to inform its electorate about the good work he is doing, and it should be, I do not see why there should be a strong objection to identify the name of the publisher and printer as they would ultimately be the beneficiary of this advertisement. But if the purpose is to speak negatively about someone else, spread wild rumours and allegations, then I can see the objections in revealing such identities. If you look at past elections in and around the region, advertisements and publications issued are seldom about the good work of one person but more about the bad things others have done. So the question really is whether we should allow advertisements made anonymously. The Internet gives us the freedom to inform. But one can also agree that we need to inform truthfully and responsibly. If we have to legislate to prevent the irresponsible use of the Internet, then in the overall interest, Sir, it is worth it. But like Prof. Chin who spoke earlier, I would have expected the Bill to be more specific in detailing the forms of advertising allowed under new section 78A(1)(b) because I suspect the interpretation of the details can be controversial and problematic. I would also like to ask the Minister whether he would think it more appropriate to have this responsibility delegated to the SBA, as the Minister himself may perhaps be seen as partisan when having to make such a regulation, especially during or before general elections. So we have seen examples in the region how political candidates have to do battle on the Internet sites where the more juicy and damaging news were anonymously circulated when the real battle should be on the ground, in the constituencies and with the electorate. There is a real danger that others without vested interest in the election can dictate the political campaign during election. However, despite these provisions, we cannot regulate Internet sites posted outside Singapore. So although we have laws to take on errant publishers through libel and defamation law suits, the question is: is monetary compensation a sufficient remedy for someone who had lost the election because of rumour-mongering or false allegation? On this basis, Sir, I would agree to the general provisions of this Bill. However, there are some specific issues which I am quite uncomfortable with. In particular, the Bill tries to force a distinction between public communication and private communication that simply does not apply in the Internet world. The Bill excludes individual to individual e-mail. But it says in clause 2(c) that Internet communication to any section of the public will be treated as publication. Like many others who have commented earlier, does this mean that if I have a mailing list with 100 friends, I can be prosecuted under the law if I e-mail my views on the election to my mailing list? Will I be penalised for having too many friends? So, Sir, how do we deal with such practical issues? How do we draw a line between those who set out to cause damage and mischief and others who do not have such intentions, although I would agree that the e-mail or Internet makes it possible the consequences of such action to be equally damaging? It is for this reason, Sir, that I suggest perhaps the Minister describe an appeal procedure to be heard by the SBA before referring such matters for prosecution under the law. SBA, with its representatives from a good cross section of the population, can play a delicate balancing role in this matter. Only in this way, Sir, we can preserve the special feature of the Internet, while at the same time safeguarding against real abuses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank all the 12 Members who have spoken on the Bill. The impression I got after listening carefully to the debate is that everyone supports the Bill in principle. In fact, I heard only a dissenting voice from Mr Chiam with regard to multiple nominations during elections and some comments on the opinion poll during elections. Apart from these comments, I think everybody supports the Bill in principle. The questions relate mainly to details about the regulations, what kind of positive list, how the law will apply in certain situations, how we differentiate between broadcast and individual communication, and so on. In fact, in drafting the Bill, the AG's Chambers has been very careful to try to be fair to everybody. It is a very complex subject and we will have to learn as we go along. Unfortunately, at this point in time, the detailed regulations are not ready yet. They will be ready before the elections. But we do have to get this Bill in place and debate on the principles of it. As I have explained in my Second Reading speech, in fact this is a positive step, in terms of liberalising the use of Internet for political campaigning. As compared to 1997, the Singapore Broadcasting Authority had to ask some parties to remove posters on their websites. This is definitely a big step forward. The rules will apply equally to all parties. Everybody can use the Internet to reach out to their voters, and to explain their positions. The key point is that they have to do it responsibly. They should be responsible for their sites. They should not libel anybody. They should not spread falsehoods, and they should not hide behind other sites, for example, non-party political sites, some of which are clearly slanted in their viewpoints and are just masquerading as neutral sites. The media, especially the foreign media, have been very fast to cry foul when DPM Lee Hsien Loong mentioned at the launch of the PAP website that we have to institute regulations to allow campaigning on the Internet. They assumed straightaway that we are going to clamp down, and all kinds of reports came out in the papers to criticise us and said that we were tightening controls. In fact, I do not know whether I am correct but I think even the Opposition Members here were caught by surprise that we are going to allow it. It is just a matter of how to do it. Of course, they have to oppose the Bill somehow. In the end, they did express some negative sentiments. But it is a fact that we are moving forward. The Internet is a very difficult place. It is full of noise. If misinformation is spread, it can go round the world several times within a day. So it is very important that for something so important as our General Elections the public is not misled and the parties should be fully responsible for their viewpoints. They should come out with reasoned arguments and state their positions. There are a lot of issues on which they have strong views. It is up to them to convince the public openly through their web pages - these are my views, this is why Government is wrong, etc, - and the PAP will respond in kind. In drafting this regulation, the main concern is really with the broadcast media through the Internet, the party sites which are clearly identified with the parties and also those sites which are political in nature, in terms of content, which are required by the SBA Class Licence Scheme to be registered with us. The intention is to make clear to everybody that these are the people behind the Net, behind this web page, and that they are in fact political in nature even though they claim to be neutral. Other than that, they have been coming up with all kinds of views criticising the Government, and we take it in the right spirit. There is freedom of speech, there is freedom of information. You can access information from anywhere around the world. You can put your views on the Internet. If you want to e-mail your friends, by all means. But how do we know that it is not a party member who is sending thousands of e-mails out and bypassing our rules. How do we contain the problem, in what is basically a very noisy, very difficult environment where information and misinformation can spread equally quickly? At this point I will just read out to you some comments from an American who is living here, a gentleman called John B. Carpenter. This was published in the Washington Post on 18th July and is titled "Singapore internet story full of Western hypocrisy". This was in response to an article in the Washington Times by Mr Regan Morris of the Associated Press dated 16th July which was very quick off the mark after DPM Lee's speech on the launch of the PAP website. It reads: "As an American living in Singapore, I found the July 16 article about Singapore highly stereotyped and an example of why many in Asia are cynical about appeals for "freedom of speech". The report, from the Associated Press, states that the Singapore government has a "firm grip on the flow of information". I'm in Singapore, and I used the Internet to read this one-sided story. I also can access any Web site in the world critical of Singapore's government. In addition, the BBC World Service Radio airs here. The Singaporean government certainly cannot control what BBC broadcasts from London. The major American newsmagazines are sold here as well. They are required to be fair and allow the government a "right of reply" when it perceives they are unfair. This seems, however, to be asking for no more than journalistic integrity. Sadly, it was integrity that this report lacked. No regulation has yet been introduced in Singapore, but the reporter sounds as if he is sure it will be draconian. Meanwhile, the US government has been busy trying to regulate Americans' freedom of speech during elections. Is it just that we're (mostly) white and Western that we believe we can be trusted with such regulations, while Asians cannot?" This is an article by John B. Carpenter in Singapore. Most of the discussion today has been on the Internet campaigning. So I will deal with this item first. As I explained, the intention is to have a level playing field. We do need to have some kind of regulations. The intention is to come out with the positive list, through regulations, which will be available before the elections. Some questions have been asked about the new laws. For example, this question was raised about the new section 78B(e) relating to publication of any news relating to election in newspapers or in a radio or television broadcast. I think Mr Zulkifli mentioned this. I would like to point out that the new section 78B deals with Polling Day. The intention is that, on that day itself, there should be a freeze on new advertising messages. This is in line with the current practice to allow the voters to reflect in a calm manner without disturbances on how they want to vote. On the other hand, we must allow the newspapers to report. So they will be reporting on the elections. And Mr Chiam claimed that the headlines are detrimental to the Opposition parties. I differ with that view. In fact, if I recall during our last elections in Cheng San, the report was full about Tan Liang Hong and his suits and counter suits, and so on. So how did they affect the election one way or the other? But the point is we do want to have silence and calm on Polling Day, and that is why we disallow new advertising messages on that day. Whatever is on the website already, it remains. But there should not be any changes. The newspapers and TV should be free to report the news. This question of mass e-mail is troubling quite a few people. I will have to get my officers to study this carefully. The intention here is to go after the broadcasters, the websites reaching out to a lot of people. The intention is not to go after individuals in their own private e-mailing. But the point is: will somebody hide behind this system and have a chain mail system and bypass our rules? So this is something that we have to study more carefully. A question was raised whether SMS, ie, the handphones that youngsters are very fond of using, will be covered. At the bottom of page 2, the Bill says: "'Publish' means make available to the general public, or any section thereof, in whatever form and by whatever means, including broadcasting (by wireless telegraphy or otherwise) and transmitting on what is commonly known as the Internet."

So the word "wireless" could mean handphones. I think SMS will be covered. But the point is if you are trying to send out, for example, your election poll results, firstly, you are not supposed to do it, but if you do it and you try and send it out by SMS to everybody, that will be violating the rules. But the intention is not to disallow a young man to SMS his girl friend and say, "Oh, I think this chap is speaking well or he looks very attractive" or maybe a female sending to her boy friend. Mr Seng Han Thong mentioned the point about pictures being stills but that they can be made to be moving. The Act, which disallows political films, is valid and will apply. It does not disallow audio broadcasting. For example, if audio messages are sent on the Internet, they are not captured under the Films Act. On the other hand, if technology allows us to piece together pictures as if they are moving pictures, then we will have to study to see whether in fact it is a political film. The reason is that films are very emotive. You can have a few sound bytes and influence elections by saying a few catchy phrases and there is nobody to come and counter you. That is why the Government decided some years back to disallow political films and political videos so that section of the Act will apply. A question was asked about foreign sites. The rules are intended to apply to all sites under the Class Licence Scheme. They are supposed to be responsible, should not do anything that instigates racial hatred, be against public interest, public morality and so on. All sites are bound by the Class Licence Scheme and, specifically, for political sites and sites which are obviously political in nature, they have to register with the SBA. That is why we corrected this situation where some of the sites like Think Centre and SINTERCOM were not registered. All we wanted is to get them to register and tell us who are behind the sites, the publishers and the people responsible. This way, we hope to put them on notice that they have to be responsible for their sites. The laws of the land will apply to cyberspace and, if they libel somebody, they can be sued. There could be other questions on Internet campaigning but I cannot trace them here. If hon. Members would like to raise them, I will try and answer them. I just want to answer the points raised by Mr Chiam about multiple candidature. It shows that he has an intention, before this Bill is passed, maybe to stand in Potong Pasir, and also in Jalan Besar GRC under the SDA. A kind of tikam-tikam, ie, "If I lose in a GRC, at least I still have Potong Pasir." I think he should be fair to the voters. If he wants to stand for an area and work for that area, he should just stand for that area. Why make use of this Victorian rule which is out of date? I want to make the point that what we have done is, really, very limited in scope. We are not curtailing freedom of speech. People can email, write letters to the press and speak freely. But, for the purpose of the election, during the election period, and for political websites and non-party political websites, we must have some rules to make sure that campaigning is orderly and fair to everybody.

Sir, the Minister has not answered one of my queries in my speech and that is whether articles in local newspapers are covered by clause 2, the definition of election advertising.

I thank Mr Chiam for reminding me about his question. On listening to his speech, I was under the impression that he was asking whether this ban on opinion polls applies to the mass media. The answer is yes, it applies to all media, not just the Internet but also newspapers, TV and so on. Thank you for pointing this out. The answer is that the mass media is also covered.

Sir, I wish to clarify that whilst I do not state clearly whether I oppose the Bill, I wish to clarify that although I have no problem with multiple nominations, which I support, and also on opinion polls, I have no problem with that, I do not think the Bill on the whole has enhanced or helped our position in any way by using the Internet. I am opposing that part. Sir, I have some clarifications for the Minister. I would like to know, first of all, for third party websites which are not under the Class Licence Scheme of SBA, if they publish during the election period, eg, a report on the election campaign or their opinion on a political rally, will that come under the Bill? Secondly, can he tell us what specifically will be the regulation? For instance, he mentioned just now that we can have our candidates' profile and things like that. May I know whether a political party website would be allowed to publish speeches of the rallies and report on election campaigns, for instance? Lastly, I would like to know whether the current regulations under the SBA are not sufficient enough to deal with whatever problems that may arise during an election. Why is there a need to have a different set of strict regulations, with very strict and wide definitions on election advertising, to restrict the use of Internet during elections? Is that not a restriction on the use of Internet by political parties? I do not understand how that actually enhances the usage.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I mentioned in my speech that for party political websites, the allowable features will include party posters and manifesto, candidate profiles, announcement of party events, party position on issues, moderated chats and discussion forums. This is not exclusive. There will be other elements which are still being drafted. The whole point is that this covers practically everything that they want to do. So as regards Mr Low's point about putting speeches on the Internet, why not? And even his own comments on rallies, again, why not? These are all covered. These are positions on issues. The point is that the party must be identified, eg, it is Workers' Party site and all these are Workers' Party's views. People can go and attend his rallies, they can read his speeches on the Internet. So this is definitely a step forward. This is allowing campaigning on the Internet, within certain regulations. What we want to do is to make sure that the parties and the people responsible know that they have to comply with the law, be careful that what they put up does not libel anybody or spread falsehoods. So I do not understand when Mr Low says it does not help. Sir, I get the impression that the hon. Member is opposing this just for the sake of opposing. We are allowing and he is opposing. Shall we just not allow? The other point is ---

Sir, shall we allow and without strict regulation on that?

Order. Mr Low, can you allow the Minister to finish?

I think the Member will be aware that Internet is a very dangerous place. We can have all kinds of poison letters and they will just spread like wild fire. So we must have some means to try and minimise this and make sure that everything is orderly and fair. On the other point about third-party sites, I mentioned just now that third-party sites also have to comply with the Internet code of practice. We require specifically political sites and sites which are obviously political in nature and active political sites to be registered with the SBA. Otherwise, all the sites and web pages are covered under the Class Licence Scheme. And if they violate the rules with regard to, for example, information that could cause racial riots or is pornography, they could be fined or SBA can ask them to take down the websites.

Clarification, Sir. I wish to clarify that whilst I do not have problem with the amendment on Multiple Nomination and do not have much problem with the ban on opinion poll, I do not support the amendment to regulate the use of Internet during election. Sir, what I want to know is if a website which is not under the Class Licence Scheme posts something on the web during the election period and supports a political party, for instance, is it liable under the amendment?

Then we will have to see the actual situation. But, as I said, the intention is to go after the popular sites, the main sites of parties and non-party political sites. If it is an individual, eg, a young man posting up his own site and saying "These are my views", we are not going to go after those people. We are only after the main broadcast medium, and an email is in the nature of private mail. It just happens to be on the Internet. So our intention is not to go after those but, at the same time, it is perfectly feasible for a member to arrange to send all kinds of messages through mass mailing and defeat the regulations. That is why we will have to study carefully how we can regulate the situation.

Sir, I do not think the Minister is clear. What I want to know is, for instance, Talkingcock.com is not under the Class Licence Scheme. During the election period, eg, the website publishes some political speeches of opposition candidates or have certain comments on the election. Will the web master or whoever posts it there be liable under the Bill? That is what I want to know.

Well, we will have to study the law. But my impression is that they are liable. Of course, they are outside Singapore, and whether we can catch them is something else. But whoever targets Singaporeans, our laws will apply to them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, clarification. In other words, the Minister is saying that any website within Singapore and can be prosecuted under Singapore law will be brought under this Bill. Is that correct? Not only political websites with a Class Licence but any website?

The intention is to make the rules clear for the main parties involved in the contest, in other words, the party websites. These are the areas we are mainly after. But we are aware also that some of the so-called neutral sites, eg, Think Centre, they are obviously political in nature, their publications are slanted towards particular parties. So we also have to rope those in. Those will be our main targets. At the other end, there will be the individual websites which we are not concerned about. In between is a gray area. So it is a bit difficult for me to be very specific now. We will have to see what actually happens.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in other words, anything can happen because the Minister does not know what will happen. Anything could happen during the election period to any website that publishes anything that relates to political campaigns. Is that so?

The Government will be very reasonable and fair in whatever action it takes. And whatever action it takes has to be defended. If we are seen to be unreasonable, that might cost us votes.

In other words, is the Minister saying that whether a website that is going to publish anything, any opinion, during the election period of any candidate or political party, there is a possibility that it can be liable under the Act, depending on the Government's reason or how reasonable the Government is? Is that so?

The position will be clear when the regulations have been drafted. Right now we are debating it in the absence of actual wording of the regulations. The regulations will be fair, they are meant to maintain a level playing field, and we should wait for the regulations before we pass judgement. The intention is not to go after everybody. We think that the campaigning should be done by the party sites openly. Standing behind their platforms, their views, a lot of things can be done on the Internet. They can have chats, forums, speeches and their views. They can pick. They cannot have political films, because these are disallowed. Other than that, almost anything that you can think of is allowed. But if besides that, there are other sites actively campaigning for a particular party, then we would have to see what actions we should take on those sites. Mr Low Thia Khiang rose ---

Order. Mr Low, it appears to me that you are raising fresh points which you should have raised in your speech. If you are making clarifications, you have to seek clarifications on something which the Minister has said and not try to raise fresh points.

Yes, Sir.

Sir, before he seeks clarification, can I just add to this point that Mr Lee Yock Suan was trying to explain? This Bill covers political parties and political sites as defined or registered by SBA as political sites. For example, the Think Centre has been gazetted as a political site and is therefore covered by this Bill. Anything else is not covered by this Bill. That is my understanding of it. Mr Low asked about Talkingcock.com. Today it is not registered as a political site, not that I know of. So it is not covered. But should it be involved in political discussions, should it be involved in the way that Think Centre has been involved, then we will consider including it as a political site. That is my understanding. I understand that there is also a new site called JamesGomez@yahoo or whatever it is. If it is based in Singapore, doing the same thing as he did in Think Centre, we may also consider gazetting that as a political site.

May I seek a clarification? The Minister just now mentioned that it will be clearer if the regulations are ready. I would like to ask him whether it is fair, since the regulations are not ready, to present a Bill in Parliament and he wants us to pass something that is not clear.

The other Members have no problem supporting the Bill, including Mr Chiam. I think the position is about 95% clear.

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

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.50 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Constitutional Amendment Bill proposes to amend Article 114 of the Constitution, to enable the Ministry of Home Affairs to implement a new superannuation scheme, known as the INVEST Plan, for the Home Affairs Uniformed Services (HUS). The INVEST Plan will be established under the Home Affairs Uniformed Services Superannuation Bill 2001 which I will move afterwards. The INVEST Plan will replace the current contract and full CPF schemes of the HUS officers. It will also replace the Pension scheme of the Police Senior Officers. The INVEST Plan is similar to the SAVER and Premium Plans introduced for uniformed officers in the Singapore Armed Forces in 1998 and 2000 respectively. The amendment will allow Parliament to establish separate Government funds to pay pensions, gratuities and other allowances in respect of any public service instead of meeting the payments from the Pension Fund or the Consolidated Fund. The amendment is necessary as the retirement benefits of Home Affairs Uniformed Services officers who join the INVEST Plan will no longer be charged on the Pension Fund or the Consolidated Fund, but on a new fund known as the INVEST Fund. As a result of the setting up of the INVEST Fund to pay for the retirement benefits of the Home Affairs Uniformed Services officers, there will be a consequential amendment to the Pension Fund Act (Chapter 224A). This amendment is contained in the Home Affairs Uniformed Services Superannuation Bill 2001. I will explain the INVEST Plan in greater detail when I move the Second Reading of the Home Affairs Uniformed Services Superannuation Bill 2001. Sir, I beg to move.

The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament, which is 55 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. Ring the Division Bells. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Division taken: Ayes, 75; No, Nil; Abstention, Nil. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abdullah Tarmugi Low Thia Khiang Ahmad Mohd Magad Mah Bow Tan Ang Mong Seng Mohamad Maidin B P M Chan Soo Sen Neo, Lily Chay Wai Chuen Ong Chit Chung Chen, Bernard Ong Kian Min Chen Koon Lap, Kenneth Othman bin Haron Eusofe Chen, Peter Ow Chin Hock Chen Seow Phun, John Peh Chin Hua Chew Heng Ching Ravindran, R. Chiam See Tong Seng Han Thong Chin Tet Yung Shanmugam, K. Chng Hee Kok Sidek bin Saniff Chong, Charles Sin Boon Ann Davinder Singh Sinnakaruppan, R. Goh Chok Tong Tan Boon Wan Goh Choon Kang Tan Cheng Bock Harun bin A. Ghani Tan Keng Yam, Tony Hawazi Daipi Tan Soo Khoon Heng Chiang Meng Tang Guan Seng Ho Peng Kee Teo Chee Hean Ho Tat Kin Teo Ho Pin Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Toh See Kiat Ibrahim bin Othman Vasoo, S. Inderjit Singh Wang Kai Yuen Iswaran, S. Wong, Aline K. Jayakumar, S. Yaacob Ibrahim Koo Tsai Kee Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Lee Boon Yang Yatiman Yusof Lee Hsien Loong Yeo Cheow Tong Lee Kuan Yew Yeo Guat Kwang Lee Yock Suan Yeo, George Yong-Boon Leong Horn Kee Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Lew Syn Pau Zainul Abidin Rasheed Lim Boon Heng Lim Hng Kiang No Lim Hwee Hua Nil Lim Swee Say Abstention Lim T. E., David Nil Loh Meng See Low Seow Chay

The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment.

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

The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament, which is 55 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. Ring the Division Bells. After three minutes - We will now take a Division. May I remind hon. Members to press the button marked "Present" on the electronic voting unit before indicating their vote, but please do so after the "Voting in Progress" sign has come on. You may now proceed to vote. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Division taken: Ayes, 77; No, Nil; Abstention, Nil. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abdullah Tarmugi Loh Meng See Ahmad Mohd Magad Low Seow Chay Ang Mong Seng Low Thia Khiang Chan Soo Sen Mah Bow Tan Chay Wai Chuen Mohamad Maidin B P M Chen, Bernard Neo, Lily Chen Koon Lap, Kenneth Ong Chit Chung Chen, Peter Ong Kian Min Chen Seow Phun, John Othman bin Haron Eusofe Chew Heng Ching Ow Chin Hock Chiam See Tong Peh Chin Hua Chin Tet Yung Ravindran, R. Chng Hee Kok Seng Han Thong Chong, Charles Shanmugam, K. Davinder Singh Sidek bin Saniff Goh Chok Tong Sin Boon Ann Goh Choon Kang Sinnakaruppan, R. Harun bin A. Ghani Tan Boon Wan Hawazi Daipi Tan Cheng Bock Heng Chiang Meng Tan Keng Yam, Tony Ho Peng Kee Tan Soo Khoon Ho Tat Kin Tang Guan Seng Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Teo Chee Hean Ibrahim bin Othman Teo Ho Pin Inderjit Singh Toh See Kiat Iswaran, S. Vasoo, S. Jayakumar, S. Wan Soon Bee Koo Tsai Kee Wang Kai Yuen Lee Boon Yang Wong, Aline K. Lee Hsien Loong Wong Kan Seng Lee Kuan Yew Yaacob Ibrahim Lee Yock Suan Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Leong Horn Kee Yatiman Yusof Lew Syn Pau Yeo Cheow Tong Lim Boon Heng Yeo Guat Kwang Lim Hng Kiang Yeo, George Yong-Boon Lim Hwee Hua Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Lim Swee Say Zainul Abidin Rasheed Lim T. E., David No Nil Abstention Nil

The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I should let you know that my name was not on the screen for the first vote on the Second Reading. My apologies.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.05 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Home Affairs Uniformed Services (HUS) plays a key role in meeting public safety and security needs. The presence of capable Home Affairs Uniformed Services officers will help to maintain a stable environment needed to attract investments. To ensure that the HUS is able to execute its roles in meeting public security and safety needs, we need to attract and retain good officers to join the Home Affairs Uniformed Services. It is with this objective in mind that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) commissioned a study by an international consultancy firm to review the Home Affairs Uniformed Services career structures and systems in April 2000. The Home Affairs Uniformed Services Career Review aimed to restructure the Home Affairs Uniformed Services career to ensure that it is well positioned to meet future public security and safety needs. It studied the career structure, pay and benefits package, career management and performance management of the HUS officers. The Government has accepted the recommendation to introduce a super- annuation scheme for HUS officers. The scheme is known as the INVEST Plan. The Plan will replace the Contract scheme that is currently open to Home Affairs Uniformed Services officers in the Civil Defence, Prisons, Narcotics Service, as well as the Police (Junior) Officers Service. Officers on the Full CPF Scheme in the above services will also participate in the INVEST Plan. They will continue to receive Full CPF contributions and will also receive additional contributions credited into the INVEST Plan to build up a superannuation fund to help them transit out of service at the age of 50 or 55. The Plan will also replace the Pension scheme of the Police (Senior) Officers Service. The Plan will apply to all new Home Affairs Uniformed Services officers from 1st October 2001. Existing Home Affairs Uniformed Services officers are given an option to convert to the INVEST Plan and have the accumulated benefits under their existing schemes transferred to the new Plan. Let me explain the rationale of the INVEST Plan. The retirement age for new Home Affairs Uniformed Services officers will be lowered by 5 years, in recognition of the rigorous requirements of the Home Affairs Uniformed Services. Being in a uniformed organisation, HUS officers are required to be physically fit, agile and alert when discharging their day-to-day duties. For instance, Police officers need to be agile and fit to perform patrolling duties, which include physically strenuous tasks like pursuing criminals. Civil Defence officers perform operational duties such as fire-fighting and rescue, emergency ambulance and hazardous materials mitigation, which require considerable physical effort. Similar exacting physical fitness and mental alertness requirements apply to officers in the Prisons and Narcotics schemes of service. In addition, the increasing civilianisation and outsourcing of non-core functions will reduce the number of desk-bound administrative jobs. This in turn reduces the traditional channel used to hold older officers who are no longer suited for rigorous, frontline work, till they retire. For example, the number of desk-bound administrative jobs in the Police force will decrease to about 10 percent in the future. Thus from 1st October 2001, all new officers joining the Home Affairs Uniformed Services will retire at age 50 if they retire as Junior Officers, and at age 55 if they retire as Senior Officers. Serving officers can choose to opt into the new scheme. The INVEST Plan is to help these officers transit out of service into their second career. Similar to the SAVER and Premium Plans that have been introduced in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), the INVEST Plan offers reasonable superannuation terms to uniformed officers who have to retire earlier than other civil servants. The Ministry of Home Affairs has also taken the opportunity to replace the Pension scheme for Police Senior Officers with the INVEST Plan. This is because our review found that a plan which builds up officers' retirement benefits through making monthly contributions into the officers' accounts during the course of their careers, such as the INVEST Plan, is better able to meet the needs of Police Senior Officers, as compared to one where officers receive a fixed quantum on retirement, such as the Pension scheme. This is also to make it consistent with our Senior Officers in the other Home Affairs Uniformed Services Schemes. We will then have uniformity in treatment, instead of differential treatment for the Home Affairs Senior Officers. The mechanism of the INVEST Plan is similar to the SAF's SAVER and Premium Plans. Under the INVEST Plan, the Home Affairs Ministry will contribute an amount based on a percentage of the officer's monthly salary into an INVEST Retirement Account kept for the officer. It is 7 3/4% for Junior Officers and 6% for Senior Officers, starting from the 7th year of service. Because of the additional component to replace pension, Police Senior Officers will get a higher contribution rate, that is 11 3/4% from the first year of service. In addition, Junior Officers will receive retention payments in a separate INVEST Retention Account. The retention payments will be credited into the officer's Retention Account on satisfactory completion of each year of service, during the officer's first 10 years of service. The payments equal one month of salary for each year of service during the first 6 years. In the 7th to 10th year, the payments rise to 1 1/2 months of salary for each year of service. The funds in the officers' Retirement and Retention accounts will be pooled to form an investment fund known as the INVEST Fund. The INVEST Fund will be managed by professional fund managers. Based on returns from investments, dividends will be credited into the individual accounts of each officer. An INVEST Board of Trustees, chaired by the Permanent Secretary, and comprising senior Home Affairs Ministry officials and people with relevant experience from the public and private sectors, will oversee the fund managers. The accumulated amounts in the INVEST accounts can be withdrawn by the officers progressively. If the officer resigns prematurely, the Ministry will retain part of the amount in the officer's accounts. The officer can only withdraw the full amount in his accounts if he serves a full career with the Home Affairs Uniformed Services, when he retires at age 50 or 55 for Junior and Senior Officers respectively. The Ministry expects the progressive withdrawal feature of the INVEST Plan to enhance retention, thus helping the Ministry to attract good quality officers to join and remain with the Home Affairs Uniformed Services for a full career. The Home Affairs Uniformed Services officers are, generally, pleased with the review and the enhancements in the career management. Junior Officers who have served more than 10 years and who will be given a one-off retention payment are happy. Briefings on the details on the new scheme of service and the INVEST Retention and Retirement Plan started in mid-July, with individual consultation for officers who need to discuss further their options. In addition to information booklets, officers were also given a projection software for them to compute and compare projected benefits under the current and the new terms. As for the INVEST retirement plan where serving officers opt for earlier retirement age, officers decide based on what suits them best, taking into account their age, family commitments and plans after retirement. While some have expressed concern about the limited second career choices at age 55, others look forward to being able to start a second career after earlier retirement. Officers are also pleased with the possible additional source of savings available at retirement from the retirement fund. In general, the INVEST Retirement Plan has fared better among younger officers as officers with 10 or less years to retirement feel that their investment is not likely to gain much in the short span of time. Ultimately, each serving officer chooses what suits him best. No serving officer is worse off than before. Sir, this Bill will provide the legislative framework to implement the INVEST Plan. It will also make consequential amendments to the Pension Fund Act to allow for officers' benefits accumulated under the Pension Fund to be transferred from the Pension Fund to the INVEST Fund. Sir, I beg to move.

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

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