Hansard, 2001-10-15

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 Noris Ong Chin Guan 15 Oct15 Oct Mr Lee Kuan Yew 15 Oct15 Oct TAN SOO KHOON Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

"to amend the Police Force Act (Chapter 235 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the second and third readings of the Supplementary Supply (No. 2) Bill for FY 2001/2002 may be proceeded with immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Supplementary Estimates for FY 2001/2002. - [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau].

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day].

Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 2001 to 31st March, 2002, contained in Paper Cmd. 8 of 2001. Head T, Ministry of Manpower. Mr Low Thia Khiang. Head T -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Code 3000 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I learn from a press report that programmes supported by NTUC Education and Training Fund have benefited about 80,000 workers since 1998. I have the following questions to ask: (1) What are the training programmes supported by the Fund? (2) What are the objective and focus of the fund in training workers? (3) In view of the current unemployment situation, will the Fund focus more on the training of retrenched workers, ie, older and lower-educated workers? (4) Would NTUC publish a profile of workers who have benefited from the fund so far, in terms of their age, education level, job position and income?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member has asked questions on what the NTUC Education and Training Fund is used for, how is it being used to help workers and what kind of training programmes. Let me explain that the NTUC Education and Training Fund, which was first set up in October 1998, is used to support workers who are not getting training support from their employers. So it is an individually motivated skills upgrading and training programme. When a person is already employed and his employer wants to send him for training, they can use the Skills Redevelopment Programme directly. We have very generous grants for employer-supported skills upgrading and retraining. But there are of course some workers whose employers are not so far-sighted and who do not want to send their workers for training. In which case, there is a danger that these workers may be left out of all these opportunities for skills upgrading. This is where the NTUC Education and Training Fund comes in to fill up this gap and provide another safety net for workers, especially those who are lower-skilled and, in fact, older workers. So this Education and Training Fund is especially for these workers who want to go for training or skills upgrading on their own. Generally, the types of courses that NTUC will support are similar to the courses that are available under the Skills Redevelopment Programme. These are courses or training that would help workers to acquire skills that are needed for either the manufacturing sector or service sector and is quite broad based, and it covers many industries. It is a fairly long list. I think there are about 100-odd such courses available and we are in the process of continuing to increase the type of courses, or enlarge the list of training courses, that can be supported under the Skills Redevelopment Programme and, therefore, also supported by NTUC under the Education and Training Fund. Sir, as the NTUC Education and Training Fund is an endowment fund, the money that is being collected and the Government's subvention to NTUC are not spent directly. They form part of the endowment fund and its interest returns are being used to support the workers who want to go for skills upgrading. In this way, we can continue to ensure that NTUC will have a flow of interest returns from the endowment fund to continue its support for workers who need this assistance. I have already touched on the objectives. It is to help prepare workers so that they can acquire the skill that is needed for them to seek re-employment. The labour market has turned bad. We are now facing a serious crisis. As DPM Lee has mentioned on Friday in great detail, I would not have to go over it again. We are facing a major downturn. The employment market will continue to be very, very difficult. More workers are going to be retrenched and for those who are retrenched, they are going to have greater difficulty in finding new jobs. In this environment, the worker who has got higher skills and is willing to acquire new skills will stand a better chance in getting re-employed, compared to one who is lower skilled and not willing to make an effort. Of course, retraining or skills upgrading does not mean that he will automatically get a new job because the whole job market has shrunk. So it is going to be very competitive. It is going to be very difficult as many people are chasing after so few jobs. But all things being equal, if a worker is not prepared to make this effort to upgrade his skills, or acquire new skills, that means, go for retraining, then his chances of getting a new job are going to be worse off than the other guy who is making every effort to upgrade his skills and is very ready to pick up new skills, learn something different, or do a different job. Hence, all our programmes, including those under NTUC Education and Training Fund, focus on this aspect of preparing and helping our workers so that they can cope with this changed environment. On the question about whether the fund will support retrenched and lower-educated older workers, the answer is "yes". That is the focus. Similar to the Government's training programmes, the focus of the NTUC Education and Training Fund is on the group of workers most in need of help. So they turn out to be that these are the older, lower-skilled workers. And this is what we will continue to do. On the profile, I would convey his request to NTUC. At the appropriate time, I am sure NTUC will be willing to share its experience and the profile of the union members who have benefited from this programme with Members.

I would like to know whether those who are not union members, and their employers are not supportive of their training requests, could benefit from this fund. If not, where can they get help from? The other question is perhaps not so related to this cut, and I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to answer, is whether the new increased grants for workers who undergo for training programme announced would be subject to some abuse. Workers may take the grant of $1,000 or $2,000 during this situation to go for training but they may not get the job at the end of the day. Could the Minister clarify the point? Although the DPM announced that the grant for those workers who need training during the downturn would be increased, the question is whether or not you will find employers for these workers when they are retrenched, and link them up and provide the training, or you actually allow them to go for training without any employers. And will there be workers who keep on going for training but they can never get a job at the end of the day?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member asked whether those who are non-union members can also benefit from this training assistance. The answer is yes. If they are union members, of course, and if they are union members who are employed, they can take advantage of the Skills Redevelopment Programme as an employer-supported training. I had mentioned that earlier. If they are union members and they are unemployed, they can go to NTUC and seek support from the Education and Training Fund. For those who are non-union members, whether they are unemployed or their employers are not prepared to support them for skills upgrading, we have a third avenue to assist them. This is through the community self-help groups, ie, SINDA, MENDAKI and CDAC. These community self-help groups will play the part of the "surrogate" employers. They will become the sponsoring agency for the unemployed worker, or for the worker whose employer is not prepared to send him for training. They would then put up a proposal to send this worker for training and the Government will give him support and financial assistance through the community self-help group. We have already quite a number of people who were trained under this community self-help group route. As of October 2001, the number of workers who were supported under the "surrogate" employer group, ie, the community self-help groups, is about 7,800 workers. They also receive financial subsidy or training fee subsidy to achieve skills upgrading. Sir, his second point is whether we will help those who are undergoing training to find new jobs, instead of remaining just on a permanent long-term training. Yes, that is the focus of our programmes. We will certainly make every effort to try to job-match those who have undergone skills upgrading or taken up retraining and place them in new jobs that are still available. We will make every effort to ensure that those who sign up for skills upgrading will have a chance to be re-employed.

Sir, a further clarification. If, let us say, a worker is retrenched, he has yet to find an employer and he has approached the Ministry for help, what would be the process and arrangement for that worker?

If an unemployed Singaporean or a retrenched worker comes to my Ministry and says, "Look, I need help", my officers at Career Link@MOM, which is our main service centre for helping unemployed Singaporeans, will try to find out more about his working background, experience and skills level. Then we will try to identify which would be a suitable sector that he should direct his job search efforts at. And where we find that he has inadequate skills for particular job vacancies, we will then try to structure a suitable training programme for him. If he does not have the right kind of skills, we will try to arrange for him to get this training. If he is unemployed, of course he does not have an employer to sponsor him, then we will recommend that he either goes to NTUC to seek help under the Education and Training Fund or goes to one of the appropriate community self-help groups to seek assistance, with the self-help group acting as a surrogate employer. We will try to do everything possible to help this person, including providing him with a training package that would be suitable for his particular background, because different people may come with different kinds of background. Some have more skills, some have less, including even some executives and middle management people, for whom maybe it is not just a question of training but opening up the job search to look at more different kinds of industry or business where he could perhaps look for alternative work. So we will do everything possible. In some cases, we even do counselling on a one-to-one basis, to help these unemployed Singaporeans to acquire a more pro-active mindset in looking for jobs. There are things like job-search skills which some people may not have - how do you prepare your curriculum vitae when you are sending out a resume, how do you present yourself at interviews. Some of these things, eg, if you do not present yourself properly during this downturn, when employers really have such a wide range to choose from, you would not get picked. So some of these job-search skills, we also try to impart. We run little workshop sessions for people who register with us in our employment register, we bring them in and conduct little seminars to help them to improve job-search skills.

Mr Low, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

One more question, Sir.

All right.

Sir, I would like to know what is the response time of the Ministry from the time an approach is made by a worker to the time of referral. Is there any timeframe set for the Ministry to conduct that? Does the Ministry follow up after the worker has been referred for job matching, because I understand that some workers, after being referred, go to the employers and the employers say they have enough people.

Sir, during this downturn, the number of people coming to my Ministry has gone up by leaps and bounds. On the other hand, the number of jobs available in the job bank has also declined, as part of the overall economic downturn. So job matching will obviously take a longer time than what we used to be able to do. We do not have a specific timeframe to find a match, but we will try as soon as a person registers with us, maybe within a few days, to give him some recommendations of job openings that are available. As to closing the feedback loop, it works both ways. We also need the job seekers to come back to us and tell us the outcome. Quite often, people go for interviews, if they get the job or even if they do not get the job, they just do not come back to us. Or, sometimes, after having recommended several job opportunities to a job seeker, he may or may not go for an interview. He may have found another job on his own, because people do not just look for jobs through our Career Link@MOM service. They are also actively looking for jobs through their own network of friends, making enquiries, what is available, what are the jobs they have, etc. So MOM offers only one of the contact points for them in terms of job search. Sometimes, when they find jobs through other avenues, they do not come back to us. So we cannot completely close the feedback loop for every case that comes to our attention. We cannot give him a definitive answer in that sense, partly because the registrants themselves do not help us to close that loop.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $15,000,000 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 2001 to 31st March, 2002. Head Z -

Head Z, Ministry of Finance. Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Z be reduced by $10 in respect of Code 4000 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, can I take my two cuts together?

Yes.

Sir, before I go into the query on the subject matter, I wish to state that I regret the Government's style in pushing these Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure in Parliament. I was notified of the Supplementary Estimates and to submit a cut, if I wished to raise any query. The deadline for the submission of a cut was 9th October, before the New Singapore Shares were announced in Parliament on 12th October. How does the PAP Government expect Opposition MPs to be able to query the matter in detail before any announcement is made? Secondly, Sir, even today, when we are supposed to pass this Estimate for the New Singapore Shares, I know very little about the New Singapore Shares scheme. I think it is only fair that the detailed scheme should be made known in this House before the Estimate is passed. I would like to know the following: 1. How many shares will each individual be allocated, and what is the basis of the allocation of the shares? 2. Are the shares allocated linked to political support for the PAP? 3. How much would the cash benefit of the shares be per individual when they are first redeemed? 4. What is the Government's projection of the cash value of the shares at their maturity in 2007? Assuming that a person keeps his share till then, how much cash benefit will he get? Sir, I now move to my second cut on assistance to needy families. Sir, I understand that $200 million is needed for the Government's contribution to the Community Assistance Fund, and I suppose these are contributions to CDCs and other organisations. I would like to know: 1. How this $200 million will be allocated. If it is to CDCs, how much will each CDC get, and how much Hougang CDC will be allocated and what is the basis of the allocation? 2. Since the fund was intended to assist needy families, what mechanism is there in place to make sure that CDCs use the fund for its intended purpose? 3. What are the specific programmes mandated by the Government for the CDCs to carry out to achieve the objective of the allocation under the Budget?

Sir, on the first question asked, on the adequacy of the notice, I think the Standing Order requirements have been met. If the hon. Member needs any further elaboration, he should address this to the Leader of the House. This is not my responsibility. The second question is on the New Singapore Shares - how many shares will be allocated - and Mr Low also wants to know why Parliament is asked to approve the sum of money without details being known. I can only suggest that this is a giveaway scheme. Where money is being given, unless you are objecting to the principle of giving New Singapore Shares to citizens, I do not see how this question is relevant. As to how many shares will be given, this will be announced by me at the Ministry of Finance tomorrow at a press conference at 9.00 am, in which all the details will be released. The principle is to allocate qualifying citizens with New Singapore Shares amounting to between 200 shares per individual, up to 1,700 shares per individual. Those who are in the lower income groups and elderly persons will get somewhat more shares; those who have served National Service will get more shares. Of course, the lower sum of $200 will apply to those who are in the higher income groups. I can give Mr Low a categorical assurance that there is no political link. All residents who qualify within Hougang constituency will receive their fair share. As to the value of these shares in the year 2007, I cannot give him a fixed figure because it depends on the basic interest rate, which is fixed at 3% per year, plus the real GDP growth rate of the preceding year. So, I do not know what the GDP growth rates will be in the year 2002, 2003, etc. But it will certainly be more than the principal sum, plus 3% per annum. At the end of the 5-year period, any person who has not cashed in any of the shares will get the full principal plus the interest accumulated. On the second question of the $200 million, it is the money given to the Community Assistance Fund (CAF). Let me explain what the Community Assistance Fund is. The Community Assistance Fund was formed by the pooling of two charitable funds, ie, the 25th Anniversary Endowment Fund and the Silver Jubilee Fund in the year 2000. The CAF funds the following financial schemes: special grants; rents and utilities assistance scheme, interim financial assistance schemes, centre-based financial assistance schemes for back-to-work childcare schemes, and other approved voluntary programmes for low income individuals. These schemes are administered by the Community Development Councils which act as one-stop agencies to administer social assistance. A Board of Trustees appointed by the Ministry of Community Development and Sports decides on the allocation policies and budget for the financial assistance expenditures. A committee of management headed by the People's Association, with representatives from all CDCs and National Council of Social Services, allocates the budget to each CDC and voluntary welfare organisation. The CAF's principal currently stands at $43 million, plus the $200 million grant, which is the subject of today's approval. The principal sum will be invested by professional fund managers to generate an annual income of approximately $5 million to fund all these financial schemes. The requirement for the CAF will be reviewed in 2005.

Clarification, Sir. While I do support the allocation and issuing of New Singapore Shares, it is only fair that Members should know the details before we can go into it to better debate and decide on the subject of the New Singapore Shares. I do know that under the Standing Orders, it is totally perfect and legal to actually give the notice for this Supplementary Estimates. Does the Minister agree that although the timeframe given is in accordance with the Standing Orders, how would he expect Opposition MPs - I suppose PAP Members all know beforehand - to debate when we do not know what actually are the New Singapore Shares about. What we know is the announcement by the Prime Minister of New Singapore Shares at his National Day Rally Speech. With that kind of situation, how does he expect Opposition MPs to ask relevant questions when they do not know anything at all? Is that fair? Would he like to comment?

Sir, I think it is eminently fair, because the proposal really is for the Government to spend money to give shares to Singapore citizens. Either you agree or you do not agree. Or, if you agree, perhaps you consider the amounts insufficient or too much. All other matters relating to the details of the allocation are the privilege of the Government, in much the same way you may or may not object to a tax cut. But you are in no position to query what the form of the tax cut should take. That is the prerogative of the Government.

Is the Minister aware that, given the PAP Government's policy and stand of dishing out benefits, with a track record of linking to political support, it is only prudent for the Opposition to know what is the detail and how is the allocation, before I come here to say whether I support or object?

I think the Prime Minister and DPM Lee have already explained it will be based on income levels, with people living in flats as a proxy. So there is no political content in it. It depends on the income level, whether you have served national service or whether you are an elderly person. I do not see the political connection in such a distribution scheme. Do you?

Sir, if my recollection is correct, an announcement on 12th October in Parliament has made it clearer. But I was supposed to send in this cut by 9th October. So what does the Minister expect me to know more than that?

Sir, as I have said earlier, it is not a question of whether you support giving away $2.7 billion in this form. If you support, then you support the Bill. If you do not, then you object and we will have a vote.

Sir, I have stated that I do support the scheme but before I come to that support, does the Minister agree that I have got to know what is the allocation principle? And for me to ask the question in detail, I need to know more information about that beforehand, before I submit the cut on 9th October. But I only know of the announcement on 12th October. So, is it fair to a Member like me?

I really do not understand. I know you are arguing on technicality for which I agree that you may have a point. But, nevertheless, because it is a proposal to share Singapore's surpluses with the population, the distribution is not something which you can argue against.

Mr Low, do you want to withdraw your amendment?

Since the Minister for Finance agrees that I do have a point although he said it was on technicalities, fair enough, at least I have got some details now, I support the scheme. I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. That the sum of $2,900,000,000 for Head Z ordered to stand part of the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 2001 to 31st March 2002.

Question, "That the sum of $2,915,000,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April 2001 to 31st March 2002 contained in Paper Cmd. 8 of 2001", put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolution. Resolution reported. "That the sum of $2,915,000,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April 2001 to 31st March 2002 contained in Paper Cmd. 8 of 2001".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution."

Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". The purpose of this Bill is to make provision in accordance with Articles 148(2) and 148C(2) of the Constitution for additional expenditure in excess of the provisions authorised by the Supply Act, 2001. The additional sum has been presented as Supplementary Estimates which have been considered and approved by the House as Command Paper No. 8 of 2001. Sir, I beg to move.

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

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

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

Order for Second Reading read. 1.05 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Singapore is a member of the United Nations. Like all other members of the United Nations, we are legally bound by the UN Charter to implement mandatory resolutions of the UN Security Council. A failure to give effect to the measures mandated by the Security Council would be a breach of our international obligations for which Singapore may be subject to censure and sanctions by the Security Council. A good illustration is the recent United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 adopted on 28th September 2001 which was after the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11th. It calls upon member States to implement a series of measures against terrorism and the financing of terrorism. This resolution, passed under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, is binding on all member States. It calls for international cooperation to combat threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist attacks and provides for the imposition of strict new measures to criminalise and prevent the financing of terrorism. Sir, the approach we have hitherto taken has been to implement mandatory UN Security Council resolutions through a variety of existing legislative and administrative measures. Where we have not been able to give effect to Security Council resolutions through existing laws, we have sought to amend specific legislation. For example, last year, Parliament amended the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act, the Air Navigation Act and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to enable Singapore to be better able to give effect to our various treaty obligations. We can implement most of the requirements of the recent Security Council Resolution 1373 under our existing laws. However, given its unique scope and breadth of the resolution, there are some aspects of the resolution that cannot be met under our existing laws. For example, there is a requirement that member states shall: "Criminalise the wilful provision or collection, by any means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in their territories with the intention that the funds should be used, or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in order to carry out terrorist acts;" However, our existing laws do not criminalise the provision or collection of funds by Singapore citizens outside Singapore for criminal or terrorist acts committed outside Singapore. We also have to consider the possibility that there may be future UN Security Council resolutions to deal with terrorism or other pressing international crimes. We would not be able to anticipate or predict the breadth and depth of these possible future resolutions. Nonetheless, we must ensure that we are in a position to be able to give effect to them effectively and promptly. This Bill is therefore necessary to ensure that our laws are adequate and to overcome any possible lacuna that would prevent Singapore from effectively fulfilling our international obligations. This Act will enable the Government to pass such regulations necessary to give effect to the decisions of the UN Security Council. It will avoid a situation where gaps in our laws prevent us from implementing the UN Security Council resolutions. Let me add that countries such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and India (amongst others) already have in place facilitating legislation, mostly broadly similar, to allow speedy implementation of Security Council decisions. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. The UN is the most important international organisation today, specifically for a small country like Singapore. Yet, there is no world government. In this sense, there is always a tension between what each country must do to fulfil its international obligations and what each country must do on the basis of the sovereignty of its own people as represented in Parliament. Clearly, Sir, the UN Security Council has powers under Chapter VII to make laws and to bind governments, as the Minister has said. This is particularly under Article 41 of the UN Charter, read together with Article 48. In the past, this has not been of much use because each permanent member of the Security Council can exercise a veto and, during the Cold War, the disagreements among these permanent five members led to a very few resolutions being binding on the governments of the world. But since the end of the Cold War, there has been much more agreement among the permanent five and many more Chapter VII resolutions have been called for and this is likely to increase further in the wake of the 11th September events. It is often good that the nations of the world can act in concert. There are, however, other cases in which there may be some cause for concern. While the general approach of the present Bill is correct, I think these questions must be raised in the minds of people. The first question is whether Singaporean laws will be overridden. The Bill provides that they can be. However, it also provides an assurance, Sir, that constitutional protection continues. This is reassuring for Singaporeans, that is to say, that while we will follow the UN Security Council directions, we will still be protected by the Singapore Constitution. There is, however, another question as to whether this Bill, when given effect, would be through the Singapore police or other officials. This is because clause 2(1)(b) of the Bill provides that the Government or the Minister might empower whichever people they desire. If I could just read that relevant clause. This would allow "empowering any person or class of persons to exercise, when investigating any offence under this Act or any regulations made thereunder, all or any of the powers of a police officer under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68) in relation to seizable offences." In this sense, I would ask the Minister if he would envisage that non-Singaporeans, non-police officers or other persons would be used to effect these regulations. Sir, I have three smaller questions. First, while I recognise that the UN Security Council has the power to compel all states, including small states such as Singapore, to follow its resolutions, there must be some thought given to the need to consult affected states. Singapore has, in the past, talked about UN Security Council reform and brought up the point about the need to consult smaller states before they are effected. I would like the Minister to answer whether this would continue to be our stand or whether now, we will simply accept whatever the UN Security Council decides upon. I ask this question in the context of some sanctions and other moves which in the long term have come to be questioned by such a community. These, for example, are the sanctions on Iraq that, in some views, have persisted for too long a time and affected many of the Iraqi people. The second question I would like to ask is on the process of how we do this. As the Minister noted, in almost all cases up to now, we have amended the laws on a case by case basis. This requires that the laws would have to come to Parliament to be approved or disapproved. This is consistent with what is called the dualist theory of international law, that is to say, that while international law may say one thing, it is not binding in Singapore until it is incorporated through our national laws. And this keeps the primary focal point on our Parliament as a sovereign law-making body. However, Sir, in this present Bill, I notice that it will basically short-cut Parliament. It will delegate to the Executive the decisions on how to implement UN Security Council resolutions. Sir, I understand, in some ways, that these resolutions may come at such a pace and with such urgency that there may not be time to consider a Bill fully in Parliament. I wish to ask the Minister whether there will be some time for another mechanism, perhaps a consultation with a smaller group of Members of Parliament, like the GPC for Foreign Affairs. My third point is that I do acknowledge the need for Singapore law to be consistent with international law, and I generally support this Bill. However, I wish the Minister would consider that the UN Security Council resolutions are only one aspect of keeping our national laws consistent with international obligations. And I must, in that sense, ask what is our approach to other treaties and laws that bind us. For instance, Singapore has ratified the Genocide Convention, but this has not been fully incorporated into our national laws. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. I just have a few comments. This Bill could have, on reflection, been introduced earlier perhaps. There have been many acts of terrorism in this world. Over the years, since Singapore became independent and a member of the United Nations, were there not earlier resolutions in the United Nations relating to acts of terrorism or related matters where Singapore had been a participant in the debates, and therefore we could have adopted the resolutions that were passed in the United Nations, as in the present form of legislation in Singapore? If not, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister why this has not been done. Also, how active has been the Singapore Representative to the United Nations, in terms of promoting resolutions to prevent terrorism? The other point I would like to raise is whether, in the course of the debates in the United Nations - and I am sure there must have been - the definition of "terrorism" was debated and defined. And if there was a proper definition of "terrorism", whether that could be incorporated into our local legislation, so that we know exactly what "terrorism" means. A simple definition of "terrorism" could be one who terrorises, a nation that terrorises or a group that terrorises. So it could be a very wide definition. Perhaps a form of definition would be helpful. Sir, in a sense, it could be argued that this Bill is being introduced rather urgently because the United States of America, a giant, is involved. The September 11, 2001 tragedy has been responsible, in a sense, for us to introduce this Bill in Parliament. Whilst all of us are very sad and sympathetic to the families whose dear ones have passed away during this incident and others who are affected adversely by this tragedy, we, as parliamentarians, must be seen to be legislating local laws based on consistent principles. And I would submit that our UN Representative should be more active in this regard, not because of the September 11 incident, but any incident relating to such matters affecting terrorism in other parts of the world too, and not just the United States. There is also a financial provision in the Bill. I would like to seek clarification on this. I am not sure of the exact impact of it. Would the provision in the Banking Act on banking secrecy be involved when this piece of legislation is enacted? In terms of banking secrecy, there is the secrecy not to divulge any form of information relating to bank accounts. Would the authorities now have the powers to investigate and look into the aspect of where finances have been banked into or transferred to, so that acts of terrorism are not just a physical act, but to find out where the finances have come from and are going to, so that terrorism could be minimised in Singapore, the region and the world at large. With that, Sir, I would support this Bill.

Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken and I will now respond to their specific comments. I also wish to thank them for their support of the Bill. First, Mr Simon Tay asked for clarification on clause 2(b) of the Bill, whether this is in any way conferring powers of investigation on non-Singaporean officials. Let me assure him that clause 2(b) is not intended and, in fact, does not empower non-Singaporean law officials to exercise powers of investigation for offences under the regulations which may be made under the Bill. This power is restricted to giving powers of investigations to persons within Singapore. It does not have extra-territorial scope, either for non-Singaporean officials to exercise jurisdiction here or for Singaporeans to exercise jurisdiction in other countries. In most cases, offences under the Bill will be investigated by the Police. However, we can conceive of situations where it may be necessary to confer powers of investigations on other persons. They may be customs officials, immigration officials or commercial affairs officers. These officers, of course, do have powers of investigation with respect to the Acts under which they have been appointed. But if not for this Bill and the regulations, they may not have powers of investigations for offences under the proposed Bill. That is why we have clause 2(b) of the Bill. Mr Simon Tay also asked about the process in the UN Security Council, the role of smaller states and so on. Yes, it is true that the permanent five, in reality, are key to most of the decisions of the UN Security Council. But if he is asking whether Singapore and other small states do have a role and whether they are consulted in the process, the answer to that is yes, they have a role. It depends on the kind of ideas and constructive suggestions they bring to bear on either the principle being discussed, in the details of the implementation, or on procedural matters. We have, in the UN, a very hardworking team of officers led by our Permanent Representative, and I think they are doing a very good job in representing Singapore's interests. When we ask for consultation, it is not because we are a small state. The consultation would be useful for ensuring that whatever decisions that the Security Council takes have as broad-based a support of the UN membership and of the international community. His third point is that the structure of the Bill is that of an enabling legislation and most of the details will have to be implemented through regulations, and whether this somehow undermines the sovereignty of Parliament. I would like to assure him that this is not so. When we come to questions of implementing UN Security Council resolutions, particularly of the nature of Resolution 1373, often speed and timeliness is of the essence. And as he knows, since he has taught international law, the inadequacy of domestic law cannot be an excuse for failure to perform international obligations. Therefore, because of the breadth of the Security Council's resolutions and because we expect many follow-up of the Security Council, which will require other measures to be taken effectively and promptly by UN members, we cannot anticipate that there will always be timely occasion to come to Parliament to pass legislation through First Reading, Second Reading and Third Reading. So this is the reason why we have to structure the Bill as it is and, as I have mentioned in my main speech, in fact, this is the approach taken by most countries whose legislation we have surveyed. And I guess they too realise the need for speedy, effective and prompt implementation. Having said that, let me also say that, in a sense, this legislation is unusual in that it is regulation to give effect to the UN Security Council resolutions, but it is not unusual in the sense that in our body of laws, we have many examples where domestic legislation has empowered the Minister to be able to make regulations and rules to give effect to the basic norms set out in the parent legislation. He has asked, following his first premise, whether we could consult a small group of Members of Parliament. I think this is not really practical in order to be able to give effect to the purposes for which we are enacting this legislation. Let me take the example of UN Resolution 1373. One of the provisions asks for almost effective action to arrest and take other measures with regard to terrorists on the list or organisations under the Executive Order of the United States, which, in a sense, has been adopted by the Security Council's Committee under Resolution 1333. When the UN Security Council does that, it is not a question of us having to consult with the GPC and so on. We have to implement it immediately. So, in that sense, we have no choice. Otherwise, we are in default of UN Security Council's resolutions. I am sure the Member will understand that this is an obligation on Singapore and all other members of the United Nations. And if we were to tell the Secretary-General or the Chairman of whichever sanctions committee that we are going to hold it up, and we are not going to arrest, or we are not going to take other necessary actions, because we have to consult the GPC - without any disrespect to the GPC - then we may have a situation of having failed to do what we must do. So it is not in any way undermining Members of Parliament. The fact that we have come to Parliament to get this authorisation is, in fact, in keeping with the principle of getting parliamentary approval, as many other countries have done. He has also raised the issue of the Genocide Convention. His point is that apart from this legislation, have we looked at other obligations we may have in the United Nations, and have we ensured that our domestic laws are adequate to give effect. Let me assure him that we always examine this issue carefully. In other words, if we are committing ourselves to an international obligation, such as conventions and treaties, have we got our domestic legislation adequately in place to be able to give effect to our international obligations? So, as a general answer, let me assure him that it is so. Specifically, about the Genocide Convention, I can only repeat what I said at the last occasion when, I believe, it was he who also raised this point. We were advised by the Attorney-General's Chambers that there was no mandatory obligation to enact express enabling legislation and that most, if not all, of the requirements under the Genocide Convention could be done through existing legislation and that we could also enact legislation to the Penal Code to give effect to the Genocide Convention. But there is no pressing urgency to do that, and it is a matter that our draftsmen in the Attorney-General's Chambers have on the agenda. I believe I have answered most of the questions of Mr Simon Tay. I thank Mr Chandra Mohan also for his support, and he has raised a few questions too. One is: why is it that we did not enact the UN Act earlier; on reflection, we should have anticipated this? Yes, we could have enacted this earlier. But we did not do so because we found that our previous practice had served us well. By that I mean that where we have not been able to give effect to the Security Council's resolutions, we amended legislation as and when the occasion arose. Because there was no pressing urgency to have this kind of enabling legislation. Most of the resolutions give ample time for implementation. And also we found that we were able to implement previous resolutions either through administrative measures or through existing legislation. As and when we need it, we amend other legislation, as I mentioned in my main speech. But what has happened really is that the scope and nature of UN sanctions have changed recently. And I would say up to the early 1990s, the sanctions were relatively straightforward such as trade and arms embargoes, but the comprehensive nature of sanctions now being implemented by the United Nations Security Council presents a completely new picture and this is why we have decided that the previous system of ad hoc amendment of legislation may not be workable anymore, and that is why we have come to this House for this kind of enabling legislation which will enable us to implement the resolution which is, as you may have seen, very sweeping in nature. It has changed in the sense that time becomes of the essence. You have to implement speedily and report speedily to the Security Council. In most cases now, after the resolution is adopted, a committee is set up, which is loosely referred to as the Sanctions Committee. The members would be asked to report very soon what they have done and what kind of follow-up actions they have taken. So really there is no luxury of time anymore. He has asked how active we are at the United Nations in proposing resolution on terrorism. It is really not a case of Singapore proposing our own resolutions to the Security Council. It calls for international discussions in various forums, both within as well as outside the UN. Thus, while we are active in the UN Security Council, you would have read in the papers that ASEAN recently had a ministerial meeting on transnational crimes where they had also decided to take specific cooperative measures on terrorism. It is a matter which must be tackled at all fronts, both on the wide global plane at the UN and also outside the UN at the relevant forum, including law enforcement at expert levels where the people are engaged in exchange of information and operational cooperative measures. He asked about the definition of terrorism. I must say that this is one of the most difficult issues in any discussion on measures against terrorism. It is a difficult issue for the Security Council, for the General Assembly and in any other forum where they are discussing this. The Member was thinking aloud the definition of a terrorist as anyone "who commits terrorism" on a large scale, or something to that effect. Then you would have another nice debate as to what is "terrorism" and what is not terrorism. I think the approach taken by the Security Council was that this issue may have to be tackled at some stage, but you cannot allow this lack of agreement or lack of clarity on the details to prevent international committees getting together and taking a collective action. When the Committee, established under Resolution 1373, gets down to business, they will have to address some specific issues and this will be one of the issues that they will address. He made the point that Singapore's position at the UN and elsewhere must be to condemn terrorism anywhere and not just terrorism that occurs in the United States. But it has never been our position that we only condemn terrorism which has taken place in the United States. If he had read all the statements made by Singapore on terrorism, on acts committed elsewhere before September 11th or after September 11th, and if he had followed the speeches given, starting from DPM BG Lee's speech at the Forbes, then the Prime Minister's speech at the memorial service, right up to the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, if one thing should be clear to Singaporeans as well as to people outside Singapore, it is that we have been consistent in condemning all forms of terrorism, whoever perpetrates it against whichever country or whichever people it is directed against. This continues to be our firm stand, both within and outside the United Nations. His final point was about banking secrecy. Let me assure him that whatever is necessary to implement the UN Security Council's resolution to give effect to UN Security Council's resolution on freezing of funds, giving information to the UN on whether funds of terrorists have come to Singapore, if it is not already covered by the relevant amendments to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Act last year, then it would be covered under the new regulation. But we find that the requirements of the UN Security Council's resolution with regard to freezing of assets and so on can be adequately done under the amendments to the MAS legislation. If it is not sufficient, then, of course, other measures may be needed. I think I have answered all the questions.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 1.38 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Background Sir, on 19th April 2001, the Government amended the Parliamentary Elections Act to provide for overseas voting, and announced plans to have overseas voting in the coming General Elections at five of Singapore's diplomatic missions, namely, Beijing, Hong Kong, Canberra, London and Washington. Preparations were already underway, and on 26th September the Elections Department announced that eligible Singaporeans living overseas could start to register to vote at these five missions. On 29th September, the Government announced its decision not to conduct overseas voting in the coming General Election. I will explain the rationale for the Government's decision. Security Considerations Overriding On 28th September 2001 the Government received information on the actions that the United States planned to take. The Government then came to the conclusion that military action by the United States was imminent. We also had information that a second wave of attacks by the terrorists was expected, especially after the United States' military action, and the targets would not just be in the United States. This second wave of attacks may not be similar in nature as the first. There were also media reports that biological and chemical weapons might be used. The Government could not ignore these threat scenarios, and the danger these would pose to our people overseas should we go ahead with overseas voting. The Government then did a re-assessment of the situation and decided that it was best not to expose our citizens overseas to unnecessary risks. We were not able to disclose this information in the press statement issued on 29th September 2001 as doing so at that time would compromise our intelligence sources. Now, we know that United States military action began on 7th October. They were joined by the United Kingdom. Osama bin Ladin and the Al-Qaeda leaders have said repeatedly that they would strike back. There are now several cases of anthrax reported in the United States. Although these cases have not been linked directly to the terrorists, United States Vice-President Dick Cheney said a few days ago that the rising number of anthrax cases could be linked to terrorists. Bio-terrorism is a real possibility. Over the weekend, the FBI said it had received information that there may be additional attacks inside the United States or abroad in the next few days, and asked all law enforcement agencies to go on the highest alert. One possible threat cited by a United States intelligence official was attacks on diplomatic sites overseas. It is no consolation that we are proven right in our belief. Getting Singaporeans to congregate at known locations overseas on a published date for the purpose of voting will certainly expose our citizens to unnecessary security risk. We cannot take the security and safety of our fellow citizens for granted, no matter which part of the world they may be in. Many capital cities have gone on heightened alert, including the five cities which were to have been our overseas voting centres. We cannot expect foreign host countries to guarantee the safety of our people, under current circumstances. Moreover they have their own priorities and risks to manage. All our overseas missions have been advised to heighten their security alertness, such as looking out for unidentified vehicles parked close to the chancery building or unattended receptacles and items. However, there is only so much that they can do. Having to additionally manage voter registration and voting will dilute the missions' resources further, and hamper their effectiveness in essential duties such as covering and monitoring the fast developing and changing events in their respective areas, which serve to protect Singapore's national interests. Putting too much stress on our missions will inevitably raise the risk of security lapses, something we must avoid. Sir, tension has mounted following the military strikes in Afghanistan. We do not know when, where or how the terrorists will strike back. Security will have to be further tightened. Events are unfolding as situations change day by day. We cannot anticipate what may come the next day. We have to be prepared for the worst. Freedom of movement could well be severely reduced. Airports and roads could be closed, and public transport at a standstill. Our missions will then also have to cope with the upsurge of consular work, looking after the welfare of citizens who are overseas. In the extreme, our missions may even have to be shut down partially or completely, interrupting any elections related work or even stopping them entirely. As security considerations are overriding, the Government has therefore decided reluctantly, in these exceptional circumstances, that there will be no overseas voting in the coming General Election. Clause 2 of the Bill suspends the relevant provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act to effect this. Although the Bill is deemed to take effect from 26th September 2001, until the Bill is passed and signed into law, the present law allowing for registration of overseas electors remains in force. This means that at present the Registration Officer will have to continue to receive applications from overseas voters in accordance with the law in force today. Clause 3 of the Bill has thus been added to validate the acts and decisions of the Registration Officer not to register any non-resident citizens as an overseas elector taken since 28th September 2001 until the registers of electors are certified. Current Situation Sir, the sole reason for Government's decision is security. At the 25th September sitting of Parliament, I briefed Members of the House on the security threat faced by Singapore, as a result of the recent terrorist attacks in the US. The Prime Minister himself elaborated on this last evening at his dialogue with the trade union leaders. The United States and United Kingdom have started to attack terrorists hideouts in Afghanistan on 7th October. The financial assets of terrorist groups have also been frozen. The United Nations Security Council has passed resolutions prohibiting the funding or the giving of any form of assistance to terrorists. The terrorist groups have threatened to launch counter-attacks on countries taking part in these anti-terrorist measures. Singapore is a responsible member of the United Nations and of the world community. We have repeatedly stated our stand against terrorism and will play our part to bring the perpetrators of terrorism to justice. Singapore will implement the recently passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 with the United Nations Bill just passed by Parliament this afternoon, to demonstrate our resolution against terrorism. We will play our part in the global effort to freeze the financial resources of terrorist networks. It is only when all the countries in the world unite against terrorism that we can hope to remove this scourge from the face of the earth. Singapore signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States in 1990, enabling the use of our bases by US air force and navy units to transit through Singapore. A higher volume of aircraft and ships are transiting through Singapore, especially since the US launched its retaliatory attacks. In the light of these recent developments, Singapore has now got to be more vigilant. Like other countries, we have stepped up security measures to protect our people and vital installations and offices, here and abroad. Members must not forget that Singapore has not been spared from terrorist attacks. In 1974, the Japanese Red Army hijacked a ferry, the Laju. And in 1985 and 1986, two bombs exploded at Faber House in Orchard Road. In 1991, Singapore Airlines flight SQ 117 was hijacked by Pakistani militants. We cannot, therefore, afford to take things lightly just because we have not been affected directly in the September 11 attacks. Suspension of Overseas Voting Sir, some people have speculated that it was due to the Government wanting to call a snap election that the registration for overseas voting was suspended. They surmise that the Elections Department was not ready for an early election. Let me say that this is not the case. All elements for overseas voting system are operationally ready. The Elections Department has already distributed brochures and application forms to our missions overseas. It also briefed the officers from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who, in turn, briefed the mission staff and helped out in the public enquiries and registration there. The polling booths and ballot boxes that were specially made for overseas voting were also ready. In fact, some officers were sent to the five missions on 26th September when the announcement was made by the Elections Department to assist the missions in the registration of overseas voters. As I have explained at length, the overriding consideration is that of security. However, there may still be sceptics or cynics who will choose not to believe this. So should there be an election soon, they will say, "There you are, I told you so." Let me reiterate that the Government's responsibility is to protect its people. We will avoid putting overseas Singaporeans at unnecessary risk in situations which are not within our control. The Government could still call a snap election if it wanted to. But it has nothing to do with cancelling overseas registration. Conclusion Sir, the Government is just as disappointed as many Singaporeans are that there will be no overseas voting in the coming General Election. The Elections Department would have gained valuable experience if overseas voting at the five missions proceeded as planned. The Government hopes that the Singapore citizens abroad who had intended to cast their votes at these five voting centres will understand the extraordinary international security situation which has made this decision necessary. Finally, I stress that this is only a temporary suspension of overseas voting. It is certainly not a permanent reversal of Government policy. The Bill provides for suspension of the relevant provisions related to overseas voting only until the polling day of the coming General Election. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to begin by thanking the Minister for his very full explanation and response to the market talk, or town talk, that there was a connection between the suspension of overseas voting and the talk of an early General Election. I think that Singaporeans should have the reassurance, as the Minister has given us, that this House, after deciding on overseas voting, does value overseas Singaporeans who are working abroad and wish to cast their votes. And I am glad also that the Minister has taken pains to point out, in detail, how the relevant Government agencies were ready to do this in time even if a snap election is called. And I think in this sense, I would agree with him that, having heard him, even if an early General Election is called, it would be coincidence rather than causation. The Minister has shared with us some of his evaluation of risks for our overseas Embassies. Could he tell us what other events might be affected? For example, would it be that events at our Embassies abroad would be cut down or, perhaps, cut out altogether? For example, large public receptions? Secondly, Sir, I would agree with the Minister that it is best to forgo all five cities at one go. There have been some suggestions, I think in the press, that if our Embassy in USA was the chief risk, why not allow voting to carry on in other countries? I would, myself, think that this would be the wrong policy. Firstly, I agree with the Minister that it is not sound in practice because the terrorists could strike anywhere. Secondly, I would further add that it is not sound in principle because it would discriminate amongst our overseas voters; that is, those in America might be deprived whereas those, say, in China will continue. Looking further ahead, may I ask the Minister whether we should not look towards secured electronic voting for overseas Singaporeans. Can we not use this time between this coming GE and the next to look into this possibility? This should be good for the ease and security of voting. And secondly, it would be a very good demonstration of the security of electronic commerce. With this, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, voting at the General Election is a right of every Singaporean and this extends to some of our citizens living abroad as a result of the recent amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act. I would submit, Mr Speaker, Sir, let our citizens decide whether to vote or not to vote given the opportunity to vote when they are living abroad, even if it means a threat to their security, perceived or real. Security considerations are important, no doubt. So is the right to vote. Can we not utilise electronic filing system and electronic voting system to see how it works? And this can be devised as soon as possible so that the market talk about the suspension of voting by our foreign citizens is quelled. Can we not in the process also secretly inform our citizens, who are living abroad, that voting can be held at a secret location? And if you are really serious about this, if we want to do it, we can. Let us see how ingenious our Government is. One of the problems in this kind of issues is the lack of information, or there is very little information available to our citizens. No doubt, the reason or the excuse is security reasons. And all in the name of security reasons, there is very little information for most people, including parliamentarians. Perhaps, more information could be disseminated to our citizens and parliamentarians. We must have confidence in our citizens to analyse this information and decide for themselves. We must not treat it as though they will react adversely to any information that is disseminated to the citizens. We must have confidence in their sensible and rational ways. What are the danger signs of terrorism against Singapore and our Embassies outside Singapore? At the moment, we are not quite sure. No doubt, there may be information from the internal and external security agencies to convince our Minister that we must not have overseas voting at the moment. But the lack of information disseminated to the citizenry brings about this form of suspicion that there could be other motives. So, perhaps we will have to find some sort of balance where this could be taken care of. One could argue, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we are really serious about it, then do not call for General Election until just before August 2002. One could argue, why the hurry? What are the good reasons why we should have, from what we hear, election to be held soon? If there is a pressing problem of security of our nation, then why call for General Election, because life goes on in Singapore, especially since it is a situation where there have not been any major changes to bring about General Election, for which our Government still has time? It has got another nine to 10 months. And if you are going along that line, let us see what happens in the next few months. If there is a reduction in the discussion and acts of terrorism, then perhaps this particular Bill would not be necessary at all.

Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. Most overseas voters, as indicated by letters sent to the press, are disappointed that they are not allowed to vote at the next General Election. The reason given by the Government for scrapping overseas voting is that the overseas Missions are not able to maintain sufficient security in the light of the 11th September terrorist attacks in New York and Washington DC, USA. However, most overseas voters appear to be sceptical of the reason given by the Government. One overseas voter asked, "If Washington is dangerous, then why not continue with the voting at the other four designated centres in London, Beijing, Hong Kong and Canberra?" Indeed, why not? Many are also surprised that our overseas Missions lack confidence in their security systems. The fact that the Government is quick to cancel all overseas voting shows the attitude of the Government towards the constitutional rights of its citizens. For a long time now, the Opposition suspects that the Government has never been enthusiastic about the elections. At each General Election, it wants to get it over as fast as possible. Many General Elections had been held at the most awkward times, either during festive-end or rainy seasons. And the minimum time under the Constitution, nine days, is given for canvassing. The scrapping of overseas voting in double-quick time is evidence that the Government is not too keen on giving Singaporeans their constitutional right to vote. Most overseas voters who wrote to the press recently indicated that they want to vote at the next General Election, despite the terrorist attacks. They feel that when they have voted, they would have a stronger bond to their homeland. They would feel that they are more Singaporean, and they also want to reassure themselves that they are citizens of Singapore. I think the Government should lift the suspension for overseas voting and allow our citizens living abroad to vote at the next General Election, at the same time, of course, making sure that all security measures are taken. If the Government thinks that to open all five overseas centres is not very safe, then, at least, it should allow the other four centres to go on. There are substantial numbers of Singapore citizens abroad, other than those residing in America. Overseas voters who are not living in America should be given a chance to vote, and I would even suggest that, perhaps, more overseas voting centres be opened. For example, in Australia, other than just having it only in Canberra, we may have one, say, in Perth. I understand that there are many, many Singapore students aged over 21 who are studying in Perth. They should be given a chance to vote. Also, there are many people who go over to China to do business. They should be given a chance to vote. Maybe one other centre can be opened, other than Beijing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I listened to the speakers before me, it is important that they be aware of the security issue, and that they have not given sufficient attention to that aspect. I agree entirely with the Minister that the security of our citizens, especially in overseas stations, is paramount. Citizens probably would prefer to exercise their rights in reasonably secure situations, and it would be best if their lives not be put at risk due to the enhanced security problems now in the West. Since some speakers have mentioned about the use of electronic voting, I should just like to ask the Minister to clarify one point. Overseas voting and electronic voting are two new elements that were brought in recently through the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill. Would the Minister confirm that the Elections Department would still carry on with the electronic voting pilot scheme in Singapore? Sir, I support the Bill.

Sir, let me first deal with the question from Prof. Chin Tet Yung about electronic voting. I moved an amendment in Parliament on this some months ago. Indeed, the Elections Department has been progressing with this matter for many months ever since Parliament approved having electronic voting in the coming General Election. They have been working very closely with the vendors and the systems designers to come up with a system. In fact, even before that, they also have a prototype plan to educate the public about how e-voting is supposed to be done and a session was also arranged for our MPs to see how the system works. But the details have yet to be worked out and these details have to be worked out with the technical people, the software writers, the designers, as well as with the vendors who supply the system. And that is only one part of it. The key part of it is how to ensure that electronic voting is supposed to do the job that we want it to do, ie, to allow voters to vote in secret. We have agreed that the Auditor-General should be the authority to certify the system. The Auditor-General has appointed a consultant to work closely with his staff, to help them look into this system to ensure that its objectives are met. They have been doing this for the last several months. The Elections Department has also spent money buying equipment and on developing software to develop the electronic voting system for use in the coming General Election. But there are many issues to be resolved. The key part really is in the certification exercise, as well as the matrix involved in determining what goes in. Apparently, I am told that this has taken some time, and issues on whether the acceptance tests and the certification tests can be ready in time before the next General Election or not, we do not know because, from the current timetable, they are supposed to complete this process by the end of December. So, if the system is ready and we have elections, then, yes, e-voting will be implemented. But when we have elections and the system is not ready, then certainly we cannot use e-voting as a pilot in a one or two constituencies that we plan to do when I last spoke. So that is the status of electronic voting. Let me now come to the other parts of the debate which several Members have also spoken, and I thank them for raising their views here and allowing me an opportunity to clarify some of them. Mr Simon Tay asked us to look at the way of securing overseas voting and to come out with an electronic voting system. Even a simple system like that in which we talk about touch screen and keying in "Yes" or "No" and which party, etc, already takes time. And that is not even electronic in the real sense of the word, where it is transmitted from one station to another. It is just a simple system in a particular polling station and nothing goes out of that space. When you have electronic voting or secure overseas voting, through either the Web or through some other means, that is an issue far more difficult than the e-voting that we are planning. Even in the United States, I believe one state has commissioned an expert study on this and they have come to the conclusion that, today, there is no safe way of having Internet voting or voting on the Web. There is no way that it can ensure that the system works for them in the way that they wanted. So, this also deals with Mr Chandra Mohan's point. We cannot design a system just like that. It takes expertise, many, many experts and hours, to come out with something. And if the country that has the most experts and that is most knowledgeable, the United States, has not tried it, I think we must fear to tread. On the question of right to vote, I have dealt with this at great length - whether citizens have a right to vote and whether overseas citizens have a right to vote, and there were many verbal gymnastic sessions that we had been through, I would not go into this detail here today. If hon. Members will refer to the Hansard as well as to the other speeches I have made, we have settled that quite clearly. No doubt, some people may still raise this question, but the law is very, very clear. The law, as it stands before our amendment to allow for overseas voting, is quite clear that only citizens resident in Singapore can vote. Then we amended the law to provide for citizens overseas to vote, provided they meet certain conditions. We have set the conditions and we will now see how that will work out before we consider any change to these conditions. So I will not deal with that for now until we have tried that out. As to whether we want to open up more centres in other parts of the world, in other countries, whether it is going to be in Perth or Shanghai or Shenzhen, etc, I have also said that the five centres that we have selected are the five capital cities and, according to the Vienna Convention, these are places where we have our consular officers there, we have our diplomatic community there and we conduct our business there as a sovereign Government. That we will continue to do so. To try to expand all that into other areas, I think there are other issues that we will have to deal with as well. So we will leave that to later, when we have tried out how the selected Missions can implement a system like that when we have overseas voting. On whether to have it in the other four Missions, apart from Washington, like Mr Chiam and Mr Chandra Mohan suggested, Mr Simon Tay made a valid point that we should not be selective in allowing Singaporeans overseas to vote. Besides, the security consideration is the same. We are not saying that only the United States has a problem. In my speech, I have said, at length, that we cannot expect what will come the next day. Unfortunately, Mr Chiam was not here when I explained in great detail the reasons why we have decided to cancel this registration of overseas voting, and he raised, in his speech a number of questions which I have actually dealt with. I would suggest that he reads my speech when the Hansard is out. Or if he would like to borrow a copy of the statement, I would be pleased to show it to him. Regarding Mr Chandra Mohan's suggestion to secretly tell overseas voters about voting in a secret location, we cannot find a way to inform citizens secretly about voting in secret places. No matter how ingenious we are - we are clever - but not that clever to find such an ingenious way of informing citizens secretly about secret voting locations. One of my Permanent Secretaries once told me when I was a young officer, "Kan Seng, when two persons know of a matter, it is no longer a secret." So, how are we going to tell thousands of overseas Singaporeans, "This is a secret location. I tell you secretly, please go and vote on this secret day." It is just beyond my ability to think about it. Maybe if Mr Chandra Mohan can find a way of doing so, please secretly tell me about it! On Mr Chandra Mohan's question on calling for the GE and his suggestion that we do not call for it until the situation is more secure since we have up to August 2002 to call it, let me say that it is the prerogative of the Government to call for an election any time between now and August 2002. Who is to determine that this is the best time? It surely must be the Government. Who is to say that if we extend this to August 2002, we can expect no further unforeseen circumstances? I cannot guarantee that. I cannot tell him that if we defer this for the time being until the attack is over, until the terrorist counter-attack, everything will be peaceful and calm and we will back to our life as per normal. I cannot guarantee that today. Even before September 11th, in some places, maybe he can. But there is no utopia on earth. Unfortunately, we cannot tell what may happen between now and August 2002. So the Government has to choose the best time to have an election. It may be coming soon. It may be August 2002. So, we will have to wait and see. If people expect that election is coming soon, then let them be prepared for it. If they think that we should follow Mr Chandra Mohan's advice and wait till August 2002, so be it. I think we let it be like that. About giving information to people on security threats that we face, we would like to share as much as possible but, at the same time, we must also not unnecessarily alarm our people about every piece of information that we receive. Even in the United States, I do not think that all the key people are privy to all the secrets and intelligence information. Even for the Intelligence Committee in the Congress, I do not think they are privy to every bit of intelligence information, but they receive Congressional notes, briefings from the intelligence agencies. If need be, we will tell the public what happened but we will choose what to tell, because we also have to make sure that the sources of information that we receive are also protected. By nature, security must be something that we must take very seriously, and not simply publicise it every time we receive a piece of information. We will tell the people as much as we can. Sir, I think I have answered most of the questions that were raised by Members here. If there is anything that I have missed out that Members think is important, please raise it again.

Sir, I have a few questions about e-voting. On the road-show that the Minister is talking about, when will it come on? The second question is how many constituencies will have e-voting?

We would like to do the road-show with the equipment and the system that closely resemble what we are going to do for the actual e-voting. Then it is meaningful in the public education exercise. If we were to use the prototype that the Elections Department and its vendors worked out to educate the public, I think it may confuse the people. So we have to wait for that said system to be ready before we can start the road-show to educate the public. As I have said, the system is not likely to be ready until the end of this year. So, we cannot have road-shows definitely before the end of this year. As to how many constituencies will have this e-voting, I have said, as a pilot, we will choose one or maybe two single member constituencies. It is small scale, big enough for us to try out and, at the same time, give us a hands-on experience as well as educate the public on what e-voting is all about. If Potong Pasir would like to volunteer, we will think about it.

Sir, I made it clear to the Minister the last time when the prototype was shown to the MPs that Potong Pasir is definitely not interested in e-voting. An hon. Member: Why?

It is all right if Mr Chiam does not like it. But Mr Low Thia Khiang, when he made a speech here during the debate on the Second Reading of the Amendment Bill, welcomed it.

Sir, it is a question that the Minister may have missed. This is a simple question that while I give the benefit of the doubt to the Government's assessment of security, I would like to ask the Minister whether any other changes will be made to security at our overseas embassies, such as the holding of large receptions. Second, is a point of clarification. When I mentioned about the prospect of looking into a secured electronic voting for overseas Singaporeans, I did not mean that it is for now, but I meant, prospectively, for the next General Election.

Yes, we will look at all kinds of systems that may come by. In fact, after we showed the prototype to Members of Parliament and after we got a vendor to come up with a system and they are still working on it, I also got a briefing from the Indians who had an e-voting system, a simple gadget which had been implemented in several states in India. We have looked at the system. It is very simple, and we are exploring that too as a possibility. Of course, there is one missing key element in that Indian system, and that is the inability for us to know whether it is a real voter or somebody else who pressed the key. Whereas in our system, we have a serial number, and in case there is a challenge or a petition to the court, the court will then say, "Check, open this up", and we will know whether there is such a voter or not. But in the Indian system, this check is not available. So we have asked them to explore whether they could put in something that will allow us to trace, whether it is a real voter with the right name in the register. As regards to holding a large reception by our missions, our missions would have to take all the factors into consideration, including the importance of the occasion, the security aspects, as well as other considerations before they decide whether to have or not to have a large reception. I must leave that to the missions to exercise their judgment.

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-six Minutes past two'clock pm to a date to be fixed.