Hansard, 2004-05-19

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: Name From (2004) To (2004) Dr Lily Neo 29 Apr 02 May Dr Warren Lee 29 Apr 03 May 12 May 16 May Mr Charles Chong 30 Apr 04 May BG George Yong-Boon Yeo 30 Apr 09 May 12 May 18 May 23 May 24 May Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng 30 Apr 02 May 14 May 15 May Mr Loh Meng See 01 May 04 May 20 May 22 May Prof. S Jayakumar 01 May 11 May Mr Goh Chok Tong 02 May 12 May Mr David T E Lim 03 May 09 May 17 May 21 May Mr Inderjit Singh 03 May 08 May Mr Leong Horn Kee 03 May 25 May Mr Chew Heng Ching 04 May 09 May 22 May 26 May Mdm Ho Geok Choo 05 May 09 May 21 May 22 May Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay 06 May 09 May 29 May 07 Jun Mr Othman Haron Eusofe 06 May 15 May Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 07 May 07 May Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee 08 May 09 May Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 09 May 18 May Mr Ang Mong Seng 10 May 18 May 18 May 22 May 25 May 29 May Column: 2911Mr Chay Wai Chuen 10 May 15 May 19 May 20 May Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam 10 May 18 May Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 11 May 14 May Mr Gan Kim Yong 12 May 14 May 18 May 21 May Mr Khaw Boon Wan 12 May 18 May Mr Lee Hsien Loong 12 May 21 May Dr Ng Eng Hen 12 May 14 May Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang 12 May 05 Jun Dr Lee Boon Yang 13 May 15 May Mr Lee Yock Suan 13 May 15 May Dr Wang Kai Yuen 13 May 15 May 18 May 22 May Mr Wee Siew Kim 13 May 29 May Mr Lim Hng Kiang 14 May 17 May Mr Lim Swee Say 15 May 18 May 23 May 30 May Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 15 May 22 May Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 16 May 20 May Dr Balaji Sadasivan 16 May 22 May Mdm Halimah Yacob 16 May 21 May 01 Jun 18 Jun 22 Jul 25 Jul Mr Sin Boon Ann 17 May 18 May 23 May 06 Jun 14 Jun 20 Jun Mr Zainudin Nordin 17 May 22 May Mr Ng Ser Miang 19 May 22 May Ms Olivia Lum Ooi Lin 19 May 19 May Mr R Ravindran 19 May 23 May Mr Seng Han Thong 19 May 21 May 14 Jun 21 Jun Dr Chong Weng Chiew 20 May 25 May Mr Andy Gan Lai Chiang 21 May 01 Jun Mr Heng Chee How 21 May 22 May Mr Lim Boon Heng 21 May 22 May Mr Mah Bow Tan 23 May 04 Jun Dr Tan Boon Wan 23 May 02 Jun Mr Hawazi Daipi 25 May 27 May Column: 2912Mdm Cynthia Phua 27 May 05 Jun Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 31 May 04 Jun 16 Jun 26 Jun Mr Matthias Yao Chih 31 May 13 Jun Mr Yeo Guat Kwang 01 Jun 15 Jun 20 Jun 25 Jun Mr Lee Kuan Yew 02 Jun 19 Jun

Mr Chay Wai Chuen

Mdm Cynthia Phua

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the dates stated:

24th April,2004 (1) Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill (2) International Development Association (Amendment) Bill (3) Singapore Totalisator Board (Amendment) Bill (4) Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill 26th April,2004 (1) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Acting Minister for Manpower given the high risks involved in construction work as was shown in the Nicoll Highway tragedy, (a) whether the amount of compensation paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act should be reviewed for the construction industry; (b) how quickly is compensation under the Act given to the families of deceased workers, especially foreign workers; and (c) if his Ministry encourages the employers in the construction industry to also cover their workers under other appropriate insurance policies for work injuries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, payments under the Workmen's Compensation Act are not given based on type of industry or sector. Instead, the quantum is determined by the severity of the incapacity suffered as a result of the accident as well as the age and monthly earnings of the workman and subject to a maximum and a minimum compensation. For example, for fatal cases, the minimum compensation payable is $37,000 and the maximum is $111,000. For permanent total incapacity, the minimum compensation payable is $49,000 and the maximum is $147,000. (The rationale for higher awards given for permanent total incapacity vis-Ã-vis fatal cases is to provide for the injured worker's subsequent livelihood and medical needs. In fact, for cases where the injured worker who suffered permanent total incapacity needs the constant help of another person during his lifetime, an additional compensation of one quarter of

the amount awarded for permanent total incapacity could be claimed). The current ceilings were last revised in 1996. Since then, there was no significant factor which necessitates a revision. Nevertheless, the ceilings will be continually reviewed by the Ministry to ensure that compensation is adequate.

For deceased workers, compensation is usually paid out, on average, in about 6 months for the majority of 80% of cases. Delays for the remaining cases are due to difficulties related to the identification of the employer and insurer, the cause of death, and disagreement among dependants on the apportionment of compensation to each individual dependant. For some cases involving foreign workers, the tracing of dependants and exchange of documents with them could be more difficult and the cases could hence take longer to complete. The average period of settlement for foreign workers is about 10 months.

Unless specifically exempted, all employers are required under the Workmen's Compensation Act to purchase workmen's compensation insurance for their workmen. Beyond workmen's compensation coverage, it is up to the employers what other policies they wish to take up for their workers.

Sir, I would like to ask the Ministry whether the compensation that is given in Singapore is comparable to that given overseas.

Sir, generally, I would say that it is comparable and quite adequate. The amount depends very much on the level of development of different countries. To give you an example, in California, USA, the permanent total disability payment is up to US$728 (S$1,238) per week for life. In Canada, payments are calculated by

expressing impairment as a percentage and adjusted for age. The maximum is Canadian dollars 75,336 (S$93,400). In Hong Kong, payments of 48 to 96 months' earnings, subject to a maximum monthly earning of HK$21,000 (S$4,620) depending on the age of the worker. In South Korea, permanent total incapacity is classified from Grade 1 to 14 and paid a minimum of 50 up to a maximum of 1,000 days' wages.

For death benefits, in California, USA, the payment is US$160,000 (S$272,000) maximum. In Canada, it ranges from Canadian dollars 20,000 (S$24,800) to 60,000 depending on the age of the spouse. In South Korea, it is a lump sum payment of 1,300 days' wages and pension at 47% to 67% of annual basic wages depending on the number of beneficiaries.

Sir, the amount of compensation given out in different countries varies.

The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Ministry will continue to review the compensation paid for workers who die in Singapore. Can I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, given that in the US they pay up to $272,000, I think there is a case for us to relook at our figures to see whether we are paying adequate compensation and also given that many of those who have died at construction sites are foreign workers, they should expedite the process, especially since the families are in dire need of the cash.

Sir, on the amount of compensation, we have to consider whether it is comparable to the cost of living of the different countries. We are willing to take a close look at the amount of compensation and make adjustment, whenever necessary. But at the moment,

we think the compensation ceilings and minimum amounts are quite adequate. But we are willing to take a look in future.

On the speed at which we clear the claims for compensation, I mentioned earlier that it depends very much on a number of factors: whether we can trace the dependants and whether there are contests between the insurance company and the dependants. But, wherever possible, we want to speed up. Even though I said that, on average, it takes about six months to clear the claims there are cases which took about two to three months only.

Sir, in the specific case of the Nicoll Highway tragedy, can the Parliamentary Secretary inform us how much is paid out to the families of the workers who have died?

There were four fatalities. For both Singaporean workers who died, they are eligible for compensation of $111,000 maximum. So is the case for the two foreign workers.

2. Mr Heng Chee How asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in the light of the tragedy at the Circle Line Nicoll Highway worksite, what measures is his Ministry taking to improve the safety of workers at construction sites.

Sir, as Dr Teo Ho Pin and Ms Irene Ng will raise a motion on safety at workplaces later in the sitting, my Minister will answer the question when he responds to the motion.

So be it.

3. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for National Development (a) if his Ministry will be reviewing the whole issue of safety at construction sites; (b) how this is monitored; and (c) whether the current cut-throat competition that exists in the construction industry together with the current tender system used for Government projects may lead to safety standards being compromised.

4. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many on-going construction contracts entail deep underground works (exceeding 15 metres in depth); (b) whether there is any Government agency co-ordinating and monitoring the impact of all these underground works on their surroundings; and (c) whether there will be a review of safety standards for deep excavation works.

5. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for National Development following upon the two buildings along the Circle Line that were recently found to be unsafe (a) whether there is a designated radius within which buildings and all permanent structures along MRT constructions are identified for regular checks for structural integrity and safety; (b) how often are these buildings and permanent structures checked for safety; (c) which authorities and officers are in charge of such checks; and (d) what procedures and processes are involved in these checks.

6. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for National Development why had the Building and Construction Authority not checked out the safety of buildings along the Circle Line earlier, but had to wait until after a major disaster, like the Nicoll Highway collapse, to prompt them into action.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I will be speaking in response to the same motion, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 in my speech.

So be it.

7. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Transport (a) who are the parties responsible for (i) site safety at MRT construction sites and (ii) the design and safety of temporary works at MRT construction sites; (b) what procedures and processes are in place for the safety of workers at these sites; and (c) what are the contingencies and evacuation plans available for emergency situations such as the Nicoll Highway collapse.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be responding to the motion afterwards. Can I take Question No. 7 as part of my reply during the motion?

Why not!

8. Mr Heng Chee How asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there is any connection between the tunnelling works of the Circle Line and the observed cracks in some buildings in Bussorah Street and Arab Street; and (b) what action is his Ministry taking to address the concerns of residents and businesses in the area on building safety.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the cracks in the shop units around the Arab and Bussorah Street area were first reported in early March this year. As these buildings were in the vicinity of the

Circle Line construction works, LTA asked its contractor to engage an independent structural consultant to inspect all the affected shop units and to check that they were structurally safe. Arising from the inspections, the consultant specified repair works where necessary, and these were immediately carried out. These included sealing up the cracks and putting up steel props to enhance the stability of the affected buildings. Additional monitoring instruments were also installed to monitor ground movements at critical areas.

Based on LTA's observation of instrumentation readings, the cracks were caused by ground settlement due to the drawdown of ground water table near Arab Street and Bussorah Street area arising from the Circle Line works. Measures have already been taken to recharge water into the ground to prevent further water drawdown and to control the ground settlement.

Following the Nicoll Highway incident, to reassure occupants who had complained of cracks in their buildings, LTA also required the contractors to engage Professional Engineers (PEs) to certify the safety of these buildings and to submit these certifications to LTA. LTA and BCA will review these certifications, and if satisfied, will write to the building owners/occupants to inform them of the PE's findings.

The PEs have been inspecting the buildings around the Nicoll Highway station worksite, including those along Arab Street and Bussorah Street. As of today, 135 units out of 137 units around Arab and Bussorah Street area have been inspected. All the units inspected have been confirmed to be structurally safe and LTA has informed the owners and the occupants. Inspection work on the remaining 2 buildings is on-going. In the

meantime, LTA and the contractors will continue to closely monitor all the buildings in the area until the civil construction works are completed.

I would also like to assure Members that LTA has in place a system to respond to concerns from the public over cracks found in their buildings near LTA worksites. LTA has a 24-hour hotline for the public to report any such problems and LTA treats every report of building cracks or soil movement in the vicinity of its work sites very seriously by responding immediately.

9. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Prime Minister if he will give national awards or medals (a) to honour the valour of the late Mr Heng Yeow Pheow for putting the lives of his workers before his own during the Nicoll Highway worksite collapse; and (b) to recognise the courage of rescue workers who risked their lives to retrieve the bodies trapped in the rubble after the cave-in.

Sir, I would like to make a short ministerial statement on this afterwards.

All right.

10. Dr Lily Neo asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of strengthening of the Singapore dollar against the US dollar over the past few years (by some 25% since 1997), (a) how will it impact on Singapore's competitiveness; and (b) what con

sequences will a stronger Singapore dollar have on Singaporeans in general.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I am not sure how Dr Lily Neo came to the conclusion that the Singapore dollar has strengthened by some 25% against the US dollar since 1997. I hope she will enlighten us afterwards. In fact, compared to its value in 1997 just before the Asian financial crisis, the Singapore dollar today is still 17% weaker against the US dollar. Nevertheless, let me use this opportunity to explain the main considerations and our approach in managing the Singapore dollar.

MAS manages the Singapore dollar against a trade-weighted basket of currencies of our major trading partners and competitors. In view of the weakness of the economy and absence of inflationary pressure, MAS has managed the exchange rate flexibly, and the trade-weighted exchange rate has eased since 2001. It was only recently in April 2004 that MAS shifted to a modest and gradual appreciation of the trade-weighted exchange rate as the economy strengthened and early signs of inflationary pressures emerged.

The main objective of the exchange rate policy in Singapore is to maintain low inflation and a stable domestic currency, as a sound basis for sustained economic growth. The exchange rate should not be used as an instrument to gain export competitiveness, or a substitute for essential adjustments the economy needs to make as our external environment changes.

But we recognise the need to improve the competitiveness of the Singapore economy. We have done this by deregulating the economy and directly reducing CPF contribution rates, rentals,

utility charges and tax rates. Over the past two years or so, unit business costs have come down. Ultimately, firms stay competitive by increasing productivity, creating new products, and actively seeking out new markets. The Government has also tried to support and facilitate this process through various targeted measures.

In addition, the high import content of Singapore's economy means that a depreciation of the Singapore dollar would entail higher costs for producers and consumers. A weaker Singapore dollar will lead to higher import prices and result in rising inflation in the economy. This would erode the purchasing power of Singaporeans.

A strong and stable exchange rate supported by our sound economic fundamentals over the past two decades has generated confidence in Singapore as a regional financial centre and trading hub, and a rising standard of living for all Singaporeans. MAS will continue to manage the exchange rate in a flexible manner to ensure that exchange rate policy remains supportive of economic activity, while maintaining low inflation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the figure of 25% I quoted was the occurrence of fluctuations of different times since 1997.

Sir, may I ask the Minister on the effect of the exchange rate fluctuations on the consumer price index and retail price index, and how have the exchange rate fluctuations impacted our trade relations with our major trading partners, such as the USA, Europe, ASEAN, China and India?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I still cannot figure out how she came to that conclusion. If you remember, before the Asian financial crisis in 1997, the Singapore dollar was probably 1.42 or

1.45 to the US dollar. Then, with the Asian financial crisis, the Singapore dollar depreciated. So the lowest we reached was probably 1.85 and now it has rebounded, strengthening to 1.66 and, in recent weeks, it has weakened to 1.

72. If you look at this fluctation, nowhere has the Singapore dollar strengthened by 25% to the US$. Anyway, we have to move with the external economic situation. As I explained earlier, the role of MAS is to make sure that the Singapore currency responds appropriately to the external conditions.

Sir, what are the currencies included in the basket, as mentioned by the Second Minister for Finance, and what is the weightage of these currencies in the basket?

As I have explained, the Singapore dollar is managed against a trade weighted basket. So the weighting has some relation to the trade that we have with our partners, and the currencies we choose are those of the major trading partners and also our competitors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, maybe I will refer the Minister to my source, ie, www.oanda.com. Sir, may I also ask the Minister how did our competitiveness fare vis-a-vis countries like China and India? Will the increase in the Singapore dollar value make our export dearer and will the currency fluctuation that we have experienced recently affect our competitiveness and thereby lead to further erosion of jobs to these countries?

Mr Speaker, Sir, my comments on the competitiveness of the Singapore economy is already elaborated in my answer. The Singapore economy does not just depend on the Singapore dollar for its competitiveness.

Ultimately, it depends on how we improve the competitiveness through productivity, new products, innovation and looking for new markets. As for Singapore exports, compared to China and India, as I explained, from 1997 till now, the Singapore dollar in fact depreciated quite sharply against the US$. Since the Chinese renminbi is pegged to the US$, for that period 1997 to 2001/2002, in fact we had gained competitiveness on the basis of currency. But then, we strengthened recently from the bottom of 1.85 to about 1.

66. But the renminbi is still pegged to the US$. So, during this period, of course, we lost some competitiveness because of the currency. But, as I said, we cannot depend on the Singapore dollar for the crux of our competitiveness. In the end, it boils down to the fundamentals, which are productivity, innovation, new products and markets.

11. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance if he will adopt the recommendation of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to change the management structure of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, in specific, that of its chairman from holding multiple roles that can give rise to potential conflicts of interest.

(for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, Sir, ideally the Chairman of MAS should not hold multiple roles. But there are practical constraints in Singapore that make it difficult to avoid completely senior elected officials holding multiple responsibilities.

There is no immediate need to change the status quo. First, the assessors from the IMF and the World Bank have

acknowledged that there are legal and institutional safeguards against any potential conflicts of interest. For example, while the MAS Board sets the broad policy directions, it is the Managing Director and his management team who execute the day-to-day operations according to these policies. In addition, MAS' long tradition of sound licensing and supervisory decisions and its increasing transparency will continue to ensure that the MAS carries out its responsibilities in an independent manner.

Second, unlike in some countries where the central banks have been pressured to finance the fiscal deficit and so failed to maintain price stability, the Singapore Government maintains a prudent fiscal policy. There has never been any need for MAS to finance any Government deficit, nor is such a need likely to arise in future. MAS has full freedom to carry out its primary role of maintaining price stability. It has established credibility with the market, through its track record of running a monetary policy that has yielded low inflation and sustained economic growth over a long period.

Nevertheless, we will continue to review the MAS Act to further strengthen accountability and transparency.

It means that the Minister actually agrees with the IMF on this matter. Two supplementary questions, Sir. First, is the Government so lacking in talent that it actually has to appoint the Deputy Prime Minister who is also the Finance Minister to be the central bank's Chairman? The second question is: what will happen to this post when the Deputy Prime Minister becomes the Prime Minister? Will he continue to be busy running the MAS as well?

The fact that the Minister for Finance is concurrently the

Chairman of MAS is not a new arrangement. It has been so for many, many years. You may remember that when Dr Richard Hu was the Minister for Finance, he was also concurrently the Chairman. As for the second question, although I am deputising for DPM, I cannot answer that question.

Sir, since the question is addressed to the Minister, and he cannot answer it, could I pose another Question subsequently for him to answer that?

He can pose a Question, and if DPM is around, he can answer it.

The following Question stood in the name of Mdm Ho Geok Choo -

12. To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the Singapore tourism landscape seeing challenges marked by safety and security threats as well as intense competition from and investment to regional destinations, what measures and programmes are being planned and administered to arrest the decline in tourism revenue in Singapore.

Question No. 12, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 2003 was a challenging year for the tourism sector. Despite the SARS crisis and security threats, the industry weathered the crisis well. By December 2003, our monthly tourist arrival and hotel occupancy rates had climbed back to pre-SARS levels.

In the first quarter of this year, Singapore attracted 1.9 million visitors - 3% more compared to the same period last year before SARS struck. The outlook for the tourism sector continues to be positive for the rest of the year. STB hopes to achieve 7.6 million visitor arrivals for 2004, back to 2002 levels.

To sustain tourism growth amidst rising competition, STB will adopt three key strategies. Firstly, it will intensify its market promotion particularly in the high growth markets of China, India and ASEAN. STB recently appointed popular Singapore singer "Ah Du" as the Celebrity Ambassador for Singapore in China. I hear he is already helping Singapore garner many new fans. To market Singapore in India, STB has harnessed the powerful influence of Indian cinema. Singapore will be hosting the 2004 International Indian Film Academy Awards this weekend.

Secondly, STB will continue to target high growth visitor segments such as international patients, students and business travellers. This month, STB will be launching Singapore Business Roadshows in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain to raise the profile of our healthcare services in the Middle-East. We will also anchor more signature conventions and events here to position Singapore as the ideal place for international buyers and sellers to meet, trade and exchange ideas.

Thirdly, we need to rejuvenate our existing attractions and develop new ones to enhance the tourist experience. STB, in consultation with industry players, is drawing up a tourism roadmap for the next 10 years that will serve as a common reference for this effort. To attract new investments into the tourism sector, we are prepared to review and

relax our rules when there are good reasons to do so.

The following Question stood in the name of Mdm Ho Geok Choo -

13. To ask the Acting Minister for Education (a) whether his Ministry will review and consider maintaining at least a pass in the mother tongue language in Syllabus B for admission into the universities and not allowing the flexibility of 10% of the university intake to be exempted at the discretion of the universities; and (b) how will his Ministry allay the concerns of mother tongue language teachers who are not effectively bilingual, fearing the loss of their jobs or their ranking and promotions.

Question No. 13, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry, together with NUS and NTU, has accepted the University Admission Committee's recommendation that students admitted to NUS and NTU will need to obtain, amongst others, at least a D7 in mother tongue or a pass in mother tongue "B" syllabus. NUS and NTU will apply this requirement to all students admitted, and that includes the up to 10% of students admitted by the two universities under their own admission criteria. NUS and NTU will not use this 10% provision to exempt students from this minimum mother tongue requirement, but to recognise students with special abilities and achievements which may not be captured in their 'A' level scores.

On the second half of the Question, Mdm Ho has also expressed job-related

concerns of Mother Tongue Language (MTL) teachers. There could be some reduction in Mother Tongue Language teaching requirements at 'A' levels if students choose not to retake their MTL examinations at JC2.

Nevertheless, we will continue to need Mother Tongue Language teachers at both the JC and secondary levels. Mother Tongue Language teachers will play an important role in providing greater opportunities for mother tongue learning in the informal curriculum, such as enrichment exposure for students to the Chinese Language as well as activities and programmes that can enhance and facilitate their understanding of China. The Ministry is also considering introducing China Studies as a subject in the revised JC curriculum and obviously you need mother tongue teachers, specifically Chinese Language teachers, to teach such subjects.

More students are also offering Higher Mother Tongue Language (HMTL) arising from the recent liberalisation of the eligibility criteria in the secondary schools. We will therefore need more senior Mother Tongue Language teachers who can teach Higher Mother Tongue at the secondary level. A few JC Mother Tongue Language teachers may be re-deployed to senior teaching positions at the secondary level. Such re-deployment takes place on a regular basis.

I am therefore confident that our Junior College Mother Tongue Language teachers will find their roles in developing and conducting new programmes in the informal curriculum and teaching the new China Studies subject or Higher Mother Tongue Language at secondary level no less satisfying and rewarding than helping students to improve their Mother Tongue Language grades at JC2.

I would therefore like to assure the Mother Tongue Language teachers that,

as long as they are flexible and continue to perform, there will be a strong need for them in the education system.

The following Question stood in the name of Dr Warren Lee -

14. To ask the Acting Minister for Education (a) whether financial hardship has been a significant factor in recent cases of persistent absence from school; and (b) whether existing aid schemes have adequate coverage for needy pupils.

Question No. 14, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Warren Lee has asked whether financial hardship is a significant factor in cases of persistent absence from school. The reasons why students are persistently absent from school vary. These include personal and family problems, and the lack of motivation on the part of the student, and often the family to take his studies seriously. Financial hardship has not been a significant factor.

There is a wide range of schemes providing financial assistance to needy students. They can apply for the Ministry of Education Financial Assistance Scheme, which grants waiver of school fees, and part of the miscellaneous fees, and provides free textbooks to students. In year 2003, a total of 11,417 students received help from the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme, compared to 7,387 students in year 2002. The numbers have gone up further this year. As at May this year, schools have processed and approved over 13,000 applications for the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme. This number effectively covers 10% of students who stay in HDB 1-3 room flats

and 2% of those staying in HDB 4-5 room flats. The total amount disbursed for financial assistance is estimated at about $1.5 million this year.

In addition,

schools help to source for support for needy students from other sources, such as financial assistance schemes administered by the School Advisory Committee or the School Management Committee and community organisations like the CDCs and voluntary welfare organisations. Under these schemes, assistance can take the form of subsidies for enrichment programmes, pocket money, transport vouchers, free meals, stationery and uniforms. In 2003, School Advisory Committees provided $3 million worth of financial assistance and bursaries to needy students in Government schools.

Taken together, these financial assistance schemes from the Ministry of Education and the wider community ensure that no child is denied an education on account of financial difficulties.

15. Dr Warren Lee asked the Acting Minister for Education (a) if there is an increasing trend in discipline and truancy problems in schools; and (b) whether these cases involve more boys than girls or vice versa.

16. Ms Braema Mathiaparanam asked the Acting Minister for Education in the last two years, 2002 and 2003, (a) what is the number of complaints of teachers being abused by (i) parents and (ii) students; (b) how many of these cases were successfully resolved in favour of the teachers; (c) what is the number of complaints against teachers for abusing their students; (d) how many of these

complaints eventually led to these teachers resigning or being dismissed; and (e) what is the support the Ministry gives to teachers who have been wrongfully complained against.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 15 and 16 together, please?

Yes.

Dr Warren Lee had asked about trends in discipline and truancy in our schools. The state of discipline in schools has been stable over the last four years. From the records maintained by schools, disciplinary offences have shown a downward trend in primary schools and remained stable in secondary schools.

The most common problems reported in primary schools have been students coming late to school or not doing assignments, which together account for over half of all the primary school offences. In secondary schools, latecoming, truancy and improper attire or grooming account for over two-thirds of the offences. The number of serious offences in schools has remained small and relatively stable over the last four years.

A further indication of this is in the number of students arrested by the Police for various serious offences. The number has ranged between 0.3% and 0.5% of the student population aged under 19, including not just students in schools but also those in the ITEs, polytechnics and the private schools, over the last seven years. Most of these arrests were for theft, ie, either simple theft or shop theft.

There have been more boys than girls involved in disciplinary cases. Girls account for 19% of offences in primary schools and 34% of offences in

secondary schools. The proportion of girls is much lower for serious offences, at about 11% in both primary and secondary schools. The lower proportion of girls is also evident in arrests by the Police. Girls have comprised a declining proportion of students arrested over the last few years. In 2003, they comprised 27% of students arrested. About three quarters of these girls were arrested for shop theft.

Ms Braema Mathi asked about abusive students. The Ministry of Education and schools view any abuse of teachers very seriously. Respect for teachers is central to the education that we provide.

In the last two years, ie, 2002 and 2003, there were a total of 14 reported cases of teachers being physically abused by students. Schools have in all these instances taken disciplinary actions against the pupils, including corporal punishment and suspension.

Ms Braema Mathi has also asked about cases of teachers being abused by parents. Such cases are very rare.

Cases of teachers abusing their students, which she has asked about, have also been infrequent. In the last two years, ie, 2002 and 2003, we have handled a total of 29 cases where teachers were found to have inflicted corporal punishment on their students, outside of what MOE and the school's own guidelines permit. In all these 29 cases, the teachers were issued written warnings, usually by the school itself. None of the teachers were dismissed from the teaching service.

The Ministry is committed to high standards of discipline in our schools. We will support measures taken by schools within our guidelines to uphold these standards, and are confident of their ability to do so.

Going back to the cases of disciplinary problems, could I ask the Minister what kind of abuses did the students heap on the teachers? For the teachers who were not dismissed, were there any resignations among them?

For cases of teachers being abused by students, I do not have a full list of the details of the abuses here. But what matters is that we take action in each and every case. We take very serious action on the students, because this is something which we have zero tolerance for, ie, any abuse of the teacher. That is what matters. Of course, we also take care to ensure that the teacher himself or herself is counselled, is able to remain in good spirits and remain motivated in the profession. We have not had serious difficulties so far in this.

On the question of teachers abusing students, the Member referred to -

The teachers, instead of being dismissed, may have resigned. What are the numbers?

We have not dismissed any of them. They are given written warnings, usually by the school. I am not aware of those who had been given written warnings resigning.

There is another question about support given to teachers. Teachers have been abused by students.

Very few.

No, what I mean is the support given to the teachers. What kind of support does the Ministry give to the teachers? I think the kind of abuse that teachers face is important to understanding what are some of the

problems that are going on in our schools. So, perhaps the Minister could elaborate.

We have a centre which we call "iCARE Lodge". It is a counselling centre specifically for teachers located at Grange Road. Schools refer teachers who are under stress for a variety of reasons to the counselling centre. It has a full-time counsellor and it is working quite well. We go out of our way to help teachers who have been abused. The numbers may be small, but each and every case is serious as far as we are concerned, and we go out of our way to help them.

17. Dr Lily Neo asked the Acting Minister for Health (a) why is there a shortage of liver transplant surgeons in our hospitals; and (b) whether this will jeopardise the 24 cases of patients presently waiting for liver transplants.

Actually, there is no shortage of liver transplant surgeons in Singapore. But there is a shortage of donated liver. As a result, the number of liver transplantation done on Singaporean patients is small, about 15 a year.

Recently, this House amended the Human Organ Transplant Act. With the amendments, we can expect some increase in organ transplantation, including liver. Currently, there are 24 Singaporean patients on the liver transplant waiting list. Hopefully, some or all of them will soon benefit from the amended Transplant Act.

Liver transplant is a highly specialised procedure and, given the small number of surgeries, we have so far concentrated

our public sector resources in the National University Hospital (NUH). The NUH liver transplant team, with four liver transplant surgeons, has been doing liver transplantation for 14 years now. It specialises in cadaveric and living donor adult-to-child liver transplantation. These operations make up the bulk of liver transplant operations.

However, they have yet to develop the capabilities to do adult-to-adult liver transplants, as these require more demanding expertise. The NUH team expects to be able to do adult-to-adult liver transplants by next year. Fortunately, we do have such capabilities in Singapore's private sector. Arising out of the recent case of a liver failure patient, my Ministry has made an arrangement with the private hospital's transplant team, whereby such a surgery, if and when needed by a subsidised patient, can be outsourced to them, with the subsidised patients paying the same rate as if the surgery is carried out in NUH.

This is an excellent example of public-private sector cooperation, with patients' benefits in mind.

May I ask the Minister whether there has been a reduction in medical postgraduate training, such as HMDP? Has there been a recent review on postgraduate training? Should there be more emphasis and creation of opportunities for disciplines in shortage?

Does the Member mean whether there has been a reduction in postgraduate training in liver transplantation?

Where necessary?

Of course, the HMDP programme is reviewed regularly. I do not have the data off the top of my head but, as far as we could, we always

try to match supply with demand. As far as liver transplantation is concerned, as I said earlier, we do not have a shortage. But capability shortage there is, and we will try to fill the gap, as we do in this particular case.

18. Dr Lily Neo asked the Acting Minister for Health (a) how many of our laboratories are still handling the SARS Corona Virus; (b) whether these laboratories are adopting strict standards of biological safety; and (c) are they audited regularly for compliance with biological safety standards.

Laboratories which intend to store or handle SARS Corona virus must get prior approval from the Ministry of Health. There is therefore a list of approved laboratories for the handling of SARS virus.

The work carried out in these laboratories can be classified into three categories.

First, research involving live SARS Corona virus. Live SARS viral stocks are highly infectious. Currently, only two designated Biosafety Level (BSL)-3 laboratories are allowed to store, handle or work on live SARS virus. At the moment, both laboratories are not conducting any research work on live SARS virus, although they do store these viral stocks.

Second, diagnostic testing on clinical specimens. Specimens, such as respiratory aspirates and stools from patients suspected of having SARS, are potentially infectious. Such specimens can be processed and tested in BSL-2 diagnostic laboratories, although they have to be carried out using BSL-3 laboratory protocols. Currently only the diagnostic laboratories of three public

hospitals are allowed to carry out such testing.

Third, research using inactivated SARS materials. Having been inactivated, these materials are no longer infectious. A total of 14 laboratories in seven institutions have been approved under this category, but only 11 laboratories in five institutions are currently doing such research.

There are international biosafety guidelines governing laboratory protocols, issued by the World Health Organisation and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The approved laboratories are required to comply with these standards

strictly.

To ensure compliance, the laboratories are audited regularly. In fact, one round of audit has just been carried out by the Ministry, jointly with a panel of appointed laboratory experts. All of the approved laboratories were found to be in compliance with the required biosafety standards. The next audit will be done in six months' time.

What I have outlined is the current system implemented after the laboratory acquired SARS-infection incident last year. To give legal backing to the system, my Ministry is in the midst of finalising the legal framework and drafting the legislative changes. They will be introduced in this House in a few months' time, after public consultations. The intent is to go beyond SARS virus to include any other infectious agent of public health concern.

May I ask the Minister whether we should have a list of high-risk organisms that should be only handled by designated laboratories?

Yes, indeed, we should. My Ministry, after last year's incident, has set up a national biosafety committee, chaired by the Director of

Medical Services, Ministry of Health, including the relevant representations from the various agencies. They have formed three technical working committees. And one of the technical working committees is charged with the responsibility of drawing up a shortlist of those biological agents which have public health concern.

Just for interest, of the other two working committees, one is looking at what ought to be our national biosafety standards and guidelines , taking into account international benchmark. And the third committee looks into training requirements, how to ensure that laboratory workers, especially our post-doc students who come in and out of the laboratories, are properly trained so as to avoid any future accident.

The three working committees will soon submit their recommendations to my Ministry and together with this current work of drafting the legal framework, as well as the legislative changes, we will put them together and put up for public consultations. That will be done in a few weeks' time. We can then have a proper debate again in this House.

May I ask the Minister whether we have a national laboratory safety committee to monitor the biological safety standards of our laboratories? How does the Minister ensure that all laboratory staff receive adequate training in biological safety and that they adopt a culture of safety?

Sir, as I have indicated earlier, all this is coordinated by the Ministry of Health. But because laboratories span over various Ministries - there are the Ministry of Education with its academic institutions, the Ministry of the Environment, etc, - the national biosafety committee will have

representation from all. The national committee, since last year's incident, has administratively taken CDC's standards and/or WHO's standards as our standards. But I think we need to put legal backing to that, and that is what the current exercise is all about.

To assure the Member, the system is in place but I want to do the last missing link, ie, to provide legal backing to it.

The following Question stood in the name of Mdm Ho Geok Choo -

19. To ask the Minister for Community Development and Sports (a) how will community service be affected by the morale of community leaders who are above 40, who have lost their jobs and who have not been able to find employment easily; and (b) what programmes can the People's Association put in place to (i) facilitate the employability of these community leaders; and (ii) help retain their spirit of volunteerism and commitment.

Question No. 19, Sir.

Sir, we have not detected any trend of grassroots leaders giving up their grassroots work or community work because they have lost their jobs. In fact, on the contrary, the People's Association is heartened to know of grassroots leaders who, despite having been retrenched, have continued to play an active role in grassroots work. We would like to commend these individuals for their selflessness and dedication towards community service. Therefore, in answer to the first part of the Question,

community service is not affected by the morale of community leaders who are above 40 and have been retrenched.

Having said that, the People's Association would be understanding if any retrenched grassroots leader wants to spend more time looking for a new job. He or she could have the choice of either continuing to serve, but assume a less demanding role, or if he so desires, he can be given temporary leave of absence.

Just like any other Singaporean, any retrenched grassroots leader who has difficulty finding a job can approach the Community Development Councils for skills training and job search assistance.

Although the People's Association (PA) has no specific programme to maintain the employability of grassroots leaders on their jobs, any training the grassroots leaders may have received from the People Association's training arm, that is, the National Community Leadership Institute, as well as the experience and skills they have acquired through their grassroots work, would be useful to them in looking for a new job. Where appropriate, the respective grassroots advisers may also give testimonials to their grassroots leaders who have served well, based on their personal knowledge in their grassroots leaders.

20. Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the reasons for the Government's decision to revoke the Singapore Quality Class for Private Education Organisations (SQC-PEO) status given to the Nanyang Institute of Management; and (b) what is the current status of the foreign students who lodged complaints against the Institute.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is committed to develop Singapore into a thriving education hub. In response to industry feedback, SPRING Singapore introduced the Singapore Quality Class for Private Education Organisations (SQC-PEO) scheme as a trust mark to identify quality education providers. The trust mark would help students distinguish the good schools and make more informed choices. Participation in the scheme by the PEOs is voluntary. For this trust mark to be credible, we need to enforce strict standards and allow only institutions which fully satisfy the requirements to carry the mark.

The Nanyang Institute of Management (NIM) was awarded the SQC-PEO certification in July 2003. However, since then, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) has received 22 complaints from 30 foreign students against NIM. NIM is alleged to have forged students' signatures on student pass applications, made students sign on blank forms, and enter false information to enable students to come here for courses not approved by the relevant authorities. NIM was also alleged to have charged students for items like school uniforms which are not needed, and guardianship fee when no guardian was made available to the student.

In view of these complaints, SPRING conducted two audits on NIM. The first audit, conducted in October 2003, recommended that NIM address several shortfalls. NIM was also informed that a second audit would be conducted in three months' time to check on their implementation. During these three months, more complaints were received from students.

The second audit was conducted in February 2004. NIM was found to have

breached the mandatory pre-qualification requirements which all PEOs applying for SQC-PEO certification must meet on an on-going basis. NIM, as with all organisations applying for the SQC-PEO certification, had made a declaration in its application that it had met all such requirements. In view of this, SPRING decided to withdraw NIM's SQC-PEO status with effect from 15th April 2004. Contrary to what Mr Alan Lau, CEO of NIM said to the media, SPRING had communicated the reasons for the revocation in writing to NIM through the second audit report on 31st March 2004.

Sir, I am unable to go into the details of the breaches because SPRING is bound by a confidentiality obligation with SQC-PEO organisations with regard to their application for SQC-PEO certification. However, if NIM agrees to release SPRING from this obligation, we would make public the breaches that led to the revocation.

Of the 30 students who have lodged complaints with STB, 14 have transferred to other institutions in Singapore. Twelve are still continuing their studies with NIM. The remaining four have either returned home or have left to pursue their studies elsewhere in the world.

Many of the students and guardians who have approached STB have been counselled and given advice regarding the options available to them to seek redress. Depending on the nature of the complaint, the STB has also sought the help of other Government agencies, or negotiated with NIM for a suitable solution. The more serious complaints of forgery of signatures are being investigated by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) and appropriate action would be taken based on the outcome.

21. Mr Tan Soo Khoon asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if there are plans for Singapore to rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and, if none, under what conditions will it do so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when Singapore terminated its membership of UNESCO on 31st December 1985, we did so for several reasons, which included the manner in which the rates of assessment for our contributions were calculated.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in consultation with our other agencies, has periodically reviewed the merits of re-joining UNESCO. Our last review was done in early 2000, and at that time, we concluded that there were no compelling reasons for us to rejoin UNESCO yet.

However, let me assure the Member that we continue to keep an open mind, and do not rule out rejoining UNESCO. We are now in the midst of conducting another review on the issue. The Member asked about the conditions under which we will rejoin. The main consideration, of course, is whether it will advance our national interests.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I recall, when we left UNESCO in 1985, we followed the decision of the United States and the United Kingdom. And at that time, it was an issue over the management staff of the organisation and the direction in which the organisation was heading towards. Are these still issues today?

Secondly, does it not appear very odd that being a responsible member of the

world community and given the fact that UNESCO has 190 member countries, and that the United States and the United Kingdom have rejoined UNESCO, Singapore appears to be the last country holding out?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to the Member, let me first say that although the United Kingdom and United States withdrew at that time, Singapore's decision to withdraw from UNESCO was based on our own assessment of the situation which, as I have said in my main answer, included several reasons.

One of these reasons did relate to our assessment about reports on the management and the organisation at that time under the then Director. We would have to consider all these as we review, because there is now a new Director. The Director's name, a Japanese, is Koichiro Matsuura who, as far as I know, has taken significant steps in the reform of the organisation and its structure. But the main point I want to make is, if the United States and the United Kingdom have rejoined, it does not mean that we blindly follow their example. We have to do our own review and make a decision whether to rejoin UNESCO and decide also on the timing of rejoining, if that is the decision of our review.

22. Ms Indranee Rajah asked the Minister for Home Affairs what steps are being taken (a) to clear up vice dens in the jungle areas, such as the one near Woodlands Industrial Park E2, and specifically (b) to prevent young students from visiting such dens.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Police is aware of illicit vice

activities conducted in the forested areas of Singapore, and has mounted operations to arrest the perpetrators and shut down such vice dens whenever they appear. For example, between September 2003 and April this year, three such operations were conducted against vice dens in the forested area near Woodlands Aveneue 4. A total of 113 arrests were made.

After a vice den has been raided by the Police, frequent patrols will be deployed to ensure that the vice activities do not return. Police also works with the relevant Government agencies and the local community to prevent the recurrence of such activities, for example, by erecting physical barriers to prevent further access to the area.

Police investigations into all these cases did not find that any student or youth had gone into these forested areas for vice activities.

Thus, Police's assessment is that there is no problem of young students visiting such vice dens. Nevertheless, Police will continue to monitor the situation closely.

23. Ms Braema Mathiaparanam asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how do the police handle adults who have been rescued from their attempted suicide efforts and now face criminal charges; (b) how do the police handle youths aged 18 years and below who have tried to (i) kill themselves and (ii) mutilate themselves; (c) what is the training police officers receive to handle such cases; and (d) in cases where children or youths have attempted suicide, when do the police bring in their parents, the school or the healthcare workers into the scene.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while attempting suicide is an offence

under section 309 of the Penal Code, Police rarely prosecutes a person for the offence. As a person who attempts suicide is often emotionally vulnerable, Police treats all cases of attempted suicide sensitively and compassionately. Police officers are trained to handle persons who have attempted suicide with the primary objective of assisting, rather than prosecuting them.

As the Minister for Community Development and Sports has said in this House, prevention of suicide requires the vigilance and cooperation of everyone - family, friends, colleagues, teachers and the others. Similarly, as one of the frontline agencies dealing with attempted suicide, police officers are taught by the Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) as part of their basic training, to look out for signs of suicidal tendencies as well as the dos and don'ts in dealing with persons with such tendencies.

To develop Police's expertise in suicide intervention, specialised training is provided for officers-in-charge of frontline patrol teams. These officers are trained in basic negotiation skills so that they can dissuade a person threatening suicide from carrying it out. SCDF or other police units may also be called in to take precautionary measures, such as setting up airbags in cases where a person threatens to jump off a building. If the situation cannot be resolved, Police will call in their officers from the Crisis Negotiation Unit who are trained by experienced overseas negotiators to handle all kinds of situations requiring negotiation including attempting suicide cases.

After a person is rescued from the suicide attempt, Police investigating officers, who are also trained to be

sensitive and patient when dealing with such subjects, will follow-up with their investigation of the case. Where juveniles are involved, Police will keep their parents or guardians informed. In general, Police will not notify the schools and will leave to the parents to decide if they would like the school to be notified. On completion of investigation, recommendations will be made to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). Depending on the circumstances of each case, the person may be prosecuted or given a warning. Of the 692 attempted suicide cases reported in 2003, only 13 cases, or less than 2%, were prosecuted.

All persons who have attempted suicide are referred to the SOS for counselling and assistance. In cases where the persons are hospitalised, they will also be counselled by psychologists.

Mutilating and causing hurt to oneself without intending to commit suicide is not an offence. Reported cases will be referred to the Ministry of Community Development and Sports (MCDS) so that the subject can be appropriately counselled and causes, such as depression or stress, addressed.

Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for a comprehensive answer. I have just one follow-up question, please. At what point does the Police inform the family about the suicide attempt in the case of juveniles?

Sir, this is done as soon as possible. Of course, whether doing so may hinder police investigations has to be taken into consideration, eg, whether any suicide note or medication may be destroyed or tampered with. Certainly, for juveniles, Police is mindful that the parents should be informed as soon as possible.

24. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Transport if he will consider offering cash refunds as an option for motorists who have deregistered and scrapped their vehicles.

Sir, as Members are aware, we introduced the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) as part of the Vehicle Quota System in 1990 to manage the growth of the vehicle population. The COE is a non-refundable upfront payment, which entitles a vehicle to be used for a specific period. If the COE is not fully used up for whatever reason, it will lapse. However, as a concession, when vehicle owners scrap or export their vehicles before the expiry of the COE period, the Government has allowed them to recover the residual value of the COE validity through a rebate.

The Preferential Additional Registration Fee (PARF) scheme was introduced in 1975 to encourage timely replacement of old cars, so that the car population will remain relatively young and roadworthy. In essence, it allows car owners to replace their old cars with new ones at a discount by using a PARF rebate.

As the COE and PARF rebates are not meant to be refundable deposits placed with the Government, they are therefore not payable in cash. However, they can be used to offset the taxes and fees related to the purchase of a new vehicle. Since 1998, we have also made the process for utilising the rebates more flexible. Now, rebate certificates can be divided up or combined to offset the payment of COE, ARF, or the Registration Fee for new vehicles. They can also be transferred to a third party.

Sir, would the Minister consider changing the law to allow for cash rebate?

Sir, as I have said in my reply, the system is not meant to be a deposit which is refundable. It is actually a payment and the concession is the rebate that we are giving.

Sir, can the concession be allowed in the form of a cash rebate? Will the Minister consider that option?

The answer is no, and it is because we have considered it many times. Let me explain to him why.

Sir, it is also a difficult process to estimate the amount of ARF and PARF rebates. Let me tell him that the amounts that we have rebated vary from about $600 million to last year's $3 billion. As such, it is very difficult to set aside the funds. Because, to do so, it would then deprive other Ministries of the funds that are being set aside.

Sir, where the amount of rebate is small, say, below $1,000, would the Minister consider that option so that it would not inconvenience the motorist to have to look for a buyer to take over that rebate?

Sir, if we do it for any particular amount, I think it would be fair that we do it for everybody. Therefore, it is not possible for us to change it into a cash rebate system.

2.38 pm

Ministerial Statement. Mr Wong.

Sir, Ms Irene Ng asked a question of the Prime Minister about the awards for those involved in the

the Nicoll Highway operations, and I would like to make a Ministerial Statement on this.

The Nicoll Highway cave-in happened on 20th April at about 3.30 pm. Within 10 minutes, the first responders arrived at the scene. They immediately started the search and rescue operations that did not cease till four days later. It was a tragic accident and by far the most difficult and dangerous operation the SCDF had been called upon to tackle since the Hotel New World collapse in 1986. Not only was the incident site which measured about 110 metres by 150 metres huge, but the rescue operations were fraught with dangers to the lives of the rescuers from further soil movements and collapse. The rescuers had to work in chest-high, turbulent, murky waters, amidst unstable sharp exposed metal and concrete structures, and near-zero visibility to find and recover the four victims trapped under the rubble. Working round the clock in two shifts, the officers and men from the SCDF utilised all equipment and means, tactics and techniques, and sometimes literally even their bare hands, to undertake the very difficult operations.

At the end of four days of continuous operations, the SCDF managed to retrieve three of the four bodies that were trapped in the rubble. After heroic efforts, the SCDF had to give up the search for the last body, that of Mr Heng Yeow Pheow. The commanders assessed that it was too deeply and intricately embedded in the rubble to be recovered without unacceptable risks to the lives of the rescuers. We all share the grief of those who lost their loved ones, both foreigners and Singaporeans.

Significant ground movement had been recorded by teams of engineers from LTA, BCA and Japanese contractors. The untimely arrival of heavy rains

exacerbated matters. If immediate actions were not taken to stabilise the area, the surrounding buildings might also be endangered. The rescue operations finally had to be called off at about 6.00 pm on 23rd April.

Before the collapse, Mr Heng Yeow Pheow, a foreman of Kori Construction, was supervising cementing work some 30 metres below ground level when he heard continuous buckling sounds from the struts. He immediately ordered all his workers to evacuate the area, but remained behind himself to ensure that all the workers were evacuated safely. Unfortunately, the exit stairs collapsed before he could escape. For his selfless and valiant act, the Government has decided to award Mr Heng Yeow Pheow the Medal of Valour (Posthumous).

The extremely risky and harrowing conditions at the Nicoll Highway cave-in testify to the dedication, persistence and bravery of the SCDF officers and others who took part in the search and rescue operations. That the DART officers succeeded in extricating three bodies buried under the rubble testifies to their courage and perseverance during the search and rescue operations.

Nine Singapore Civil Defence officers who were most directly involved in the dangerous search and rescue operations inside the collapsed site will also be awarded the Medal of Valour. They are:

MAJ Kadir Maideen Bin Mohamed

LTA Chew Keng Tok

LTA Ong Chee Wee

LTA Mohamed Nazim Bin Kudin

CPT Alan Toh

SSG Jaais Bin Sol

SGT Ahmad Faizal Bin Abdul Hanan

SGT Anuar Bin Ahmad

SGT Muhammad Hairul Nazwa Bin Dol

Commissioner James Tan Chan Seng who was in overall command of the

rescue operation will be awarded the Public Administration Medal (Gold). He displayed strong and effective leadership. He led by example, being on the site all the time, tirelessly directing the rescue efforts, dealing with the media and briefing the relatives of the victims. The outstanding performance and high morale of the rescue forces under his command bore testimony to his management of the incident.

For their unwavering dedication, persistence and bravery, 18 other officers from the Singapore Civil Defence Force will be awarded other State medals:

one for the Public Administration Medal (Bronze); and

17 for the Commendation Medal.

I will ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute the complete list* of names to Members.

There were other persons who made invaluable contributions in many different ways during the Nicoll Highway operations. They will be recognised appropriately through department commendations, commendations from the Minister for Home Affairs and in other ways.

We all hope that such a tragedy never occurs again, and will do our utmost to reduce the likelihood to the absolute minimum. But the performance of our SCDF professionals as well as an ordinary Singaporean with extraordinary courage in this Nicoll Highway accident should inspire all of us, and give us reason to be confident that confronted with the most daunting challenge, we will overcome the difficulties and not be found wanting.

* Will be printed in the Singapore Parliament Report.

"to amend the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161 of the 2001 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Trade Marks Act (Chapter 332 of the 1999 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 68 of the 1985 Revised Edition)",

presented by Prof. Jayakumar; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Patents Act (Chapter 221 of the 2002 Revised Edition)",

presented by Prof. Jayakumar; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Copyright Act (Chapter 63 of the 1999 Revised Edition), the Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits Act (Chapter 159A of the 2000 Revised Edition) and the Registered Designs Act (Chapter 266 of the 2001 Revised Edition) mainly to implement certain obligations undertaken by Singapore under the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (USSFTA) concluded in 2003",

presented by Prof. Jayakumar; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to provide for the protection of plant varieties",

presented by Prof. Jayakumar; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to repeal and re-enact with amendments the law relating to the Singapore Police Force and to provide for its organisation and discipline and other related matters and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws",

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.

"to provide for the regulation and control of the manufacture of optical discs, and for matters connected therewith",

presented by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Development Fund Act (Chapter 80 of the 1995 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lim Hng Kiang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Medicines Act (Chapter 176 of the 1985 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Acting Minister for Health (Mr Khaw Boon Wan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Introduction

Sir, this Bill amends the Societies Act to allow certain societies to be automatically registered, whilst safeguarding our national interests, security and public order. The Bill also streamlines the fines stipulated under the Societies Act.

Role of the Societies Act

The Societies Act plays a gate-keeping role in ensuring that groups which may be used for unlawful purposes, or pose a threat to public order, welfare or good order in Singapore, or which will be contrary to our national interests are not allowed to establish themselves in Singapore. Over the years, the Registrar of Societies has administered the Act with a light touch. In the last five years, only 10 out of 1,236 applications for registration were rejected. This is less than 1%. Hence, the number of registered societies has increased from 3,900 in 1988, to 5,300 in 1999, to about 5,800 currently.

The Registry of Societies (ROS) has been responsive to calls, in and out of this House, to speed up processing time. In 1999, 46.3% of approved applications were processed within two months and 72.2% within three months. Last year (2003), out of the 259 applications approved, 97% were approved within two months and 99% within three months. So, the norm has moved from three to two months. Indeed, last year, about 60% of the applications were approved within a month. So the speed of approval has improved, but we have not been satisfied.

Review of the Societies Act

Hence, looking beyond expediting the application process, MHA initiated a comprehensive review of the Societies Act in December 2000, with a view of making it easier for the majority of societies which pose minimal law and order or security concerns to be registered. As the Act has not been amended since 1982, MHA also took the opportunity to review the other provisions to ensure that they remained robust and relevant.

The existing registration process treats all societies as a homogeneous group, and subjects all applications to the same level of scrutiny. Resulting from the review, MHA piloted a fast-track registration regime in January 2002. The pilot trial showed that there was scope to further differentiate and manage societies according to their character and activities. At one end of the spectrum, we have societies such as reading clubs, chess clubs, trade associations, alumni of local schools and staff sports & recreation clubs which pose minimal security concerns. At the other end, we have societies that are, for example, of a religious or racial nature which can be a cause for concern given the multi-religious and multi-ethnic nature of Singapore society. Illustrating a forward-looking approach, from a fast-track registration regime, which we were considering then, we, in fact, progressed and have now decided to adopt an automatic regime.

Automatic Registration

In doing this, MHA has taken note of the recommendation of the Remaking Singapore Committee to list down explicitly the types of societies that would require prior approval, and those not listed can then be registered without having to seek prior approval. MHA also consulted the public on the proposed automatic registration regime. An e-consultation

paper was put up on the on-line feedback portal earlier this year, for a month. In addition, a Feedback Unit Session co-chaired by Mr Chandra Mohan and Mdm Ho Geok Choo was held on 29th January. Feedback received was generally supportive of the automatic registration regime and for a differentiated approach. Following the feedback received, we have finetuned and finalised the scheme.

Sir, let me go through the main provisions of this Bill now.

The automatic registration scheme is set out in clause 4 of the Bill. Clause 4 amends the Societies Act to enable a society that is not a specified society to be immediately registered on the date the Registrar receives the registration application so long as it is accompanied by payment of the prescribed fee, a copy of the proposed rules of the society and a declaration that the society's objects, purpose or activities are not those specified in the Schedule. This is a paradigm shift from the current approach. We expect more than half of the 200 or so societies applying to ROS for registration each year to benefit from this new automatic registration regime.

Societies that do not qualify for automatic registration

Clause 8 of the Bill amends the Societies Act to create a Schedule, listing down the categories of societies that will not be eligible for automatic registration. Let me explain why we should not allow these categories of societies to be automatically registered. Take the example of an ethnic or religious society. History has shown that religious and ethnic issues can potentially be divisive ones, especially in Singapore, a relatively young nation with a multi-religious and multi-racial society. We cannot afford to have individuals or groups exploit these issues without due regard to our country's fragile social fabric. Closer scrutiny of

such societies is required to ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place in the societies' constitutions so that they will not carry out activities prejudicial to our national interests.

For the same reason, societies whose main purpose is to discuss any matter relating to the governance of Singapore must go through the normal registration process. This category includes political parties and political associations, as well as non-partisan political discussion groups. These organisations have an influence over the governance of Singapore and the national policies of the day. We must ensure that foreign elements do not hijack these organisations to serve a foreign agenda which is contrary to our national interests. Politics in Singapore is and must remain within the domain of Singaporeans.

Another category of such societies is the alumni of foreign educational institutions. Given their links with their alma mater, it would be prudent to ensure that they do not establish themselves solely to fund or to receive funds and promote the cause of a foreign organisation. They can also have an impact on Singapore's bilateral relations with the foreign country in question.

Societies that advocate civil or political rights are also specified in the Schedule. Such groups, which aim to promote a particular cause, can potentially give rise to law and order problems if they engage actively in pushing their agenda, without due regard for those who may not agree with their cause.

Societies that promote or provide training in pugilistic or martial arts will also not be allowed automatic registration. When I spoke in Parliament last year, in moving the repeal of the

Martial Arts Instructions Act, I assured Members that existing safeguards governing martial arts associations would remain in the Societies Act. This is necessary to prevent such associations from being exploited by secret societies and other criminal gangs.

Sir, let me stress that it does not mean that the categories of societies specified in the Schedule cannot or will not be registered. Their applications for registration will be considered through the current normal process which, as I have said, in terms of timing, has now been cut down, and it is working fairly well. Based on the current very high approval rate, I expect the vast majority of these societies to be approved for registration. I should add that the list of societies in the Schedule will be reviewed regularly. Clause 7 of the Bill inserts a new section 33A to empower the Minister to amend the Schedule by notification in the Gazette.

Safeguards

In the course of gathering feedback on the proposed automatic registration regime, there were some concerns that automatic registration might become a loophole for illegal or unlawful groups to register themselves. Hence, I would like to assure the House that there will be sufficient safeguards in place. For example, a society, whether registered automatically or through the normal registration process, is required to abide by its own constitution and the prevailing laws of Singapore. If the society engages in illegal activities, it will have to face the consequences. Also, currently, section 24(1) of the Societies Act empowers the Minister to order a society to be dissolved if the society is being used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore; or for purposes which are incompatible with its objects or rules; or when the society has wilfully contravened

its own rules or any provision of the Act or its Regulations.

Clause 6 of the Bill amends section 24(1) to empower the Minister to dissolve a society if it had secured automatic registration through false declaration or misrepresentation of its objects and activities at the point of registration. But let me assure Members that the power to dissolve a society has been invoked sparingly all these years, and only as a last resort. For example, over the past 13 years, from 1991 till the present, about 24 bogus football and sports clubs were dissolved to curb the operation of illegal billiard saloons, gaming machines and other gambling activities.

As a check on societies that are automatically registered, ROS will conduct random audits on the declarations submitted by these societies after registration. Clause 5 of the Bill empowers the Registrar of Societies to order a society to change its name or rules, taking into account the need to safeguard national interest and public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore. This power will be confined to societies that are automatically registered. ROS will also ensure that these societies do not use names which are offensive, misleading or have already been used by other societies or organisations. It will be an offence if a society does not comply with the Registrar's order to change its name or rules. However, it shall be a defence for any officer of the society to establish to

the satisfaction of the court that he has exercised due diligence, and it was for reasons beyond his control that he failed to comply with the order of the Registrar.

Review of Fines

Finally, Sir, MHA has taken the opportunity to streamline existing fines in the Act from the current six to three levels. The existing fines have not been changed since 1967 when the Societies

Act was enacted. Hence, clause 8 of the Bill enhances the fines and collapses the existing six levels of fines, namely, maximum fines of $200, $500, $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 and $4,000 to three levels of fines, namely, maximum fines of $1,000, $3,000 and $5,000. There will be no changes to the imprisonment terms spelt out in the Act. As we administer the Societies Act with a light touch, these fines provisions have seldom been invoked. I expect this to remain so.

Conclusion

Sir, let me conclude. These amendments to the Societies Act will make it easier for many societies to be registered. The changes are in line with the Government's move to loosen up restrictions to encourage greater social entrepreneurship.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, I welcome the amendments. But after listening to the Senior Minister of State saying that they can clear 99% of the applications within three months, I really wonder whether we need to have automatic registration of the type that he has proposed.

I think it is good also that the Ministry has followed up on suggestions made by MPs in the past that there should be a quicker mode of registration of societies. But I have a few queries about the workings of this particular new amendment. First of all, I really would like to ask how useful is the new track procedure under clause 4. I ask this because the Schedule which provides for specified societies is extremely wide. The Senior Minister of State just now said that this was following the Remaking Singapore Committee's suggestion that they should list down what should be

specified as societies. But if you look at the list, they cover the whole gamut of what the Senior Minister of State referred to as social entrepreneurship. For example, if I may take just two of them. Clause 5 says, "Any society whose object, purpose or activity, whether primary or otherwise, is to discuss any matter relating to the governance of Singapore society." That alone would, I think, cover all civic societies. Then the next clause, "Any society whose object, purpose or activity, whether primary or otherwise, is to promote or discuss the use or status of any language." might cover even cultural groups discussing whether Mandarin ought to be used, and so on. So even looking at just two of the clauses, we can find that there were very few societies that would not be within the Schedule. I would like to know, out of the 6,000 that are registered, what percentage would actually in retrospect qualify for this automatic registration.

While I welcome the change for automatic registration, I doubt very much whether it is as useful as it is intended to be. And given the fact that previously, the complaint was that it took two years to register, for example, the Roundtable, now the speed of registration is much faster and approvals are much faster, I really doubt whether this amendment would have a significant effect on improving social entrepreneurship in Singapore.

Secondly, I would like to ask why the opportunity was not taken to review the discretion of the Registrar in declining to register a society. For example, the Registrar's discretion is very wide. It includes the Registrar deciding not to register a society on the basis that it is undesirable in his opinion. That sort of wide discretion should perhaps be controlled, how it is controlled and how can a society appeal for a review of the

Registrar's exercise of discretion, short of going to the court of law for judicial review.

While I welcome the amendments, I think this Bill raises the question: what are we to do with societies in Singapore? Should we not look forward to the day when registration is the exception rather than the rule? Should we not look at societies with some trust rather than mistrust? I do not think societies are comprised of enemies of the State or aliens. I think there should be more confidence in accepting the formation of societies in Singapore so that we can have the flourish of ideas on how to improve Singapore society.

We should really review the approach whether we need to register societies. And we should perhaps pay more attention to the constitutional right that we all have of the freedom to association. I believe that, so long as societies are not political associations or act against the interest of the fundamental institutions of Singapore society, we should leave them to flourish. We should not control them to the extent that we are controlling them now. Because as it stands, even after these amendments, all societies still need to be registered. Otherwise, they would be regarded as unlawful. I think many Singaporeans would rather like to have societies which are more informal and which do not require them to go through all the gamut of application forms, and so on.

With those comments, Sir, I support the Bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for letting me join in this discussion.

I would, firstly, like to commend the Ministry in its efforts to set up a provision for societies other than those specified in the Schedule to be registered

automatically. This green lane capability, in terms of registration, is to be lauded and brings us closer to creating a more open society, which is part of the recommendations of the Remaking Singapore Committee. It endorses and entrenches the constitutional right of a citizen to get together with other like-minded individuals to form a society quickly to help make things better for society.

Having said that, I have some queries that I hope the Minister would kindly address. Firstly, like Prof. Chin Tet Yung, I too feel how the Schedule was actually drawn up. Like him, I too feel that it is a very broad spectrum and it covers almost every civil society initiative. I would like to put it to the Minister that such a Schedule goes against the very principle and spirit of the amendments made under this Bill. I would like to hear what the Minister's views are on this particular point. If the response is that certain applications to form a society have inherent problems unto themselves, would it not then be better to register them under the green lane, that is, automatically, then watch their performance and deregister them if they are found to be deviating from the original intent as to why they have got started in the first place. On the safeguards that the Senior Minister of State explained earlier, can they not kick in even for those under the green lane and therefore every society is treated the same? By providing a Schedule, such as this, it actually gives the impression that things may not have moved very far for civil society groups. A case in point is the Roundtable. They waited under the old structure for almost a year before they could be registered.

I would like to ask: if we were to bring the clock forward now, where would the Roundtable stand? Would it be the green lane? Or would it again be the slower wait-and-see approach for the Roundtable, a proven track record?

Lastly, I feel that it is better to have an automatic "yes" or "no" for such societies. This wait-and-see registration might just push certain groups to register under the Companies Act as a private limited or company limited by guarantee and thus run the risk of not being monitored adequately by the same indicators as those used under the Societies Act. That could even prove to be more of a greater risk when national security of our country is concerned, as they might just not be on our radar as diligently.

It is my hope that, as we move towards greater openness, the need for the Schedule may not really be valid any longer. I am heartened that the Senior Minister of State has said that the Schedule will be reviewed. But in keeping with Prof. Chin Tet Yung's point, it is time to trust the citizenry and do the monitoring by the administrators.

Sir, first, I want to thank both Members for speaking up in support of the Bill. They have brought up several points which are related. I will take them in turn.

First, Prof. Chin laments whether this new regime will make a difference. In fact, he compliments ROS for making improvements all these years, some of which are actually in response to the call of civil societies for a more enlightened regime. Indeed, he is right. ROS has moved and currently takes a light touch approach to administering the Act. Like I have said in my speech, this amendment represents a quantum jump because it is the beginning of a process where you automatically register. In the past, the Registrar would be your gatekeeper for all applications and, in a sense, would treat everybody as a homogenous group and subject everybody to the same scrutiny.

Now, when you are not a specified society, you are registered on the date

when you submit your application you pay up, and you make a declaration that your objectives are not within those specified in the Schedule and you can start your activities straightaway. I think that will make a difference. Whether it is one or two months, the fact is that those who are raring to go can, upon making the submission, start their activities. In response to Prof. Chin, I would say this is something that many societies will look foward to. And indeed, going on the past two years' figures, about half of the societies registered over this two-year period - about 260 a year are registered, so we are talking about 520 - half of that, 260-270 would benefit from this new regime. So it does make a difference.

The second point is whether or not the Schedule is too wide. We have chosen 11 categories. These are all carefully chosen. It is not a perfect classification. Neither is it cast in stone. And that is why the Bill in fact makes provision for the Minister by Gazette to amend the Schedule. I want to assure both Members and this House that every category was carefully chosen for reason where there is a need to scrutinise the application, whether or not, for example, it is the fact that it may have possible foreign links or the fact that a society engages in topics that may be emotive, like race, language or religion, or espouses causes which, from its point of view, it passionately cares about but if too vigorously pushed can also have proponents which will have a counter point and that may present problems. But I think it is important to note that being in the Schedule does not mean that you cannot function. Basically, it means that you have an opportunity to interact with the Registrar, which is the current position. So upfront, the Registrar, when you make an application, will have an opportunity to look at your constitution and your rules. Both parties'

concerns can then be discussed and, ultimately, a consensus can be captured in the constitution. I think that lends for a better regime where, instead of letting everybody go ahead, and then, like what Ms Braema Mathi says, "Oh, after that, you can observe, you can scrutinise later on, and if any society is out of line, you hit the society.", that will create even more angst and acrimony. So it is better upfront to have a good discussion and come up with a set of constitution and rules where both parties are happy and then you proceed, not forgetting that if you do not do this, if everybody is just automatically registered, as Prof. Chin argues for, societies may then start functioning and initially, on the surface they may have what may look like

legitimate purposes but, over time, these societies may do things which will harm us. I think we should not let the horses out of the stable and then start catching them back because, for certain topics, that would be very dangerous for Singapore.

So, let us take this approach of having 11 categories. We will monitor, look at them and, if need be, over time, we can review them, not forgetting, like I said, that really, we are subjecting them to the current process which Prof. Chin has praised already. The current process is working well, but we are improving on it. Even if you are on the Schedule list, you are still a beneficiary of the current process, which is working well.

Prof. Chin also asked why we did not take the opportunity to review the process by which the Registrar has discretion. I think that is how the Act is structured. In the first instance, the Registrar will have the discretion to look at applications. But his discretion is not an unfettered one, as shown by the track record. And the track record is important. That is why I have said in my main speech, look at all the indicators, our light touch approach shows that the Registrar

does not take a heavy-handed approach. He bases his discretion on the Act itself. Section 4 of the Act sets out the premises upon which he can reject a society's application. And indeed, as I mentioned just now, the very small number of 10 societies rejected out of a total of almost 1,300 applications, ie, less than 1%, over a five-year period, shows that he does exercise his discretion judiciously and only based on the provisions of the Act. And very often it is a certain section in the Act that talks about the purposes, whether the purposes are unlawful or are prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order, or whether the existence of the society is contrary to national interest that is involved. In fact, since April 2000, the ROS lets the applicant know the provision under which the rejection is based, and then he can make an appeal to the Minister. And, indeed, judicial review lies from the decision of the Minister. So, the process is in place.

The third point that Prof. Chin makes, and which Ms Braema Mathi also makes, is whether or not there is a need for registration, whether or not the Societies Act has a place in modern-day Singapore, especially as we go full speed into building civil society. Sir, let me say that the Societies Act does have a place. It is because the Societies Act is able to weed out societies which may cause problems in the area of, for example, ethnic chauvinism or extremist religious tendencies or other illegal activities, such as gambling or secret society activities, that the rest of civil society can function. And that is a point we should bear in mind. It does not stifle. It, in fact, encourages and promotes civil society. And this in fact has been happening. If we look at what has been happening in Singapore over the past five to 10 years, societies have sprung up, and I have given Members the numbers. The number of registered societies has increased from 3,900 in 1988, to 5,300 in 1999, to

about 5,800 currently. And not just in terms of the number of societies, but in the range of societies that has sprung up, very often fronted by good-minded, good-hearted Singaporeans over a whole variety of causes, from cats' welfare to nature society, to other topics. That is why I think civil society is working well, with this light-touch approach which is taken by the Registrar of Societies.

In short, Sir, let us take this step. It is not a perfect step but it is a first step and is definitely an improvement. And, over time, we can review it.

May I know which are the 10 societies mentioned by the Senior Minister of State which were rejected by the Registrar, and what are the reasons for their rejection?

Sir, there were 10 rejections over the last five-year period. Some of these were religious groups and some had foreign connections. There were a few which were communal-type groups, again with possible foreign connections. There was one group that was rejected because of possible secret society links, and one was espousing a cause which would have promoted alternative lifestyles which would have been contrary to the national interests.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

Bill reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.22 pm

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

The Department of Statistics has the responsibility to compile and analyse data on the Singapore economy and households to support policy-making and to meet the statistical requirements of international organisations, businesses, analysts and the general public. In order to discharge this responsibility, the Department has to collect a wide range of data from businesses and persons. In the past, much of the data was collected through statistical surveys. As such surveys are costly and labour-intensive, the Department has increasingly tapped on administrative data to supplement the survey data. The use of administrative data helps to reduce the burden on respondents, improve operational efficiency in statistical compilation, and increase the range of statistical analysis available for policy-making and business decision-making.

Need for Taxation Data

Taxation data is an important administrative data source for the statistical system in many developed countries. Canada, US, the Nordic countries, New Zealand and Australia have legislative provisions to allow their national statistical offices to access individual taxation data for statistical purposes. Besides providing personal and household incomes, taxation data can be used for benchmarking and estimating national economic accounts, creating new business activity indicators, estimating the income and expenses of small businesses, and updating the list of businesses for use in statistical surveys.

Singapore will also benefit from the use of taxation data for official statistics.

More useful and timely data can be compiled without imposing additional survey burden on companies, businesses and households. For example, the monthly Goods and Services Tax (GST) data will enable the Department of Statistics to derive improved estimates of turnover and value-added at a more disaggregated level. Corporate income tax data will provide the basis to adjust for under-coverage of small and medium-sized enterprises and to compile estimates of small sectors that are not adequately covered by surveys, such as agriculture and construction. Personal income tax data will help to fill data gaps in the analysis of households' income from self-employment and non-work sources.

Data Safeguards

Stringent standards are in place to ensure the confidentiality of individual taxation information provided to the Department of Statistics for statistical compilation and analysis. Under the Statistics Act, the taxation data can be used for statistical purposes only. Individual particulars cannot be disclosed without the prior written consent of the individual concerned. Only aggregated data can be released, so that no individual can be identified in the aggregated data. Moreover, the Act does not permit individual particulars of taxpayers to be disclosed without the permission of the Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax and the Comptroller of Income Tax. Any officer found guilty of breaching any of the confidentiality provisions in the Statistics Act is liable to severe penalties.

The Department of Statistics also has strict administrative measures to ensure security of taxpayer information during data transfer, processing and storage. For example, the taxation information will be encrypted before being transmitted via secure mail to the Department. And it will only be processed by the Department's authorised staff.

Legislative Amendments

The Department of Statistics currently does not have the legal authority under the Statistics Act to obtain taxation information for statistical purposes. It is an anomalous situation, because the Department can request information from gazetted Research and Statistics Units and other specified competent authorities, namely, the Central Provident Fund Board, Director-General of Customs and the Superintendent of Census.

The Statistics Act therefore needs to be amended to allow the Department of Statistics access to relevant individual taxation information on companies, businesses and persons.

Clause 2 of the Bill removes the current prohibition on the Chief Statistician to access information obtained under any written law relating to taxation.

Clause 3 provides for the amendment of the Third Schedule to include particulars and information obtained under any written law relating to taxation. But this is only to the extent that the supply of such particulars and information is permitted by or under that written law.

Clause 4 includes the Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax and the Comptroller of Income Tax as competent authorities in the Third Schedule for the provision of information obtained under the Goods and Services Tax Act and the Income Tax Act respectively.

Clause 5 makes consequential amendments to the Goods and Services Tax Act and the Income Tax Act. The consequential amendments empower the Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax and the Comptroller of Income Tax to furnish, and permit the Chief Statistician access to, the specific types of tax information and records to be prescribed

in subsidiary legislation made under the respective Acts.

Mr Speaker Sir, the proposed amendment to the Statistics Act will allow Singapore to benefit from the use of taxation data for official statistics. Significant improvements in the Government's statistical system will be realised, and the survey burden on the business community and households reduced.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

I would like to ask the Minister of State whether the Government considers privacy as an issue in this amendment.

As I mentioned in my speech just now, it is an important issue, and that is why there is a confidentiality provision worked into it, to ensure that the information itself is kept confidential. So, as I mentioned just now in my speech, there are various provisions for severe penalties for any officer who releases that to an unauthorised person.

Clarification, Sir. Is the Minister of State aware that when the same Act came to Parliament for amendment in 1990, the information on taxation was purposely left out for reasons of concern with privacy, and the then Minister of State, who was moving that amendment in the House in 1990, said:

"Information obtained under legislation relating to taxation or legislation administered by the MAS are specifically excluded. This is to preserve privacy of sensitive information."

So, I would like to know what has changed and why the change of mind of the Government in the position in terms of

the issue of privacy. In 1990, it was a concern and thereby it was excluded. But, now, taxation information, such as individual taxation information, is to be made accessible to the Department of Statistics, whatever safeguards notwithstanding. But the fact is that it is now to be accessible. So, why the change of mind?

I do not think this is a question of a change of mind. I think it is a matter of balancing the interest of statistical analysis to ensure that Singapore keeps up with international best practices. It would give us more timely analyses of data, and we have to weigh that against the need for confidentiality. As I said, there are various safeguards. Let me just take Members through them, so as to give you some comfort on what we are doing here.

There are three ways in which we are controlling and ensuring confidentiality, ie, legal, administrative and technical measures. On legal measures, under the Statistics Act, no individual particulars can be disclosed without the prior consent, in writing, of the individual company or person. Should any officer disclose any information contrary to the Statistics Act,

he shall be liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both. At a more general level, the Official Secrets Act prohibits release of official information to unauthorised persons. An officer guilty of releasing official information to unauthorised persons shall be liable on conviction before the District Court to a fine not exceeding $2,000 and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. The officer may, with the sanction of the Attorney-General, be tried before a Magistrate Court, and such persons shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 and to

imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

Administrative Measures

Strict controls are in place to ensure that access to information is given only to authorised Department of Statistics (DOS) staff. Protocols are established on data transfer, processing, storage and utilisation to ensure data security. Arrangement is made for secured courier or authorised staff to personally collect the CD-R from Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS).

Technical Measures

Firewalls, physical separation of internal and external systems and other IT installation devices protect the security of DOS' computer systems and databases. Arrangement is made with IRAS to encrypt the data sets provided to DOS.

Clarification, Sir. I am aware, and I am sure that many Members are aware, of these safeguards. But the question is: why is there a need to include sensitive information on taxation of individuals in the Bill? Is the Minister of State saying that in the past because these were not included, and thereby, our statistical data were not coherent and not up to international standards? I know he is talking about balance but why is there a compelling need to include individual taxpayers' data to be made accessible for statistical purpose? What is the reason?

Sir, actually, I have answered that question. The key reason is that we want our statistical analysis to be more comprehensive and complete. Survey data is not complete enough. And having administrative data, like taxation data makes it much more comprehensive and much more timely.

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 Raymond Lim Siang Keat].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

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

The Bill before this House seeks to put in place two separate sets of amendments to the Singapore Armed Forces Act. The first set of amendments involves making refinements to the existing court martial system. The second set of amendments would allow for an external auditor to conduct an audit of the SAVER-Premium Fund.

Sir, I would like to highlight the major aspects of the Bill. I will begin with the proposed refinements to the SAF court martial system.

The Bill seeks to refine the SAF court martial system as follows:

to replace the

existing system of ad hoc general courts martial with a system of standing general courts martial constituted from a panel that consists of both legally-qualified servicemen and lay servicemen; and

to establish a system of single-judge courts martial, to be called the "judge courts martial", to complement the existing system of general courts martial comprising three or more members. The existing system will be renamed as "panel courts martial".

Let me elaborate on the two proposed changes to the existing system. Currently, whenever a case is to be tried by a court martial, a three-member court martial has to be convened specifically to hear the case. This general court martial is automatically dissolved once the case is over. Thus, whenever a new case arises, a new general court martial has to be convened.

This practice of ad hoc courts martial was adopted from the British system that needed to dispense justice to its soldiers who were scattered throughout the reaches of the British Empire. Such a system allowed commanders to convene general courts martial on an ad hoc basis to punish errant soldiers wherever they were.

However, this system is not efficient for the SAF as effort has to be expended to convene ad hoc courts martial to try even the simplest of cases. Currently, the SAF Court Martial Centre hears about 450 cases a year.

This Bill therefore seeks to replace the system of ad hoc general courts martial with a system of standing general courts martial. The standing general courts martial will remain in operation for a predetermined period of time. The standing general courts martial will be convened by a single convening authority, who will appoint the members of the general courts martial panel. The panel will consist of legally-qualified SAF servicemen and SAF lay members.

The standing general courts martial will be competent to hear all charges that are referred to it. The selection of the president and members of the individual courts martial can be delegated to the

Registrar of the subordinate military courts, or to some other person, and will be made from amongst the pre-appointed general court martial panel. This allows the selection process to be efficiently carried out.

Sir, I will now talk about the second major refinement to the SAF court martial system, namely, the establishment of single-judge courts. Under the existing SAF court martial system, each court martial must consist of at least three persons: one president and two members. Although it is not a legal requirement, the policy in the SAF today is that such a president is a legally-qualified, operationally-ready national serviceman, who is either a serving magistrate or district judge in the Subordinate Courts or an ex-judicial officer. The remaining members are SAF servicemen.

Such three-member general courts martial hear a variety of cases, both military and civil cases, and are ideal for cases which concern SAF values and practices. For such cases, the policy and operational perspectives of the SAF lay members complement the legal perspective of the president and enables a balanced collective decision to be reached.

However, a significant number of cases that are tried in the general courts martial do not involve such considerations. In particular, cases involving solely civil offences usually call for a pure judicial analysis of the facts and legal issues and an application of established judicial sentencing principles and guidelines by the judge. Such cases will be more efficiently and effectively dealt with by a single legally qualified judge.

Accordingly, the Bill seeks to establish an additional system of general courts martial known as judge courts martial, to

exist alongside the present system of general courts martial. Each judge court martial will consist of a single legally qualified national serviceman judge. In line with current practice, he is likely to be a current or former judicial officer. As a result, the judge courts martial will closely resemble the Subordinate Courts in the civilian justice system in that the accused serviceman, like his civilian counterpart, will similarly be tried by a single legally qualified judge.

However, the default option is for offences to be tried by the panel courts martial unless the SAF Director of Legal Services directs that it be tried by a judge courts martial. Operationally, the Armed Forces Council will set guidelines for the Director of Legal Services on the types of offences that should be tried by the judge courts martial or by the panel courts martial.

In summary, the introduction of the standing general courts martial and judge courts martial would enhance the efficient use of manpower in the SAF without compromising the high standards of quality, justice and accountability that the servicemen and the public have come to expect from the SAF military justice system.

Sir, I will now move on to talk about the second set of amendments to the SAF Act, namely, the amendments to allow for the audit of the SAVER-Premium Fund to be conducted by an external auditor.

The SAVER and Premium Plans hold the retirement benefits of military servicemen. Currently section 205C(5) of the SAF Act provides that the accounts and annual financial statements of the SAVER-Premium Fund be audited by the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General only audits the fund on a cash basis for the purpose of parliamentary reporting. For the purpose of the Fund's annual investment performance and dividend

declaration, MINDEF engages a commercial auditor to separately audit the fund on an accrued basis.

This results in significant overlap and duplication in the audit coverage by the Auditor-General's Office and the commercial auditor.

MINDEF therefore proposes to amend section 205C(5) to allow the audit of the SAVER-Premium Fund to be conducted by an external auditor. This auditor may be appointed by the Minister for Defence, in consultation with the Auditor-General.

Parliament is requested to approve the amendments.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the establishment of a permanent general courts martial panel, from which members could be drawn to hear court martial cases.

This Bill will make it easier for the convening authority to constitute the court martial. In this manner, it helps to institutionalise the system and maximise our resources. Members appointed will also know in advance that they will be called upon to serve on courts martial.

However, I have some reservations and questions on the institution of single judge courts, which will be presided by NSman judges. I urge MINDEF to think very carefully before putting aside the present three-member court in some cases, and substituting it with a single judge court.

The military law regime provides for the maintenance of good order and discipline amongst members of the Armed Forces. It supplements the ordinary criminal laws in Singapore with a special

code of discipline and a special system for enforcing it. The idea of having a panel consisting of a presiding officer and two members on a general court martial, rather than a single judge court, goes back a long way in military history and military justice. It was indeed to ensure trial by your own peers, your peers who understand the military chain of command, your peers who understand military discipline, your peers who understand military convention, ethos and practices.

In the three-judge panel, the other two members are experienced military officers who will bring with them deep insights into military practices, regimental ethos and the understanding of how men behave and conduct themselves in the field. Such empathy and insights cannot be taught in law schools, or gained from experiences in civil courts or civilian life.

In the military chain of command, commanders are personally responsible for the men under their charge, in war as well as in peace. When their men are being charged, commanders or senior officers of similar background should sit in as members of the panel of judges. They may have better understanding of the situation of the soldiers. In contrast, in a single judge court, judges may not understand the military background or ethos.

In some of the single judge courts, judges may have served national service in a non-combat role or they could be holding junior ranks in service.

Sir, the existing general courts martial panel has worked very well over the years in the SAF. There is no compelling reason to change it. If it ain't broke, why fix it? We must not try to just go for administrative efficiency or expediency. Justice must not only be done but also seen to be done.

Participation of the officer in military justice also would help

them understand the system and, very importantly, have ownership of the system. Even soldiers, who are being charged, will feel better if they are being tried by judges who are experienced military officers. They will feel that they are given a fairer hearing.

Sir, currently, NUSAF officers (non-uniformed SAF - today, they are called Defence Executive Officers) will be tried by a judge with two other NUSAF officers on the panel. The thinking is that this will give a chance for the NUSAF officers to be tried by their own peers. Now, the NUSAF officers may be tried by a single judge. Does this mean that the principle of trial by their own peers is being thrown out unceremoniously? If the reason for such a trial was valid, then why is it invalid now?

What do we save by taking out two officers from the panel of judges? We save the time and pay of two officers. I am sure that justice and the well-being and interests of our soldiers are worth more than that.

Further, who actually decides whether the soldiers will be tried in a single judge court or three-member court? What are the so-called selected classes of offences that will be dealt with by a single judge court? This is not spelt out clearly in the amendment.

May I also ask what is the role of the MINDEF Director of Legal Services in all these? Is the Director of Legal Services the one to recommend the appointment of the judges? Is he the one to recommend or decide on which cases go to the single judge courts martial and which cases go to the panel courts martial? He is also, I presume, the chief military prosecutor. It will be odd for the prosecution to determine the composition and type of

tribunal. Will there be a conflict of interests, I wonder?

Sir, on the MINDEF SAVER-Premium Fund, it is stated that the Minister for Defence may appoint an outside auditor in consultation with the Auditor-General. What if the Auditor-General disagrees with such an appointment during consultation? Can the Minister for Defence still proceed with such an appointment? It was pointed out that the audit of the Fund by the Auditor-General on a cash basis and the commercial audit is on an accrual basis will lead to overlap or duplication of audit coverage. May I point out that such cross audit normally happens in business companies where we have external auditors and internal auditors, as well as the appointment of auditors for specific audit or for due diligence purposes.

To some extent, such duplications are unavoidable and sometimes it is good to have cross checks or cross audits. Again, here, I see that MINDEF is working on a change for a single audit on account of administrative efficiency and convenience. I doubt whether it is always the best thing to do. There is no harm in more audit. It may discover and surface interesting items.

Sir, more to the point, the Auditor-General can also do audit on an accrual basis. In fact, the Auditor-General has done such audits on a number of statutory boards. So there is really no need to appoint an outside auditor. The Auditor-General can do both kinds of audits.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the present Bill before this House to amend the SAF Act seeks to improve the administration of military justice and to allow for the appointment of outside auditors to audit the SAF SAVERS Scheme, a pension plan unique only to the SAF.

While the amendment may be limited in scope, the issues that the Bill seeks to address may well be fundamental in nature.

This Bill addresses the process by which a court martial is constituted and further defines the types of court martial that may be convened. As a consequence, when approved by Parliament, the SAF (Amendment) Act will provide for the appointment of a panel of members from whom the convening authority, who after the Act will now be a single person, may choose, and will allow for a qualified person acting as a single judge to try cases. The amendment has provided the Government with much flexibility in constituting and convening a court martial from a panel.

While I can accept the need for flexibility, it is important for us to bear in mind that flexibility must not come at a price of unwittingly undermining confidence in the administration of justice.

Sir, the process of determining the outcome is as important as the outcome itself. This is particularly true in the administration of justice. It is for this reason that our Constitution goes through great lengths to ensure that the trial of any accused person is fair and just; and that question must equally be determined by looking at the process by which judges are appointed, who makes the appointment, whether there is security of tenure in relation to the appointment of judges. It is only when a perception exists that the whole process is seen to be fair, that we find a greater willingness on the part of the accused to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court. After all, this is the process by which any demorcracy would set itself apart from any banana republic.

And so it is that when we look at this Bill, we ask ourselves these same

questions, as these are just as relevant in our assessment.

First, the Bill, unlike the present Act, reposes the power to appoint and constitute members of a court martial in a single person who becomes the convening authority of the general court martial. For the purposes of the Act, the convening authority does not have to be a person whose rank is higher than a major.

The minimum rank required to qualify for the appointment of convening authority is a legacy from the present Act. When the Act was first drafted in the sixties, a major was of a relatively senior rank as there were not that many to begin with. Today, it is often said that almost every other officer in the SAF is a major. Unlike before, the SAF today has grown in size and, as a consequence, and with my utmost respect to the officers involved, a major in the SAF would not be considered to be a senior appointment.

Given the relatively junior rank required to qualify as a convening authority, it would not appear to be appropriate that such a legacy should remain. Even in the civilian context, the power and authority to appoint a High Court judge lies with the President of the Republic. What we have here is a situation where the law now allows the power of judicial appointment to be in the hands of someone whose rank is perhaps no more than a senior officer in the civil service. Is this satisfactory?

Sir, one may well ask: what is this fuss all about? The issue here is one of susceptibility to influence. There is little or no guideline within the Act or the Bill as to how a convening authority is to discharge his duty in appointing members to the court martial panel. Should he be allowed to appoint his friends? Should anyone, especially those in the senior military command, be allowed to have a

say or even influence the choice of panel members? Sir, the truth of the matter, unfortunately, is that the lower you are in rank, the greater is the likelihood of you coming under such pressure not to exercise independent judgment, whether consciously or otherwise.

While I am not suggesting that the convening authority, if he was a major, would allow his independent judgment to be influenced by his seniors, I would suggest that the confidence of the public would be a lot stronger if the minimum rank for appointing the convening authority was raised much higher instead.

Secondly, while the Bill proposes to establish a permanent panel of members from which members of a court martial may be chosen, there is nothing unlike a civilian appointment which suggests security of tenure arising from the appointment.

Clause 6 of the Bill sets out a new section 80A which provides the power of appointment to the convening authority to appoint any number of panel members as he shall determine. The term of appointment of the panel member shall be for such period of time as he shall determine. Also, the convening authority may at any time revoke the appointment of any panel member.

Sir, on the face of it, it is clear that the court martial panel member does not enjoy any security of tenure in his appointment. This is clearly in sharp contrast to the civilian appointment of Judges. In its present form, a convening authority, who does not need to have a rank higher than a major, has complete powers under the Act to decide who gets to be judge, stay as a judge, or be removed as a judge of a court martial panel.

What it does mean is that there is little in the present Bill that would serve as an institutional check against abuse by the convening authority. What is there, if the convening authority is so minded, that prevents the appointment to the panel, to be motivated by crony interest? How can the people be sure, other than out of pure faith and belief in the honesty and integrity of those involved, that a kangaroo court will not be set up or that those who serve the panel do so without fear or favour will be willy-nilly removed by those powerful officers higher up in the chain of command who are intent on covering up their misdeeds? Unfortunately, Sir, this Bill does not give us much assurance on this.

This Bill therefore would depend very much on the integrity of those who administer it. I would support it only because it helps to make our system more efficient. And I would support because I do not believe that this Government would, or that it would allow those who work for it, abuse the powers that it enjoys under the Act. Sir, that does not mean that future generations of those entrusted with such powers will not abuse it. I would urge the Government to consider strengthening the process to reinforce the public's confidence in the process.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I note that the principal change, by way of introduction to the current system of general court martial, is per clauses 80A and 81.

The amendment specifies the introduction of either a judge courts martial (clause 81(1)(a) or panel courts martial (clause 81(1)(b)) and where only a judge courts martial would have a "qualified person" as defined by the Legal Profession Act. Does this mean any panel courts martial (convened under clause 81(1)(b)) would constitute entirely military

officers with no training whatsoever in law or procedure?

Sir, I am of the view that this is inappropriate as it would be no different from a summary hearing by either the junior disciplinary officer or senior disciplinary officer sitting in camp, save for the number of officers present to determine the guilt and sentence.

Moreover, unless the Director of Legal Services otherwise directs (per clause 81(10)) that a "judge court martial" be convened whenever an accused is represented by counsel, it could mean that the charge to be filed by general court martial shall always be tried by a panel court martial, without any "qualified person" to determine on law or disputes on procedures as counsels may deem fit to address in court.

Sir, I am of the opinion that army officers, albeit as a team, would be inadequate to judge or determine on such legal arguments or points as addessed by counsels.

Where an accused elects trial by a court martial as opposed to summary hearings, very often, such decisions may be due to a strong belief, whether rightly justifiable or otherwise, that a court martial presided over by a "qualified person" or judge advocate is fairer or correct than an officer or team of officers untrained at law.

Such an introduction of "panel court martial" may undermine the quality of courts martial hearing, since it is being deprived of the benefits of having either a "qualified person" presiding or having the assistance of a Judge Advocate being present.

It would also be open to public allegations or give the perception that it is not objective enough - own Singapore

Armed Forces personnel judged by their own officers.

As it is, the Singapore Armed Forces Court Martial Centre, though an open court, is situated within the premises of a camp and not many public members are aware of it being an "open court" as such.

To have a whole court's tribunal members consisting only of Singapore Armed Forces officers and without a "qualified person" currently, generally, being District Judges, as with the proposed "panel court martial", would be a move towards enhancing the public's notion that the military court martial is not necessarily a very objective tribunal. Justice, it had been said, must not only be done but seen to be done!

Sir, I would like to highlight the following concerns:

Does the Director, Legal Services, of the Singapore Armed Forces, propose that all mentions and hearings of cases where the accused is represented by counsels be directed to be presided and adjudicated by a judge court martial?

If the answer to point (1) above is affirmative, does it transpire that the accused who is too poor to engage private defence counsel, as a consequence of which the case would be heard by a panel court martial without a "qualified person" and as such he would be prejudiced by the case being determined by a tribunal of "lesser" quality?

If the answer to point (1) above is in the negative, would a group of untrained, unqualified soldiers - officers no doubt - be adequate to understand and adjudicate over arguments on issues of laws or procedures or evidence, as may be raised by counsels from time to time?

Should we not consider that where a panel court martial sits, that only officers, regardless of rank, with university degrees, be appointed to sit as members to better ensure their

comprehension of laws and legal arguments which may be placed before them by counsels for determination? While it seems that this suggestion does sound prejudiced and is biased against non-degree holders who concededly may be good officers, it is at least a starting point, as a line has to be drawn somewhere and, as we all know, legal arguments and applications are not necessarily the easiest of theory to understand at times.

Sir, I urge the Minister to consider my inputs before the Bill is passed. On this note, I would like to support the amendments in the Bill.

Sir, I share the concern of Dr Ong Chit Chung. I would like to add one point to the concern on the single-judge court martial. Under the new section 88 as drafted, it covers the objection by the accused to the president of the judge court martial. Since the judge court martial is conducted by the president alone, subclause (4) provides that any objection by the accused will be considered by the president himself, and it is provided that the president shall give his reason for dismissing the accused's objection to the convening authority. But it appears that this is just for the record, as it is not stated in the Bill that the convening authority will do anything about it.

My question, Sir, is: how neutral will the president be in considering an objection about his own fitness to hear the case, and what recourse does the accused have if he has such a strong opinion that the president of the judge court martial appointed could be biased in the trial?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for speaking on the Bill and for their interest in strengthening the military justice system in the SAF. I want to assure all Members that the Bill is indeed proposed to strengthen the justice system in the SAF, and the SAF has a similar interest to ensure that this is enhanced.

Dr Ong Chit Chung asked why we are introducing a system of judge courts martial where a single judge presides. Would a single judge, he asked, especially one who is not a regular officer, be able to deal with military offences committed by regular servicemen and National Servicemen? Sir, our general courts martial deal with SAF servicemen who commit both military offences such as absence without official leave (AWOL) and malingering, as well as civil offences such as theft, cheating, and drug consumption. While the majority of the cases involved military offences, a significant number (some 20%) of all the cases dealt with by the courts martial in the last three years involved civil offences.

As I explained in my speech earlier, such civil offences usually call for a pure judicial analysis of the facts and legal issues, and an application of established judicial sentencing principles and guidelines by the judge. Such cases will be more efficiently and effectively dealt with by a single legally qualified judge than a panel of three members. As such, the Bill sets up the judge courts martial to exist alongside the present system of general courts martial, that is, panel courts martial. It does not replace the panel courts martial. However, this judge court martial will deal essentially with civil offences. The judge courts martial will really be no different from the civilian criminal courts in the civilian justice system where the accused person is also tried by a single judge.

Sir, Dr Ong also asked about the role of the Director of Legal Services in determining whether a judge court martial or a panel court martial will be used in hearing cases. As I said in my speech, the default position will be that charges are automatically tried by a panel court martial unless the Director of Legal Services directs that they be tried by a judge court martial. While the system of having a single judge to try an accused person is the norm in the civilian justice system, it will still be a new practice in our military justice system. Moreover, the majority of the charges that are tried by the general courts martial are likely to continue to involve strictly military offences.

As such, MINDEF feels that rather than establishing the default position as one where cases will automatically be tried by a single judge, it may be more prudent, as Dr Ong pointed out, for cases to be tried by a panel court martial, unless the Director of Legal Services decides otherwise. And as I said earlier, the cases that will be heard by the single judge court martial will essentially be civil cases. In making his decision, the Director of Legal Services will not be acting on his own accord but according to the operational guidelines set by the Armed Forces Council. Over time, after the new system has been successfully implemented, the Armed Forces Council could possibly allow more types of cases to be tried by the judge court martial, if this should suit the needs and policies of the SAF at that time.

Sir, Dr Ong also asked about a situation where the Auditor-General disagrees with the appointment of an external commercial auditor. I would like to report that the AGO's advice has been sought on the proposed amendments to the SAVER-Premium Fund and it has not stated any objection to the proposal.

Dr Ong also proposed that the Auditor-General conduct both the cash as well as the accrual accounting audits rather than having a commercial auditor to do both of these. Sir, the SAF SAVER-Premium Fund invests in a wide variety of equities and bonds, and they are traded worldwide by fund managers who have operating presence around the world. Therefore, the advantage of engaging a commercial auditor with a global reach, as opposed to the Auditor-General's Office which does not have a global reach, is a compelling one. And we believe that an external commercial auditor would be able to do the job more efficiently in this respect. The selection of an external commercial auditor will be done in a careful manner and it is likely to be one of the big four auditing firms.

Sir, I move on to address the questions raised by the honourable Member, Mr Sin Boon Ann. He asked about the measures to ensure the independence of the general courts martial panel since the members are appointed by SAF and MINDEF. Yes, the appointment or removal of the members of the general courts panel by a body independent of MINDEF is another safeguard. But we feel that it is not necessary as the rights of the servicemen are ensured by many other safeguards during the trial as well as the post-trial process. Let me cover some of these.

This Bill has indeed strengthened these safeguards as it expressly provides for the setting up of the judge courts martial, each presided by a single legally qualified judge, and the employment of a legally qualified president or member or judge advocate in a panel court martial. Existing safeguards in the courts martial system will also be preserved, and there are a few of them. Firstly, the independence of the court is enshrined in the SAF Act, and anyone who influences

or attempts to influence the court would be committing an offence. Secondly, the proceedings of the courts martial are open to the public and, thus, any alleged unfair conduct of the trial would quickly be discovered and publicly exposed. Thirdly, an accused serviceman may object to any member of the courts martial. Fourthly, primary jurisdiction over all civil offences rests with the Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General may transfer such cases from the military courts to the civil courts. Fifthly, all military prosecutions come under the direct supervision of the Director, Legal Services who is a legally qualified person and who, being a member of the Singapore Legal Service, is independent of the military command structure.

Furthermore, there are robust and independent appellate and review processes to right any possible wrong or unfair decisions of the courts martial. The appellate process involves allowing appeals against any finding of a court martial to the military court of appeal (or MCA). The MCA is a superior court of record. It is presided by a person qualified to be a Supreme Court Judge who has to be specifically nominated by the Chief Justice of Singapore for this purpose. Two other members of the MCA would also have to be legally qualified persons.

As for the review process, this is undertaken by the Armed Forces Council and the reviewing authority can quash the finding or sentence of the court martial. The reviewing process can be initiated by the aggrieved serviceman himself or by the Armed Forces Council acting on its own. In coming to its decision, the AFC can also seek the independent advice of the Judge Advocate-General, who has to be an experienced judicial or legal officer or a lawyer of not less than five years' standing. The Judge Advocate-General is also outside the military command

structure and is currently the Solicitor-General of Singapore. Finally, beyond the appeal and review processes in the SAF, and similar to the practice in our civilian justice system, a convicted serviceman can also petition to the President of the Republic of Singapore for a pardon or for a remission of his sentence.

In summary, there is a comprehensive and multi-faceted system of legal protection put in place to safeguard the interests of our servicemen. This extends from the actual conduct of the trials by the courts martial to the various post-trial appeal, review or petition processes. This system will continue to remain robust and, in fact, will be further enhanced by the provisions in the Bill.

Mr Sin Boon Ann also asked about security of tenure and whether this can be applied to the general courts martial panel. Sir, the general courts martial panel can be made up of regular or National Servicemen. In view of the new provisions in the Bill, the panel will also have to include a significant number of legally qualified persons who will almost invariably be NSmen. As such, it is expected that the membership of the general courts martial panel will have to change from time to time, depending on the potential candidates available, because NSmen do move into MINDEF reserves. Thus, the Bill does not seek to tie down the exact term of the general court martial panel or the exact period of office of its members. This is not unlike the practice in the Subordinate Courts where the magistrates or district judges are also not necessarily appointed for a fixed or definite period. Separately, there is no necessity to require security of tenure for the panel members just so as to ensure that they will not be subject to improper command influence. Let me elaborate.

For the panel members who are National Servicemen, panel membership

will not influence their career advancement in their civilian lives. Hence, there is no reason for them to be improperly influenced just so as to remain on the panel. As for the panel members who are regular servicemen, being a member of the panel is also not a primary or career appointment since such servicemen will continue to retain their regular appointments, whether they remain a member of the panel or not. Further, neither members who are National Servicemen nor regular servicemen who serve on such panels will receive any additional pay or benefit for being a member of the panel. Instead, their pay or service remuneration will remain the same, whether they serve on the panel or not. There is, therefore, no need to put in place security of tenure for the panel members since many safeguards are already in place.

Mr Sin Boon Ann also questioned why the SAF Bill does not specify who the convening authority will be. He said that the Bill specifies that it should be an officer of or above the rank of a major, and he felt that a major may not be senior enough. The minimum rank set out in the SAF Act is only a guide and the convening authority need not necessarily be a major.

The Bill does not seek to tie down the specific appointment or the rank of the convening authority as this is unnecessary and may be overly restrictive.

The SAF Act instead requires the Armed Forces Council to make a specific appointment of the convening authority from officers from or above that minimum rank. Thus, the Armed Forces Council itself would have to specifically consider who is capable of assuming that appointment. In practice, the AFC is likely to appoint the Chief of Defence Force to be the convening authority. Our practice is in fact similar to that employed by many other militaries, such as those in Australia, United Kingdom and the United

States, where the ranks of the persons convening the general courts martial are also not tied down in their respective laws. Depending on the particular military, the general courts martial can be convened by an officer, commander or designated person specifically appointed to perform this task.

Finally, Sir, let me take the questions raised by Mdm Ho Geok Choo, who has raised various issues, and I would address them in turn. The issues stem from the concern that the introduction of panel courts martial may undermine the quality of courts martial hearings since the panel courts martial may be deprived of the benefits of having either a qualified person presiding or having the assistance of a judge advocate being present. I wish to assure Members and Mdm Ho that the panel courts martial will be guided by legal expertise. In the new section 81(8) of the Bill, it is provided that if a panel court martial does not have at least one member who is legally qualified, then a legally qualified judge advocate designated by the convening authority shall officiate in any trial before that court. The effect of this provision is that every panel court martial will have either a legally qualified president or member or legally qualified judge advocate present.

Members of this House may also like to know that, as a further legal safeguard, we have a policy that the appointed legally qualified president or member of the court martial would in fact be a former or current judicial officer from the civil courts. Such a person would thus have actual experience with dispensing justice fairly and impartially in the course of his practice as a Judge in the civil courts. Such a member would bring his valuable experience with him to the general courts martial, further ensuring that the rule of law is as stringently observed in the military justice system as it is in the civilian justice system. Hence, whether or not the accused serviceman is repre

sented by counsel, the panel courts martial would be adequate to hear the case.

Members may also like to know that all military officers would have been trained in military law as part of their officer cadet training. Thus, the lay members of the court martial would have relevant training and would be competent for their roles. With the guidance of a legally qualified president or member or judge advocate in the course of a trial, together with their knowledge of policy and operational perspectives, and their training in military law, the lay members of the panel courts martial would play an important part in ensuring that justice is achieved in accordance with the policy of the SAF, the welfare of its servicemen and the expectations of the public as a whole.

Finally, Sir, Mr Low Thia Khiang raised the question about judge courts martial. And since he is a single judge presiding over the case, how would objections to his fitness to being the judge be dealt with if it is raised by an accused? I would like to point out that this is no different from the civil courts where a single Judge presides over civil offences. And I would like to assure him that, at least for the beginning, the SAF would only put forward civil cases to such a single judge court - until we gain more experience.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a point of clarification. I did not ask whether the Auditor-General was consulted in drafting this amendment. My question was: in the process of consultation between the Minister for Defence and the Auditor-General on the appointment of an external auditor, if the Auditor-General disagrees with the proposal, will the Minister for Defence proceed with such appointment? And, secondly, it is also a point of clarification.

Of course, I agree that big auditors have global reach and they are desirable. But in this case, the Auditor-General could also, on his own, approach and somewhat pass some of the work to the big four or five international auditors who have global reach. So it is not necessary to be appointed by MINDEF. They could be appointed by the Auditor-General.

Sir, if the Auditor-General has reservations on being consulted by the Minister for Defence, I am certain that the Minister would take these reservations into account. And in drafting the Bill, the Auditor-General's Office has been consulted and they have so far not raised any objection. In addition to the global reach of commercial auditors, they have also acquired best practices in the sense that they have relevant experiences in auditing pension funds around the world. And this is opposed to the Auditor-General's Office which may not have as wide an experience in this particular regard. Therefore, it is more efficient and effective to propose a commercial auditor which is likely to be one of the big four accounting firms to carry out this particular function for the SAF SAVER-Premium Fund.

The Minister, in his earlier reply, said that to require the appointment of a convening authority to be a rank higher than a major would be too restrictive. I would like the Minister perhaps to explain what exactly he meant by his remark that this is too restrictive on the SAF to require higher appointment as the minimum qualification for deployment of a convening authority.

Sir, indeed, the Bill seeks to improve this particular aspect of a convening authority. As it stands, ad hoc courts martial are convened to try each case, and they are convened throughout the year by different convening authorities. Therefore, to allow

for such flexibility, a minimum rank of a major has been stipulated, and this has been carried forward to the Bill. However, under the Bill, only a single convening authority is required to appoint a standing (rather than an ad hoc) general court martial panel. Therefore, such a standing general court martial panel would likely hear cases of servicemen of many different ranks and from many different services, be it the airforce, the army or the navy. That is why, in practice, the Armed Forces Council expects to appoint the Chief of Defence Force, who is a two or three star General, to be the convening authority.

That being so, and since the convening authority is just a single person, why does the amendment Bill not just make it simple by specifying that the convening authority shall be the Chief of Defence Force rather than leaving it to just being a person of minimum rank of a major?

Sir, there is another aspect to the SAF Act which deals with field general courts martial and general courts martial during operations. Punishment has to be meted out swiftly in order for the SAF to function in operations. Under such circumstances, one may not find the Chief of Defence Force available to be the convening authority.

So be it. In such situations, you will provide for flexibility. But until you are faced with such situations, in the normal run of things, I cannot see why you cannot specify the rank higher than a major to be the convening authority.

Sir, the SAF, as I said before and the Minister has said in this House many times before, 'trains as it would fight'. So even in the administration of military justice, we would have to have a system which

would apply both in peace time as well as in operations.

Clarification, Sir. Does the Minister of State agree that there is always a difference between the courts martial and the open court? I would like to know whether or not he is going to have a judge in the same way as a case is being tried in the Subordinate Court. The fact is that in an open court, any accused person could object if he raises objection to the judge in trying him - I think it is public opinion - whereas in a court martial, it may not be so. So how sure are we that the Act, which does not provide for a change of the judge or the convening authority, will actually be fair to the accused if, in his opinion, the judge so appointed to try him may be biased?

Sir, just like the civilian justice system, the general court martial is an open court and a court of record. And if a single judge presiding over a judge courts martial is objected to by an accused, he is required to record why he sees himself fit to continue to preside over the case. And if indeed the accused feels that the trial has not been fair, the accused has the right of appeal to the military court of appeal which is then presided by a person qualified to be a Supreme Court Judge with two other legally qualified persons, or he has recourse to the Armed Forces Council for review and, finally, he has the right of petition to the President for final remission.

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 Cedric Foo Chee Keng].

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

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.50 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.27 pm until 4.50 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.50 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this House, noting the two recent construction-related accidents at Nicoll Highway and Ayer Rajah, urges the Government to (a) re-emphasise the importance of safety at workplaces in Singapore; (b) review current safety standards and practices; and (c) recommend appropriate measures, including legislative changes, to further enhance the safety of workers in the construction industry.

Sir, first of all, I wish to express my deepest condolences to the family members of the victims of the recent Nicoll Highway and Ayer Rajah construction-related accidents. I also wish to put on record in this House to acknowledge the courageous act of Mr Heng Yeow Pheow, who lost his life while saving his fellow workers. My salute goes to all the rescue workers and helpers who performed the risky rescue operations. The well-coordinated emergency rescue operations clearly reflect the sense of readiness of our emergency task force and their sense of mission. I am glad to learn that the Government will be recognising the courageous acts of all these Singaporeans.

Sir, many Singaporeans were shocked by these two accidents. Many were surprised that such accidents can occur in

Singapore, despite our stringent safety legislation. These accidents have eroded the confidence of construction workers in the industry. They serve as sombre wake-up calls for all stakeholders in the construction industry to relook into their safety practices. The impact of the accidents has also raised concerns among many Singaporeans who are questioning whether their buildings are safe or not, due to the extensive underground construction works that are still ongoing. The two accidents have indeed raised many questions concerning safety at workplaces in the construction industry.

Sir, in 1998, the Ministry of Manpower and the Ministry of National Development formed the Construction 21 Committee to look into the multitude of problems faced by the construction industry. The Committee held extensive consultations with various stakeholders of the industry and made recommendations to transform the construction industry, which is perceived to be a demanding, dirty and dangerous industry, into a professional, productive and progressive industry. Despite the introduction of safety legislation and safety measures, such as the Factories Act, safety regulations, safety standards and code of practice, the construction industry continues to have high accident rates.

Sir, let me refer Members to chart 1 [Copies of charts distributed to all Members]. This chart shows the statistics of industrial accidents between 1992 and 2002, as compiled by the Ministry of Manpower. The number of industrial accidents in the construction industry had increased from 802 cases in 1992 to 1,337 cases in 2002. This is an increase of 67%. As a percentage of all industries, construction accidents had increased from 17% in 1992 to 39% in 2002.

If we were to analyse the fatality rate of construction accidents as shown in

chart 2, the results are more alarming. Between 1992 and 2002, a total of 518 workers had died due to construction-related accidents. The fatality rate in the construction industry accounts for between 52% and 74% of all fatal accidents in all industries. In terms of man-days lost, the construction industry has consistently more man-days lost, ranging from 405 to 1,150 man-days lost, as compared to all other industries as shown in chart 3.

Sir, this situation is definitely not desirable, and reflects poorly on the effectiveness of our safety legislation and safety measures in the construction industry. I certainly do not think that MOM should take comfort that the fatality in construction had dropped from 72 cases in 1997 to 27 cases in 2001. We must strive to achieve a zero fatality rate in the construction industry.

Sir, over the years, the Ministries have been reviewing our Factories Act and Building Control Act to tighten safety practices in the construction industry. Safety training, seminars, awards and punitive measures were introduced to enhance safety at construction sites. Despite these measures, the number of accidents in the construction industry continues to increase. So, what are the root causes of these high accidents in the construction industry? In my opinion, there are three contributing factors which hinder safe practices in the construction industry. They are as follows:

Lack of integration of our safety and building legislation to provide an integrated safety infrastructure for the construction industry;

Lack of safety culture among various stakeholders in the construction industry; and

Lack of commitment to design and implement a comprehensive safety

management system where independent checks and enforcements are carried out diligently.

Sir, we need to adopt a holistic approach to enhance safety in the construction industry. Safety is the responsibility of all stakeholders in a construction project. The authorities, developers, consultants, contractors, suppliers, sub-contractors and all workers must play a role to develop a safety culture in our industry. The ad hoc review of legislation as a result of construction accidents is piecemeal and does not address safety issues effectively. What is needed is a consistent and total approach whereby all stakeholders fully commit to safe practices. In this regard, I would like to urge the Government to form an inter-Ministry committee to review the current legislation and recommend appropriate measures to enhance safety in the construction industry. I wish to propose the following measures to enhance safety in the construction industry.

Promoting "Safety First" in the construction industry

We need to re-emphasise the importance of safety in the construction industry. The "Safety First" slogan must be constantly reinforced among various stakeholders of a construction project. Everyone must adopt the correct attitude towards safety, from the authorities down to the last construction worker. A study by Dr Evelyn Teo and various researchers of the National University of Singapore has identified two main reasons for unsafe behaviours of construction workers.

Lack of awareness about safety.

ie, the "I don't know" attitude; and

Poor attitude towards safety, ie, the "I don't care" attitude.

The study also found that the most effective methods to improve safe work behaviours are:

To send workers for safety and health training;

Have close and strict supervision; and

Impose fines.

Sir, knowledge on safety and attitude towards safety are key pillars in fostering a safe work environment in the construction industry. But we face a huge problem of a transient workforce in our construction industry.

Many construction workers are foreigners with diverse backgrounds. Many are here to work for a specified duration. Many work long hours with little rest so as to make enough money to support their families. The diverse composition of construction workers has made it difficult to implement effective safety training and improve communication among the workers. Very often, breakdown in communication is cited as one key contributing factor in construction-related accidents. This problem is further compounded by the multi layer sub-contracting system in Singapore. Construction work is usually sub-contracted down many tiers. As a result, the last person on the job may not know exactly what is going on. This practice of multi-tier sub-contracting is unhealthy, and has adverse effects on the quality and safety of construction work. Thus, I would urge the Minister for National Development to consider reviewing the sub-contracting practices in the construction industry.

Sir, I hope the Manpower Minister will also review the policies on foreign workers, allocation of man-year entitlement, training and retraining of workers and the granting of permanent residence status to foreign skilled construction workers so as to build a

stable construction workforce in Singapore.

In Singapore, it is common to see many sub-contractors working concurrently at different parts of a construction site. As such, it is crucial for management to develop effective communication on safety to their workers.

In Japan, safety briefings are diligently conducted daily to ensure that all workers present on site understand the construction activities of the day. Such practices increase safety awareness among workers and avoid accidents. One key success factor in Japan and the United Kingdom is the strong support of their unions in promoting worksite safety. In the United Kingdom, the trade unions have developed their own safety inspection system supported by the UK Government and industry players. Unions are usually familiar with worksite practices, and thus can provide invaluable input to improve worksite safety. Therefore, I would urge the Building Construction and Timber Industries Employees' Union of the NTUC to step up its efforts to convey the "safety first" message to all construction workers in Singapore. Sir, we need to be more proactive and effective in increasing the safety awareness of our construction workers.

Sir, to re-emphasise safety, we must organise more safety campaigns and training for all stakeholders in the construction industry. In Japan, safety campaigns and discussion workshops were regularly held to constantly enhance safety in the industry. In Singapore, we seem to lack the will power and momentum to sustain our safety campaigns to make sure that they are effective in improving construction safety. No one seems to be interested to seriously improve safety standards in the construction industry. Although the Ministries, industry players, associations,

such as the Singapore Contractors' Association Limited, and unions have come together to organise various safety campaigns and programmes, we lack the follow-up actions to ensure that safe practices are indeed carried out throughout the development of a project.

Sir, we should not be too obsessed with statistics on the number of workers trained, number of participants for safety campaigns or the number of firms achieving certification for OHSAS 18001 which is their Occupational Health and Safety Management System.

The key performance indicator of our safety efforts must be the rate of decline of construction accidents and fatalities in the industry. At present, the risks of construction projects are poorly managed by various stakeholders, thus resulting in an apathetic and reckless attitude towards safety. There is an urgent need for the industry to re-emphasise safety.

Integrating the building and safety legislation

Sir, the Building Control Act and the Factories Act are administered by the Ministry of National Development and the Ministry of Manpower respectively. While the Building Control Act ensures safety with regard to the design and construction of buildings and structures, the Manpower Ministry is responsible for workers' safety. But safety in construction projects is affected by both the design and construction of the projects.

A European study of the construction industry's fatal accidents showed that although the primary cause of 37% of accidents were failures of the construction site management and workers, 28% of accidents could be attributed to poor planning, and 35% due to unsafe design. The findings show that over 60% of accidents were due to

decisions made before work began on site. Therefore, it is crucial that safety is addressed at the planning and design stage of a project.

In Singapore, both developers and designers do not conduct extensive safety audit on the designs of projects. The building contract only specifies the need to have an Accredited Checker (AC) for structural works. Designers rarely consider the health and safety requirements of a project. They also do not conduct comprehensive safety audit to determine the impact of their designs on safety during construction or maintenance. Such practices will result in unsafe designs which will inherently increase the risk during construction and maintenance. These risks will aggravate if untried designs were implemented. Sadly, the risks of such designs will be transferred to the contractors who may not be in a position to manage such risks.

The contractors' all-risk insurance policy is inadequate to cover such risks, especially when projects are under intense tender competition. Sir, we must reduce construction risks through safer designs of buildings and structures. The designers owe a duty of care to make sure that their designs are not only safe for building users, but also safe to construct. To avoid accidents during construction and maintenance stages, we have to adopt a risk reduction strategy at the design phase. International developments in occupational health and safety have now shifted focus on the designer instead of the principal contractor. The designer is regarded as the main party who can influence the prevention of ill health and accidents in construction. Besides the designer, the client also plays a significant role in the safety of a construction project. The appointment of competent consultants, specification of a reasonable construction period, award of tender to competent contractors and the provision

of safety measures will have a direct impact on construction risks and safety on site.

To facilitate better risk reduction, allocation and management among different stakeholders in a construction project, I would propose that we adopt the United Kingdom's Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994, which is the CDM Regulations model. This proactive safety management system emphasises the management of health and safety throughout all stages of construction projects. The CDM Regulations place the duty upon clients, consultants and contractors to coherently and methodically think about their contributions to project health and safety. Moreover, their inputs must be coordinated and managed throughout all phases of the construction process. It also highlights the health and safety roles, duties and responsibilities of all parties involved in the project. This will provide better accountability and risk management of a construction project, thus enhancing safety.

Sir, as design has a direct impact on the safety of a construction project, it will be appropriate to integrate the Building Control Act and the Factories Act so as to provide a total approach to safe design and construction practices. A single agency will also facilitate efforts to foster a safety culture in the construction industry. Thus, I would like to urge the Ministers to consider merging the relevant sections of the Factories Act - safety regulations, safety standards, code of practice - into the Building Control Act.

Providing a one-stop agency for monitoring construction works

Sir, I have raised a Question in this House before to ask the Minister for National Development whether there is

any compelling reason to build so many basements in Singapore. Basement construction and deep excavation works are often complex and risky, due to the uncertain behaviour of soil conditions. In Singapore, two-thirds of our soils are alluvium and marine clay. These soft clays have high potential of soil failures, such as soil movement and soil settlement which will result in the consequent sinking of ground and failure of support systems. Thus, extensive and simultaneous underground construction works will increase the safety hazards of both construction worksites and its surroundings if not properly coordinated. Today, many public agencies and private developers are concurrently carrying out deep excavation works, such as MRT construction, deep tunnel sewerage system, underpasses, drainage works, underground expressways and various building developments. There is no single agency to coordinate and evaluate the impact of these construction works on the safety of worksites and its surroundings. Thus, each construction site will determine its safety measures based on its own assumptions, which may sometimes be wrong, due to a lack of information on activities around the construction sites.

Furthermore, temporary work designs, such as retaining walls for deep excavations are presently under the responsibility of the main contractors. The provision of temporary works is normally subjected to a competitive tendering and safety may be compromised if cost-cutting measures were undertaken by the contractors. Sir, although I do not wish to speculate on the causes of the Nicoll Highway accident, I hope to ask the Transport Minister the following questions:

One, what are the compelling reasons for LTA to award Nicoll Highway and Boulevard stations, including the tunnels contract, to Nishimatsu Construction

Company and Lum Chang Building Contractor Private Limited Joint Venture as their tender bid was about $70 million lower than the rest of the tenderers? Please look at the tender results in chart 4. The difference between the lowest and the second, third and fourth bids is about 25%. In tendering, we would call such a bid an outlier, which is likely to be an erroneous bid. I would like to ask the Minister what is the cost estimate for this project as determined by LTA.