Hansard, 2004-06-15

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2004) To (2004) Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng 22 May 31 May 18 Jun 20 Jun Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed 24 May 25 May 16 Jun 30 Jun Mr Inderjit Singh 26 May 28 May 14 Jun 17 Jun Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon 27 May 07 Jun 16 Jun 30 Jun Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 28 May 30 May Mr Charles Chong 30 May 01 Jun 03 Jun 06 Jun 07 Jun 13 Jun Mr David T E Lim 30 May 04 Jun 08 Jun 11 Jun BG George Yong-Boon Yeo 31 May 13 Jun 16 Jun 18 Jun Dr Lily Neo 31 May 01 Jun Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M 31 May 06 Jun 17 Jun 30 Jun Mr Ong Kian Min 31 May 03 Jun 18 Jun 20 Jun Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 01 Jun 08 Jun Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan 02 Jun 08 Jun Mr Gan Kim Yong 03 Jun 03 Jun 08 Jun 21 Jun 22 Jun 24 Jun Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman 03 Jun 11 Jun Miss Penny Low 03 Jun 07 Jun 09 Jun 16 Jun Dr Warren Lee 03 Jun 10 Jun Mr Wong Kan Seng 03 Jun 06 Jun 21 Jun 27 Jun Column: 7Mr Ang Mong Seng 05 Jun 09 Jun Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 05 Jun 06 Jun 08 Jun 10 Jun 12 Jun 25 Jun Dr Balaji Sadasivan 07 Jun 14 Jun Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 07 Jun 13 Jun 19 Jun 20 Jun Mr Hawazi Daipi 07 Jun 08 Jun 16 Jun 20 Jun Mr Lee Hsien Loong 07 Jun 12 Jun Mr Lim Hng Kiang 07 Jun 12 Jun Mr Loh Meng See 07 Jun 10 Jun Dr Ng Eng Hen 07 Jun 15 Jun 21 Jun 27 Jun Dr Teo Ho Pin 07 Jun 22 Jun Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 07 Jun 08 Jun 14 Jun 20 Jun 24 Jun 26 Jun Mr Chan Soo Sen 08 Jun 11 Jun 12 Jun 14 Jun Mr Khaw Boon Wan 08 Jun 11 Jun 17 Jun 23 Jun Mr Lim Swee Say 08 Jun 11 Jun Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 08 Jun 11 Jun Mr Sin Boon Ann 08 Jun 10 Jun Dr Tan Cheng Bock 08 Jun 12 Jun Mdm Ho Geok Choo 09 Jun 13 Jun Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam 09 Jun 16 Jun Prof. S Jayakumar 10 Jun 13 Jun Mr Chay Wai Chuen 14 Jun 15 Jun Dr Gan See Khem 15 Jun 16 Jun Ms Indranee Rajah 15 Jun 15 Jun Dr John Chen Seow Phun 16 Jun 25 Jun Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay 16 Jun 23 Jun Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 16 Jun 19 Jun Mr Davinder Singh 17 Jun 24 Jun Mr Lim Boon Heng 17 Jun 26 Jun Dr Ong Seh Hong 17 Jun 21 Jun Mr Mah Bow Tan 19 Jun 20 Jun 29 Jun 06 Jul Column: 8Encik Yatiman Yusof 19 Jun 20 Jun Mr Zainudin Nordin 20 Jun 25 Jun 08 Jul 20 Jul Mr Goh Chok Tong 21 Jun 27 Jun Mr Lee Yock Suan 21 Jun 27 Jun Dr Ong Chit Chung 28 Jun 28 Jun 29 Jun 30 Jun

Mr Ang Mong Seng

Encik Yatiman Yusof

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

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

1st June,2004 (1) Societies (Amendment) Bill (2) Statistics (Amendment) Bill (3) Singapore Armed Forces (Amendment) Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order. I wish to inform hon. Members that, in accordance with section 1(5) of the Fourth Schedule to the

Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the President has, on the recommendation of the Special Select Committee of Parliament, extended the term of service of the present Nominated Members of Parliament, namely, Dr Jennifer Lee, Ms Braema Mathiaparanam, Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair, Mrs Fang Ai Lian, Dr Gan See Khem, Ms Olivia Lum, Mr Ng Ser Miang, Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang and Mr A Nithiah Nandan, for a further period of six months from 2nd July 2004 to 1st January 2005.

I look forward to their continued contributions and participation in the parliamentary debates.

1. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Acting Minister for Education following the introduction of Chinese Syllabus B and subsequent media announcements, (a) what message is the Ministry sending with regard to the learning of Chinese in schools; (b) how will the Ministry re-present its views on the learning of Chinese in schools such that students will no longer see it as an obsolete language; (c) will the comment by the Senior Minister about nurturing 200 students a year with a deep understanding of China result in the nurturing of a group of "Mandarins" who may excel in the Chinese language but are not well-rounded academically; and (d) what criteria should be considered to ensure a proper admission qualification for this group.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the learning of the mother tongue is and will remain a key part of the national curriculum in schools and junior colleges. The Government is committed to preserving these languages, helping students recognise their importance, and

encouraging them to use the language. The reasons are clear. Singapore has always benefited from being a bridge between East and West, and we must sustain that position. China's ascendance in the world makes this role indispensable for Singapore's future. We have to engage with China and be part of the flow of ideas, business and culture between China and the world. Equally fundamental is the fact that we are an Asian society. Our mother tongue languages give us our sense of identity and confidence as a people.

Our objective is to encourage every Chinese Singaporean to study the Chinese Language (CL) in school for as long as possible, and to as high a level as he is capable of. Students are required to study the language throughout their school years, and in junior college. We recognise that not all students have the same natural abilities in the languages, or the same home language backgrounds. By providing the option of taking the language at the Higher Chinese (HCL) or CL 'B' level, the curriculum allows different groups of students to go as far as they can achieve with reasonable effort.

We provide incentives for students to take the language at the Higher Chinese (HCL) level if they are capable of doing so. These incentives are working well. Following the easing of the eligibility criteria for HCL earlier this year, we now have about 6,900 students taking HCL at Secondary 1 this year, an increase of 24% compared to last year. More students are also taking HCL in primary schools. This increased interest does not support Mdm Ho's perception that students see Chinese as an obsolete subject.

In the junior colleges, fewer students are choosing to repeat their examinations in CL at the 'AO' level, after their first year, following the change in university

admission requirements. However, more students in JC1 are now taking CL as a full 'A' level subject (CL 'A') and HCL, both of which count like any other 'A' level content subjects for university admission. As part of the new JC curriculum in a few years' time, MOE is also studying the introduction of a 'China Studies' elective, which could cover economic and social issues in contemporary China, besides Chinese culture.

Beyond the examinations, incentives and entry requirements, we have to do more to help students develop an intrinsic interest in the Chinese Language and culture. They must be motivated to learn the language for its own worth, enjoy learning it, and want to continue using it after they leave school. We are shaping an appropriate curriculum and innovative teaching strategies in schools to help students develop this interest. But it will also need the active support and encouragement of parents, to help our children recognise the usefulness of the language to their children's future.

The Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee, chaired by Mr Wee Heng Tin, is taking a thorough look at our CL curriculum. It is studying new approaches to learning of CL - including the syllabuses, textbooks, assessment and teaching methodologies - aimed at helping students learn the language effectively and to want to use it.

Besides developing a base of competence in CL and a basic grounding in Chinese culture, we have to expose more of our young to developments in contemporary China. Several of our schools are already providing students with this exposure, through their informal curriculum and immersion trips to China, and we intend to expand this base in coming years.

This broad base of students with competence in CL and an interest in China will not however be sufficient. As mentioned by Senior Minister recently, we have to nurture a group of students in each generation who can engage China in depth. It is critical that we develop an elite group of students who not only have a strong command of the language, but a deep understanding of Chinese culture and history, including contemporary China.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked if this scheme will result in a group of students who may excel in the Chinese Language but are not well-rounded academically. I can assure her that this will not be the case. The aim is to develop an elite core in each generation who can effectively operate in more than one 'channel' - able to engage with China and have a deep understanding of Chinese thinking and society, and able to relate to the West. We will provide these highly able students with a foundation of China-related studies and exposure to China, integrated within a broad-based curriculum comprising the sciences and humanities.

We are working out the details for this new scheme. The criteria for selection, structure and content of the programme, scholarships and expected career options will be announced later.

I would like to ask the Minister how long it will take to work out the criteria.

We should be able to announce the details within the next three months.

I would like to ask the Minister, with regard to the fact that we are trying to encourage more students to pick up Mandarin by making the Chinese Language easy, what kind of programmes will be put in place to ensure

that certainly the level of interest, the standard of Chinese as well as the number of Singaporeans being schooled steeply in the language, will continue to be sustained and, if not, grow over the years.

I share Mdm Ho's sense of what our objective should be. The aim is not to lower interest or standards but to raise interest. What we have been doing so far is not to make Chinese easy. What we have been doing is to allow for a differentiated approach, recognising that students come from different home language backgrounds and have different linguistic intelligences and abilities. So we have a more variegated curriculum in place now.

The upshot of the changes that we have recently introduced is that they have allowed a larger number of students to now take Higher Chinese. There is also a small number taking CL 'B' and we should allow them to do so and not hold them back from doing so. Those who have real difficulty and despite great effort are unable to cope with the regular syllabus should be allowed to go further using CL 'B' rather than be turned off. But the main change that we have introduced in the last several months is to open the doors wider to students to do Higher Chinese, and it is working. Many more students are now taking Higher Chinese compared to before.

I think we can be quite encouraged by the response from our students and parents to the changes. It is clear that they take the language seriously. They are encouraging their students to go far and we should continue to push this along by reforming our curriculum, teaching methods, assessment system, so as to ensure that it is not just a matter of passing examinations and meeting entry requirements but of enjoying the language, taking a real interest in it and wanting to use it after they leave school.

Sir, can I ask the Minister whether MOE will consider issuing special scholarships for students who want to study Chinese Language in China?

This is one of the features that we are studying very carefully as part of the new scheme to develop an elite group of students who are strong not just in their command of the language but also in their depth of knowledge of Chinese culture and society. It is one of the features that we are looking at and we will announce the details later.

2. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Acting Minister for Education with the recent plan to get more students involved in sports and uniformed groups, revising the co-curricular activities (CCA) points and introducing a ninth uniformed group (a) what is the existing percentage of students participating in sports and uniformed groups in primary and secondary schools; (b) what other steps are being planned to ensure that more students can participate in sports or uniformed groups; and (c) has his Ministry set targets to increase participation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, currently, about 35% of primary school students and 38% of secondary school and junior college students take sports as their Core CCA. For the uniformed groups, currently about 6% of primary school students and 37% of secondary school students have uniformed groups as their Core CCA.

We are creating more opportunities for broad-based participation in sports at the school and zone levels, so as to reverse

the trend of declining participation over the years. A good number of schools have stepped up efforts to engage the majority of their students in sports. We are encouraging this amongst more schools.

At the school level, we will leverage on the House System to allow more students wishing to participate in games at a recreational level. With the assistance of student sports leaders, we expect that at least 70% of secondary school and JC students will have the opportunity to be involved in at least two sports events per year organised by the Houses. It is not the exact number that matters but the fact that the schools are taking this seriously, such as through the House System, and feel that there is opportunity to create a lot more interest and participation among the students. We are also encouraging schools to use PE lessons to teach a variety of sports and games skills.

We launched a Student Sports Coaching Course and a Student Sports Official Course earlier this year. This year we hope to train 100 student sports coaches and officials in each of four games, namely, basketball, netball, soccer and touch rugby. They will assist their teachers by coaching their peers in school in basic sports skills, or help officiate in intra-house sports competitions. The scheme provides these students with additional opportunities to develop leadership abilities as well.

From next year, workshops in schools will be conducted for student leaders in badminton, table tennis, tennis, volleyball and floorball. Over time and with experience, we hope to widen this programme to more sports and games, depending on demand.

Schools can also tap on adult volunteers, especially parents. MOE has

also recently extended the current Volunteer Adult Leaders (VAL) scheme for Uniformed Groups to all CCAs. This allows schools to tap on the enthusiasm of parent volunteers with relevant sports skills.

At the zonal level, we have formed Sports Development Committees this year to promote sports among students who do not have the opportunity to represent their school in the sport. This has taken off well, and the various zones will be organising games competitions and carnivals this year for about 15,000 students in primary and secondary schools.

We will continue to collaborate with our partners such as the Singapore Sports Council, and the various National Sports Associations and the Uniformed Groups Councils to further extend our activities. In fact, schools are already tapping into the Singapore Sports Council's "Learn-To-Play" sports@basic programme with the aim of allowing more pupils to take part in the recreational sports.

Uniformed Groups (UGs) are another important activity which can foster ruggedness in our students. Some schools had given us feedback that having more options for UGs will help in expanding student participation.

We will be starting a new Uniformed Group, the National Civil Defence Cadet Corps, as a new CCA next year. The new Uniformed Group will be jointly run by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Home Affairs, and will be piloted in eight secondary schools.

We have revised the ranking system for schools to give greater recognition to schools that put effort into developing their students holistically. It will take into account the breadth of student participation in activities which promote physical health. We have also tweaked

our CCA grading system for students to introduce greater flexibility, and to encourage students to take a sport on a non-competitive basis as a second CCA. It also gives added recognition to students who represent Combined Schools or Singapore in sports, who have to spend long hours in training.

With these strategies in place, all secondary school students will have the opportunity to be involved in sports and other rugged activities, at either the recreational or competitive level. We hope to see a progressive increase in student participation in sports at all levels, but we are not setting hard targets that have to be achieved. I should add that none of our initiatives mandate participation in sports. We will encourage, we will provide greater opportunities for students to engage in sports and other rugged activities but we will not make it obligatory for them to do so.

I would like to ask the Minister two supplementary questions. Firstly, how would the Ministry resolve the often-cited reasons given by schools for not accommodating all students who wish to take part in such activities because of a lack of facilities and manpower, as well as the fact that some have even said that they had closed their soccer teams because they want to emphasise on the sports they think they can excel in? The second question is: can the Minister also consider adding more bonus CCA points to sports and uniformed groups compared to the more passive CCAs than are presently proposed to encourage higher participation in what is generally acknowledged as useful activities in terms of ruggedness, teamwork and leadership qualities? I would also like to ask the Minister, with regard to participation in house sports and activities and so on, would that be considered for CCA points?

First, on facilities, overall our schools have access to quite good sports facilities compared to almost any other country you can think of, both within their school premises as well as in the cluster of schools or in the community. But we will keep track of this and, where we feel there is a need for better facilities in certain schools or in certain zones, we will see what we can do. There is of course a manpower constraint in schools and we do not want to over-burden our teachers with more responsibilities in CCAs. What we are doing basically, and what many schools have already done, is to allow for greater participation in sports, first, by way of involving student leaders; second, by involving parents, and third, by appropriate distribution of teachers' duties. And some schools have shown that this can be done very effectively. They have very high rates of participation in sports, especially amongst students who are not representing the school in inter-school competitions but would like to take part in sports on a recreational basis. So it can be done, and we are sharing best practices amongst the schools on how we can best spread sports participation.

We have also provided some incentives for schools to take this seriously. The new ranking system will look not just at excellence in sports at inter-school competitions but also the breadth of participation in sports and other physical activities. This will be one of the criteria by which we will assess schools in their ability to provide a holistic education to their students.

I would not want to go too far in using bonus points and the CCA grading system as a means of influencing behaviour. We have made some modest changes to the system, first, to recognise the fact that those who represent Combined Schools and Singapore have to put in very long hours and go through tremendous effort,

and they deserve credit for doing so. So we have up their points slightly. We have also chosen to encourage students who currently take a Core CCA in the performing arts or clubs or societies, to consider taking a sport as a second CCA. It is not a full CCA - a second CCA means you take it for about 15 weeks or so, enjoy yourself, learning the basic sports skills, take part in some competitions within the school. And for those who would like to take that sports as a second CCA and who are not good enough to represent the school, we will nevertheless give them some CCA points.

These are modest changes to the points system. At the end of the day, students would have to do what they love, they have to do what they like and take it seriously. That is what we encourage every student to think about. Do not just take a CCA for the points. They are not doing themselves any justice if they do that. They should think about what they really like to do and take it very seriously. We are providing some incentives for those who are not very good at sports, ie, not good enough to represent the school, to take it as a second CCA as a recreational acitivity, and we will give them some recognition for it. But there is a limit to what we can achieve through the points system. Students should ask themselves what they like and go ahead and do it.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister about the the new Uniformed Group that is to be run by MOE and MHA. Can I ask the Minister how different it will be from the present uniformed groups being run now like the girl guides, scouts and so on? My second question is: while I support fully this move towards getting more students involved in sports and uniformed groups, can I ask the Minister why is there a need to have a new Uniformed Group now,

especially since the present ones are having trouble already in attracting young students to their fold?

Our sense is that there is no trade-off in introducing a new Uniformed Group. We are not going to be drawing students away from existing uniformed groups. In some schools, it is a matter of leadership resources. By creating this new group, we are able to tap on new leadership resources, including the MHA organisations. I think it provides something different from what the existing uniformed groups provide. The National Civil Defence Cadet Corps will gear students in exercises on emergencies and such activities. There will be some overlap in activities with existing uniformed groups but it will provide for broader variety of options.

There are also some students who do not find the existing uniformed groups to be their cup of tea but would like something like the new Uniformed Group. We have done a survey and found some interest. The schools that have responded positively to this are keen to start it up, not so as to decant students away from existing uniformed groups but as a way of increasing overall participation. So let us try it out. We are starting out with eight schools. I think it will work well and we will take it further from there.

Two supplementary questions, please. Most schools go for selection process, even for CCAs. In view of the emphasis on CCA for mass participation, would it demolish this selection process? The second question is that we understand some of the community activities can be considered as part of the CCA programme of MOE. How many of such community activities have already been selected, and what are they?

On Mdm Cynthia Phua's first question,

"demolition" is not a word customarily used by Education Ministers. We encourage, we enthuse and we provide opportunities. I think that is what schools are trying to do. The schools might have been overly selective in the past, partly because of resources, and because they have focused on excellence. We would like to encourage participation but I would like to leave it to each school to decide what they can do within their resources. The spirit is there. The schools are keen to encourage participation and we have given them some incentives to do so now.

On Mdm Phua's second question on community CCAs, I do not have the details here but all of us can tell from what we see around us in our constituencies and CDCs, that there is already a fair bit happening. Some of them are the initiatives of the CDCs or the constituency grassroots, but a lot of it is coming from the schools themselves. There are service learning clubs and other initiatives in the school. By getting the school students more involved in the community, quite apart from the existing welfare-related activities that have existed for some time, they would be getting more engaged in something productive and constructive in the community. It is working well. I do not think it needs very hard pushing because the schools and the community organisations are enthusiastic.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister about sports injuries. With the encouragement of sports, especially contact sports, one would expect that injuries among school children would increase. Has the Ministry taken steps to increase the first-aid facilities in schools?

Our sports instructors receive some basic training on how to advise students on avoidance of sports injuries. That is why they warm up and do all kinds of exercises before they start anything

strenuous. The schools also have basic provisions for first aid. When something serious happens, of course, we will send them to the hospital very quickly. It is not a huge problem right now. It is not something that is holding us back from our effort to push forward in sports. It is something we will keep in mind to make sure the schools are well-prepared for eventualities.

3. Dr Wang Kai Yuen asked the Minister for Transport if he will state who will bear the cost of the increased security now that security guards are deployed at MRT stations.

Question No. 3, Sir. In asking the Question, may I declare my interest as an independent director of ComfortDelgro, a listed company operating the North-East line.

Sir, given the severe consequences should a terrorist attack on our public transport system take place, Members would agree that it is important to enhance the level of security of the system. For this reason, the operators have deployed uniformed security personnel at the MRT stations and bus interchanges.

Dr Wang asked who will bear the cost of the increased security. Let me first assure the House that there will not be any fare increases this year following the deployment of the uniformed security personnel.

Nonetheless, security is a shared responsibility. The operators recognise that it is in their commercial interest to

enhance the security of their systems and will absorb some of the costs where possible. Similarly, the Government has played its part by deploying police patrols in MRT stations and bus interchanges. Our security experts have also provided the operators and its uniformed guards with the necessary security advice and training. Given that the security measures are implemented for the safety of commuters, it is not unreasonable for commuters to also share the cost should that become necessary.

For now though, the cost of the uniformed guards is expected to form a very small element of the operators' entire operating cost. And so fare hikes are not necessary. We will ensure that any added security measures are commensurate with the threat level so that the cost of public transport operations will not be raised unnecessarily. Any fare increase application will be carefully scrutinised by the Public Transport Council before it is approved.

I would like to ask the Minister of State, conceptually, what is the difference between providing security in the airport versus providing security in the train stations. From time to time, police officers and even SAF officers are deployed and we have not heard that there was a request for the commuters or the users of the airport to bear this security cost.

Conceptually, the security cost borne by airports and MRT stations and other transport systems should be the same. I would like to explain how the security costs are borne in the airports. It is borne partly by the State. On security patrols at the airports, for example, we see the policemen and the soldiers walking around, that is borne by the State. The guarding of critical installations like the VIP Complex, etc, is

all borne by the State. Then, there is a terminal operator who pays for part of the security, for example, the security at the access control and pre-board screening. That is borne by the terminal operator.

But users do pay for security at the airport. Passengers pay a fee of $21 for using the airport, of which $6 is a Passenger Security Service Charge. If we apply the principle of shared costs, and using the principle from the airport, we can see that for rail and road transport, both the operators, the Government and the commuter may have to pay for it.

At this time, since the cost of providing the uniformed guards is a very small amount - it is less than 1% of the operating cost and less than one cent per journey - there is no need for any fare increase.

Sir, would the Minister of State agree that at the airport, the security charge paid by the passengers for checks and security scanning is not for the security of the facilities? Whereas in this case, it is the security of the facilities that we are talking about, and the security guards are not scanning or checking the baggage of persons and so on. Would the Minister of State not consider expanding the definition of the term "installations" in the train stations so that police officers could be deployed without the employment of security guards?

Sir, first of all, I would like to state that the principle of shared responsibility must be accepted, because security is everyone's responsibility. When you go to a hotel, the security guard in the hotel is paid for by the hotel. However, that does not mean that the police has no responsibility for looking after the security of the hotel district. For example, there are policemen walking round Orchard Road, and plainclothes policemen entering hotels. This cost is borne by the State. The security guards of the hotel are paid for by the

hotel operator. The principle is shared responsibility.

4. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Transport whether his Ministry will instruct those who work on public roads to adopt greater safety measures by making sure that ample notice is given to traffic of their presence on the road.

Sir, I fully agree with the Member that there is a need to give ample notice to traffic of road works.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is empowered to control works on public streets through the Street Works Act (SWA) and Street Works (Works on Public Streets) Regulations.

Under the Regulations, all utility agencies and contractors working on public streets are required to comply with the Code of Practice for Traffic Control at Work Zone (COP), which sets in place a set of comprehensive measures for those who work on public roads. The COP outlines clear standards and procedures and provides guidelines to utility agencies and contractors on the acceptable traffic control requirements needed to ensure the safety of the workers, motorists and pedestrians. LTA also chairs the monthly Road Opening Co-ordination Committee (ROCC) meeting with representatives from the National Parks Board, Traffic Police, HDB, JTC and the various utility agencies to emphasise the importance of road works traffic safety measures through the sharing of lessons learnt and good practices.

Under the COP, agencies must erect or provide early warning notices to motorists approaching the work zone. In

addition, the COP also requires lane changes to be demarcated with orange cones or water filled barriers, depending on the nature of the diversions or road openings. These are supplemented by advance warning signs, placed at least 20 metres from the work zone. On major highways, bright orange signs with alerts such as caution, arrows to show the diversion of the roads, works ahead, etc, are located at least 100 metres upstream, so that motorists would be aware of the situation and to exercise care and caution. As vehicles tend to be travelling at a higher speed on the highways, truck-mounted attenuators and orange cones also have to be provided just prior to the work zone, to help absorb the impact if vehicles should miss all the advance notices and still crash into the work site.

Members may wish to note that the LTA reviews and updates the COP regularly by drawing on the experiences of developed countries in traffic control and safety practices. LTA also regularly educates the road users on these measures, to ensure that they are able to react appropriately when faced with the various traffic control measures.

Failure to adhere to the COP renders errant contractors in violation of the Street Works Regulations and penalties in the form of a system of fines and demerit points will be meted out. In the last three months, 71 contractors had been fined for not complying with the COP.

Though the COP is comprehensive, it is only as effective as the contractors and workers who implement it on the ground. To ensure proper implementation of the COP, LTA also conducts regular audits to identify sites with poor traffic control. Motorists can also play their part by calling LTA's hotline if they spot unsafe practices at road works so that these practices can be made right as soon as possible.

Should Mr Chiam, or any Member of the House, come across such a situation, please call 1800-CALL LTA (1800-2255 582).

Sir, after an accident had happened, it is too late for one to call and alert the LTA officers. I have come across many instances where some of these contractors, because they are poorly trained workers, provide inadequate notice to oncoming vehicles. I am just wondering whether a system can be implemented whereby even before they commence the actual work, somebody from LTA physically attends and ensures that adequate notice is given to oncoming vehicles. Because after an accident has taken place, it is no use worrying about what measures that were not in place.

Sir, I would agree with the Member that we want to prevent accidents. So, if the Member had come across situations that he thought were unsafe and had called the LTA, we would have checked.

Over the last six months, there has been no accident at any of the worksites. Of the 71 offences that were committed, because LTA audits the sites, they were all minor. Some offences were detected because members of the public called LTA, and LTA went down and noticed these minor infractions, fined the contractors, and the practices put right.

As to whether the COP is adequate, from an individual point of view, it is very hard to say. I, for example, was driving to work today and because of this question, I looked at all the signs at a construction site at the AYE. There were 10 signs. Usually, I see the first sign and I assume that there are road works, and I do not see all the other nine signs, but there were nine signs. In addition to that,

there was another sign that says "Road Works Over". And to keep you happy, there is one more sign which says, "Have a Good Day" with a smile. Whether this is excessive or not, I do not know. I am not a safety engineer. The safety engineers in LTA go around. They look at standards around the world and they try to put best practices in place. If anyone knows of better practices than what our safety engineers in LTA know, I am sure they will consider it.

Sir, anyone of us who drives on the road will know that there is always insufficient notice given of road works on our roads. We only get to see the notice at the actual worksite with some coloured cones put around it. That will be too late especially around the bend. Suddenly you turn the bend and you see road works ahead.

This early warning sign is fixed at 20 metres. I think 20 metres is too short. It must be at least 50 metres. When I drove in Germany ---

No speeches, Mr Chiam.

--- they give ample signs of road works. You can see flashing lights from 100 metres away, not 20 metres.

What is your question, Mr Chiam?

Is the Minister of State willing to alter the 20 metres to 50 metres?

Sir, I said 100 metres, not 20 metres.

Nevertheless, I would like to point out that safety depends on motorists too and at what speed they are driving. If you are on a German highway, you can drive at 140-180 km an hour, even at 200 km an hour. The stopping distance is much

greater and the signs must be placed adequately early so that you are alerted about it. But if you are driving at 70 km per hour or 50 km per hour, depending on the restriction at that point, then our signs are adequate. So, if you find that it is not adequate, please check. Maybe you are travelling too fast!

5. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Transport how the OneMotoring website could have cost $5 million for it to be revamped.

Sir, Mr Steve Chia asked about the cost for revamping the One Motoring website. First, let me clarify that the new One Motoring portal is a merger of three separate existing portals, namely, the One.motoring, Traffic.smart and OnePay Hub portals. These portals provide useful services such as information on COE bids and car numbers available for bidding, road tax renewal, real-time traffic information and electronic payment options for fines and administrative fees. Collectively, they have more than two million page views and handle more than 300,000 online transactions per month.

As the contracts for the hosting and operation of these three portals will expire this year, LTA took the opportunity to consolidate them for greater synergy and, at the same time, derive possible commercial benefits by outsourcing them to the private sector. A tender was called by LTA, and Green Dot Internet Services Pte Ltd (GDIS) won the contract.

Today, LTA incurs a cost of $6.3 million for hosting, operating and maintaining the three portals separately for a period of five years. The new 5-year

contract will cost a total of $3.9 million or $780,000 annually. This represents a cost saving of about 40% for LTA, or about $500,000 annually. The remaining $1.1 million is a budget set aside under the contract for future enhancements that may be needed. It will only be payable as and when the enhancements are identified and implemented.

Hence, the new contract amount represents a significant cost saving over the current cost of running the three portals separately. In addition, integrating the three portals into one will make it more convenient for motorists, the motoring industry and members of the public, as they only need to go to one single site for a whole range of comprehensive motoring and traffic information.

Sir, I would like to thank the Minister of State for the answer and for the effort to actually merge the three websites into one and to facilitate users.

Since it is implemented as three websites merged into one and the tender has been called, what are the next three bids from the tenderers who tendered for this contract? I suppose Green Dot is actually the most expensive tender in this case, why was it selected?

Sir, he assumes wrongly!

Twenty companies purchased the tender documents. Companies such as Satyam Computer Services, Hewlett Packard, Microsoft (Singapore), etc, bought the tender documents. Two companies finally submitted their tenders. Of the two, Green Dot submitted the lower tender.

The following Question stood in the name of Ms Indranee Rajah -

6. To ask the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the total number of illegal immigrants caught trying to enter Singapore through the various checkpoints over the past two years and (b) what are the measures being taken to deal with the problem of persons trying to enter Singapore illegally.

Question No. 6, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Home Team arrested 81 illegal immigrants who tried to enter Singapore from the land and sea checkpoints in 2003, which is a drop of 45% compared to 147 arrested in 2002. In the first four months of this year, 24 illegal immigrants were arrested. Correspondingly, the overall illegal immigrant problem has been improving with about 5,500 illegal immigrants arrested in 2003, 30% fewer than the 7,860 arrested in 2002. Therefore, our resolute efforts in tackling the illegal immigrant problem appear to be paying off.

Sir, the stringent enforcement at our land checkpoints has resulted in illegal immigrants trying to enter Singapore by sea, in some instances, even swimming over to Singapore on floats. In the first four months of this year, Police arrested 75 illegal immigrants who tried to enter Singapore by sea compared to 49 and 133 arrested in 2002 and 2003 respectively.

While the overall immigration offender situation has been improving since 1998, the numbers are still significant.

Hence, the Home Team will press on with its efforts to keep out immigration offenders.

As to measures taken to meet this challenge, I had in February and April this year outlined to the House the various strategies that MHA has adopted.

Firstly, at the land checkpoints, as part of our enhanced security measures, ICA officers now inspect the interior and exterior of all vehicles for any tell-tale signs of illegal immigrants hiding in concealed compartments. In addition, ICA, leveraging on technology, has deployed mobile X-ray machines to help detect illegal immigrants hiding in vehicles.

ICA also uses advanced forgery detection equipment to detect immigration offenders attempting to enter or depart Singapore using forged or tampered passports. In addition, Special Task Force Teams have been formed at the land checkpoints to profile travellers and vehicles that may be used to smuggle illegal immigrants and contraband items into Singapore.

Police and ICA also regularly exchange information with their foreign counterparts on the abuse of travel documents, the modus operandi and trends in human smuggling activities.

Other than the land checkpoints, we also take proactive measures to prevent illegal entries by sea. The Police Coast Guard (PCG) has stepped up both sea and coastal patrols, acquired new high-speed patrol boats, and uses advanced equipment such as radar and electro-optical surveillance systems to monitor our waters and to intercept illegal immigrants. In addition, physical barriers have been erected at the Northeast and Northwest coasts of Singapore to deter intrusions.

In addition to all these enforcement measures, we have also sought the assistance of foreign missions in Singapore to disseminate information of

our strict immigration laws and our effective enforcement actions to their nationals, to discourage them from trying to enter Singapore illegally. Cases of illegal immigrants being cheated by the traffickers are also shared with foreign missions so that they can warn their nationals.

Sir, let me add that tackling the immigration offender problem does not lie with the Home Team alone. The public can play a critical role. Members of the public should not create a demand for immigration offenders by employing or harbouring them.

In short, Police and ICA have been working with the local media to raise public awareness on this issue. Our agencies regularly issue media releases when immigration offenders are arrested. We will continue to make use of programmes such as "Crime Watch" to feature the illegal immigration problem in Singapore and highlight the penalties imposed on immigration offenders, traffickers, harbourers and employers.

The following Question stood in the name of Ms Indranee Rajah -

7. To ask the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there has been an increase in the number of young girls using drugs over the past three years and, if so, (b) what measures are being taken to counteract this problem.

Question No. 7, Sir.

Mr Speaker Sir, there has been some increase in the number of females below the age of 20 abusing drugs over the past three years. In 2001, 65 young female drug abusers

were arrested. The number increased to 83 in 2002 and fell to 70 last year. The number of first-time young female abusers arrested increased slightly from 55 in 2001 to 60 last year. Overall, the number of young drug abusers has declined from 196 in 2001 to 191 last year.

In terms of the types of drug being abused, synthetic drugs were the predominant drugs consumed. Of the 218 young female drug abusers arrested in the last three years, 156 or 72% were arrested for consumption of synthetic drugs.

The problem is under control but we will press on with our efforts to tackle the drug abuse menace resolutely, adopting a multi-pronged approach.

The first prong is preventive education. Potential drug abusers, especially the younger ones, must be steered away from being entrapped by drugs. In recent years, we have enhanced our preventive efforts with respect to synthetic drugs. The dangers of abusing synthetic drugs are constantly publicised, with many of the activities targeted at youths. For example, CNB conducts talks, competitions and other activities such as drama retreats and camps to highlight the harmful effects of synthetic drugs. In addition, the National Council Against Drug Abuse (NCADA) and CNB have been organising the annual "Clubs Against Drugs" Campaign, to enlist club operators to promote the anti-drug message to their patrons who are mainly young adults. NCADA also mounted a media campaign against ketamine abuse in March this year, specifically targeting at youths. We will press on with our preventive education efforts. As part of this effort, we will also publicise our strict laws as set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act against the trafficking, manufacture, possession and consumption of synthetic drugs.

The second prong is enforcement. Synthetic drugs are closely associated with the night entertainment scene which young people are involved in. We have enlisted the help of operators in our fight against drugs. For example, in February this year, CNB conducted a briefing for licensees and operators of nightspots and entertainment outlets to remind them of their social and legal responsibilities to keep their premises free of illicit drug activities. CNB also regularly conducts island-wide operations to round up synthetic drug abusers. The number of raids at various night entertainment outlets has been stepped up .

The third prong is rehabilitation. Rehabilitation of drug abusers will help prevent them from returning to their drug taking habits. Currently, convicted synthetic drug abusers are sent to prisons and do not benefit from the rehabilitative programmes that opiate abusers undergo at the Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRC). We have reviewed this and will be introducing a DRC regime for synthetic drug abusers in lieu of imprisonment. This will offer them a more focused rehabilitation programme which will minimise the chances of them going back to drugs. In addition, the Community Action for the Rehabilitation of Ex-offenders (CARE) Network provides aftercare support services for these abusers after their discharge.

In summary, Sir, we will take this multi-pronged approach and press on with our fight against drug abuse.

I would like to ask the Minister to what extent have collaborative efforts been mounted in schools to educate girls and boys on the issue of drugs.

Certainly, Sir, working with schools has been an approach that has been adopted all these years. In fact, a collaborative approach is taken. CNB and Police officers are tasked to go to schools not just to address the drug problem but also the juvenile delinquency problem. Over time, experienced officers go there to reach out to the youths. Certainly, going to schools to talk to students about this problem to deter them is an important approach which we will continue to take.

8. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the justification for keeping Ministers on the pension scheme when all other public and civil servants have been converted to the Central Provident Fund scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the civil service phased out pensions for most of the public sector in 1986, it consciously decided to retain the pension scheme for officers in a small number of key services, one of which is the Administrative Service. Administrative Officers need deep knowledge and long experience of policy issues. The service takes in some recruits mid-career, but it continues to rely heavily on officers who have joined at the entry level. For these reasons, the pension scheme remains relevant to them. As part of their overall package, pensionable officers receive lower CPF contributions than non-pensionable officers. Political appointees are also on pensions because their terms of service follow those of Administrative Officers.

Sir, how does the Deputy Prime Minister expect citizens to take the uncertainty of retirement planning under the CPF, which is a defined contribution scheme, at their

own cost, whereas Ministers and public officers themselves are under a guaranteed and defined benefit pension scheme, using taxpayers' money? In other words, their CPF may run out before the citizens die whereas qualified Ministers are taken care of by the taxpayers' money until they die. Am I right to say that?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an entire package. When we calculate the salary, we look into how much a person receives now, how much he receives in the CPF, and how much he can expect to save in pensions. And when a person retires, he has a choice of having a pension stream for the rest of his life or taking a commuted lump sum at the point of retirement. In fact, as a matter of fact, nearly everybody who retires prefers the commuted lump sum. Because you take a lump sum, you invest it, you do what you want. If it runs out, it runs out. There is no free lunch. If you do not have your CPF, you have the pension. If you have the pension, you have less CPF. So it all adds up to a finite amount. The Member's implicit question is: are the Ministers enriching themselves again? And the answer is, we are going on market terms and, if anything, we are paying below what the market is.

Clarification from the Minister. Does any serving Minister who turns 55 actually receive both salary and pension at the same time? If yes, should he be serving?

I believe the answer is yes. That is the rule for the civil service, and the Ministers follow the civil service rules.

9. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for

Finance in view of the diversified overseas and local investments of Government-linked companies, (a) what is the financial status of these investments; and (b) how are these investments benefiting (i) Singaporeans who are seeking employment and (ii) Singaporean entrepreneurs seeking to grow their enterprises.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many of our larger GLCs have invested in overseas markets to grow beyond the confines of the Singapore economy and to take advantage of regional and global opportunities. In this respect, GLCs’ overseas investments are no different from those by non-GLCs. GLC investments are guided purely by financial considerations and are subject to market discipline and scrutiny, as is the case with investments by any other commercial entity. The Government does not seek to guide or influence these investment decisions. This is one reason why our GLCs have generally performed well against their industry peers regionally and globally.

Leaving the GLCs free to operate on a commercial basis has helped to maximise their benefits to the Singapore economy and Singaporeans. The GLCs’ overseas investments have generally sought to complement their core businesses and strategies. For instance, SingTel acquired Optus - a key player in Australia's telecommunications market - as part of its overall strategy to become a leading regional telecommunications operator. SingTel now has two main hubs - in Singapore and Australia - providing a wide range of communications services and diverse sources of revenue.

Where it makes commercial sense, GLCs have also teamed up with local enterprises to compete abroad or to complement their local operations. Temasek, for example, bought into some

SMEs in their growing phase, such as Osim and Hyflux. GLCs also use SMEs extensively as contractors or sub-contractors. For example, SIA has been working with home-grown advertising agency Batey Ads for many years to establish SIA's brand internationally.

GLCs and their investments help to build and nurture internationally competitive businesses. This in turn enhances Singapore’s economic resilience. Singaporeans and our local enterprises ultimately get to benefit as more business and employment opportunities are created in the economy.

10. Mr Leong Horn Kee asked the Minister for National Development in view of the large stock of unallocated new Housing and Development Board flats and a considerable number of retrenched and unemployed persons, will his Ministry consider removing the present 30 months' moratorium on a person for selling his HDB flat or private property to enable him to purchase a new HDB flat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government provides subsidised public housing to meet the housing needs of Singaporean families who cannot afford to own private housing. Therefore, rules are necessary to ensure that our subsidies are given only to those who need them most. Such rules include the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) before resale of a flat in the open market, as well as the 30-month time bar for ex-private property owners before they buy a subsidised HDB flat.

The 30-month time bar for private property owners is imposed so that they do not compete with other families, such as first-timer couples, who need such affordable housing. With the sales proceeds from their private property, they can buy a resale HDB flat, without being subject to the 30-month time bar. I wish to clarify that the 30-month time bar does not apply to HDB flat owners. They can apply for a subsidised HDB flat, if they meet

the eligibility conditions, even while they are occupying their existing flat.

I appreciate that, because of the economic slowdown, some private property owners may need to dispose of their properties due to financial hardship. Most can still afford to purchase a resale HDB flat. There is a wide range of resale flats, in terms of flat types, locations and prices and they can choose one that is within their financial means. However, HDB will consider waiving the 30-month time bar on a case-by-case basis, for those who are in severe financial hardship.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he has the data on the present stock of completed HDB units not allocated and how long will it take to fully allocate this stock, based on the current take-up rate. If this period is very long, then perhaps there is a justification for the Ministry to consider having a temporary lifting of the 30-month time bar so as to allow this stock to be taken up at a faster rate.

Sir, as I have indicated several times, there is a stock of unsold HDB flats and currently the stock stands at something like 10,000. However, this is a temporary situation. I think it arose as a result of a sharp drop in the demand and, since then, we have reduced the supply and we have cut back on the building of new HDB flats. So I expect that, over the next few years, this

stock will be taken up. How fast they will be taken up really depends on economic conditions and how many people will opt for new HDB flats. But it is not something that I expect to be a permanent feature of the HDB market.

At the same time, the other point that I would like to make is that you cannot change policy as a result of temporary changes in the market situation. Yes, there is an over-supply of houses at the moment. But that does not mean that we necessarily change the policy. What it does mean is that we will look at the situation, and if the situation warrants it, for example, the individual case can demonstrate severe financial hardship, retrenchment, bankruptcy, whatever, and the sale of the private property is not sufficient to cover that cost, then such cases can be looked at and consideration can be given. But I am reluctant to change the whole policy on the basis of what, I believe, is a temporary phenomenon.

Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for saying that he would take a review of special cases, especially those involving financial hardship and retrenchment. In fact, I would like to ask the Minister to consider a policy review, contrary to what he is saying that this is a temporary situation. In fact, this 30-month time bar had been introduced during the heydays of a buoyant property market. But the current situation is that the property market is quite stable and, in some cases, quite depressed, and there have been a lot of changes in the HDB policy, such as the changes to the holding period from five to 10 years and the imposition of levy to cream off the benefits that the sellers can get from the sale of flat. With all these changes, perhaps it is time for the Minister to consider a policy review of this 30-month time bar to a shorter period, so that at least it will not be such a long holding period for those who are affected.

As I have explained, the time bar is really to make sure that private property owners or those who sell their flat, those who currently own a flat and therefore wish to sell, do not compete with those who are first-timers, those who, I believe, would need a new flat much more than them. This is the reason why we have a time bar. Whether it is 30 months or whether it should be less, from time to time, we do review our policies. At this point in time, I see no need to change this policy. But I dare say that if there is a substantial or fundamental change in the situation, we will relook at it again.

Sir, may I make a final appeal to the Minister that, in fact, the 30-month period is actually very, very long. I think he should seriously consider whether that can be reduced to a shorter period.

As I said, we constantly look at our policies and, from time to time, we do change them. One day, we may change them.

Sir, may I seek a clarification from the Minister? For HDB lessees who are forced to sell their flats due to financial distress, would HDB consider allowing them to rent HDB flats and exercise that policy with flexibility?

I believe there is a question by Dr Lily Neo on this. So perhaps I could take a rain check on the answer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Minister's response, the time bar was introduced to prevent competition between upgraders and first timers. Is he saying that there is still competition between first timers and upgraders, given that there are 10,000 flats that are not sold for the past few years and for the next few years?

As I have said earlier, we cannot frame policies on the basis of what is the current situation which is not something that is permanent. It is not HDB's policy to maintain a buffer stock of 10,000 units all the time. The 10,000 units will be taken up. It is a matter of time. And when that happens, what do we do? Change the policy back again? Obviously, we cannot do that. So the policy has got an intention behind it, which is to make sure that people do not sell their flat, get another flat without any hindrance or deterrence, or that they will just sell their private property and get a HDB flat, again without any hindrance. So there is a purpose in that policy, and that policy has served us well. Yes, it is true that there is a surplus of flats today. But do we change the policy to solve the surplus problem? I do not think so. I think that is a wrong thing to do because one day, the surpluses would be gone. Then what happens? Do I change back again?

Would the Minister consider retaining the time bar as a policy but adjust the period as a flexibility to meet market conditions?

Sir, we are always very flexible. As many Members would attest, I think one of the areas where we are flexible is in the so-called hardship cases and where a genuine hardship case surfaces to the Ministry or HDB, there is complete flexibility in the sense that the time bar is waived. I think that is being flexible.

11. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for National Development whether the 2½-year debarment period to obtain rental flats can be waived for those elderly who have sold their Housing and Development

Board flats and who are in financial and medical needs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB rental flats cater to low-income families who cannot afford home ownership flats. They are heavily subsidised and limited in number. Lessees who own HDB flats are discouraged from competing for such heavily subsidised rental housing with other low-income families who have more urgent housing needs. That is why they are debarred from renting HDB flats for 30 months after they sell their flats.

Nevertheless, again, for those in genuine hardship, HDB will consider waiving the 30-month debarment period on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister whether I am correct to say that many elderly Singaporeans may be asset rich but cash poor. Few meet the CPF Minimum Sum for retirement, many have fewer children and the State provides very limited public assistance for retirees. Therefore, is it not time now to give more consideration and assistance to the elderly to cope with life after retirement? How does the Minister address this issue?

I think the Member has pointed out a very genuine need for post-retirement planning and to use the flat as a major feature in the post-retirement planning of the senior citizens. For this reason, the Ministry and HDB last year relaxed the criteria for allowing the whole flat to be sublet, and in this way, to allow the senior citizens a regular stream of income. What this means is that they can rent out their whole flat. They can then either move in with their children, move in with friends, or they can rent out a room, which is already currently allowed. So these are options which are available to them.

The other thing that the senior citizens can do with a, say, 3 or 4-room flat is to sell the flat and to move into a studio apartment. Sufficient studio apartments are being made available for senior citizens. With the money that is left over, they can either buy an annuity or make other financial arrangements for their old age. So there are such post-retirement arrangements which are already in place. There are options available for them. The suggestion that the Member has made, which is to allow them to rent a subsidised flat, I think, is a different solution from what I have just enumerated. It is different in the sense that, in this case, what the Member is asking is for the Government to continue to subsidise the senior citizen another time, ie, through the rental flat. Here, I must explain that the overall subsidy policy of the Government is to make sure that each eligible Singaporean family is able to enjoy a certain amount of subsidy through the purchase of the first subsidised flat, through the purchase of the second subsidised flat after he pays the levy, and through subsidised loans. I think there is a limit that we must impose on the amount of subsidy that we give to each Singaporean. It cannot be limitless because it is not a bottomless pit as far as Government finance is concerned.

In this respect, we have to educate our senior citizens as to how they can encash, how they can monetise, and how they can make better use of their flats after retirement. Allowing them to rent a subsidised flat is not one of the options under the current regime for the reasons that I have stated, which is that we are actually giving yet another subsidy and there is a limit to the amount of subsidy. We have crafted the subsidy policy in such a way that they are only entitled to so much subsidies, please do not come back for more subsidies after that. That is the position at the moment.

12. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the status of his Ministry's policy on reverse mortgages of Housing and Development Board flats; and (b) will his Ministry promote and make it easier for banks to provide reverse-mortgages to retirees, especially to those with insufficient funds to meet their retirement needs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, MND and HDB have explored reverse mortgages as a possible way to provide elderly HDB lessees with an additional source of income for their retirement needs.

However, the current reverse mortgage terms that are offered in the market are not attractive for HDB lessees. The monthly payments are relatively small because of the high financing cost. More importantly, as the reverse mortgages are fixed in tenure, elderly lessees run the risk of losing their homes should they outlive the term of the mortgage and are unable to redeem the loan with interest accrued.

Nevertheless, if there are banks or insurers who can offer reverse mortgages on favourable terms to HDB lessees, we will be happy to look into whether and how such schemes can be made available to HDB lessees.

Sir, may I ask the Minister on the reasons why banks are not keen to offer reverse mortgages for HDB flats? Will it be that they may not want to own HDB properties in the event of defaults, especially for shorter remaining tenure? Would HDB not be in a better position to offer such reverse mortgages and whether the Minister would facilitate and step up such facility to the elderly?

Whether banks offer reverse mortgages or not, I think it is really a decision for the banks to take. They have their own policies on how much risk they want to take. They have a certain position that they are taking, in terms of the interest rates, and so on and so forth. I know for a fact that an insurance company, NTUC Income, does offer reverse mortgages. But I am told that it is currently not very popular with HDB lessees. One of the reasons is that the terms under which it is offered are not very attractive. And again, this is something that the company has to decide whether it is able to offer better terms so as to attract more people to come. This is not a decision for HDB to take. In fact, HDB has since last year stopped the issuing of mortgage loans for certain categories of people. So it is really not HDB's role to offer mortgage financing, or in this case reverse mortgage financing, to its lessees. I think its job should be to provide public housing, to frame policy on public housing, to provide loans for first timers and to make sure that first timer families are adequately provided.

For the retirees, there are other provisions being made, including some of those that I mentioned earlier,eg, allowing lessees to sublet their flats totally. We can relax those conditions even further, if necessary. But that must be one of the options, that after you no longer need a big flat, you should have a means to downgrade to a smaller one, or to live with your children and make use of the money for your retirement needs. So, there are options available. It is best for the private sector to provide such financing. Yes, HDB will facilitate such schemes to the maximum extent possible. But it will not provide such schemes.

13. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board is willing to relax its rules and allow single Singaporeans who have attained the age of 30 years to purchase flats.

Sir, our public housing policy is designed to be pro-family in orientation. Single citizens are considered as part of a family unit. They are encouraged to live with their parents for mutual care and support. At the same time, the Government recognises that there are some older Singaporeans who remain single and may prefer to live on their own. To meet the housing needs of this group, HDB has implemented two housing schemes, ie, the Single Singapore Citizen Scheme and the Joint Singles Scheme, for citizen singles who are 35 years old or above to buy resale HDB flats.

The minimum age requirement of 35 for singles to buy flats is to support our policy on promoting marriages. It remains relevant as statistics show that Singaporeans are marrying later and that marriage rates remain relatively high among those in the 30-34 age group. There is currently no intention to lower the minimum age. Younger singles below 35 can buy a HDB flat together with their parents. Those who wish to stay on their own have other housing options, such as renting a flat or room from the open market.

Sir, I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, does the Minister agree with me that, in fact, if singles stay on their own, there are better chances of getting married? Second, at 30 years old, are they not mature enough to live on their own? How long do they have to stay with their parents? Thirdly, the Minister reported just now that there were surplus flats. By allowing 30-year-olds to buy flats, do they not take up the slack and, in fact, cut down wastage?

Let me answer the Member's questions in reverse order. I will take the last one first.

As a clarification for Mr Chiam, singles are not allowed to buy new flats. They are only allowed to buy resale flats. The reason for that is very simple. New flats are only for those who can form a family unit. So, that is a very clear-cut policy. What the Member was asking was whether we are going to lower the 35 age limit to 30 for singles to buy resale flats. It is an entirely different matter. So, I think the third question is quite irrelevant. It does not matter whether we have 20,000 or 30,000 empty flats, because singles are not eligible to buy those flats.

The second question was whether I think at age 30 they are mature enough to live alone. Absolutely! There are people who are 18 and are quite mature and are able to live on their own, and there are people who are 50 who are still not mature and cannot live on their own. That has absolutely nothing to do with this policy because, if you want to live on your own and you are mature enough to do so, by all means do so. But, unfortunately, you cannot do so in a HDB flat. You can rent a flat, rent a room and you can do whatever you like, but we need to keep this 35-year-old age limit for HDB flats.

The first question is whether I agree that a single at 30 living in her own flat is more marriageable or more desirable. Maybe, maybe not. But, again, that has nothing to do with this policy because, as far as this is concerned, we are saying that at age 30, 31, 32, 33 or 34, they are still likely to get married, their chances of getting married are still good. Therefore, there is no need to change this policy.

Sir, will the Ministry separate its role as provider of public housing from its social agenda of forcing Singaporeans to get married in

order to buy a HDB flat? Does the Minister realise that this social policy of forcing young couples to get married in order to buy a HDB flat is one of the main causes of marital divorces in recent years? People are buying HDB flats for the wrong reason.

I am not sure where Mr Chia gets his statistics from that this is the major cause of divorces. I would like to hear from the Minister for Community Development and Sports whether this is so.

But the Member asked whether we should be divorcing HDB's role as a service provider from it being a social service agency. The simple answer is that we are providing subsidised HDB flats, the subsidy is for a reason, and there are many social reasons why we formulate HDB policies. The singles policy is just one of them. The ethnic integration policy is another. The mixing of 3-room, 4-room and 5-room flats so that people from different socio-economic backgrounds live together so that there is greater social harmony and bonding is yet another. So, HDB policies have all along been designed to promote family values and achieve social objectives. It is not something that is new or it is not something that is only for the singles. So, wherever it is desirable, the Government will do so, and it will justify the subsidy, ie, the money that it is giving out from the taxpayers.

Mr Steve Chia, last question.

Sir, resale flats in the market are not subsidised. So why are those who are below 35 years old not allowed to buy these resale flats?

It is not true that they are not subsidised. There is a grant that is given for singles to buy these resale flats if they so wish.

14. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Acting Minister for Health if he will explain the policy regarding the assigning of doctors to subsidised patients at public hospitals and the subsequent follow-up of these patients, especially for cases of serious illnesses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in public hospitals, the care for all patients, whether paying or subsidised, involves team work. Every patient is under the care of a medical team led by a consultant. The consultant is ultimately responsible for the patient's care although other doctors in the team may also be involved in treating the patient.

In the case of a seriously ill patient, the medical team may be quite large and often involves doctors from several specialities. This is the result of specialisation and it ensures the high standard of care for the patients. Even so, there will always be one department and one consultant who take primary responsibility for care.

Consultants are assigned to the subsidised patients, based on the medical condition and specific needs of the patients. Every speciality has a roster of consultants to ensure optimum distribution of patient load.

Upon discharge, the patients continue to be cared for by the medical team in the hospital specialist clinic.

Sir, supplementary questions on the subsequent follow-up of subsidised patients at specialist outpatient clinics at public hospitals. May I ask the Minister of State whether it is more time-consuming, laborious and pressing for a

doctor to go through the case notes and learn everything about a new patient each time at specialist outpatient clinics with limited time of consultation and a long queue of patients waiting, and would such follow-up on the intention of previous doctors be less than satisfactory, especially if the writings of the notes have been less legible? Would it not be better for the same doctors to look after the same patients, for better patient care? Does the appointment system allow the matching of patients' appointments with designated doctors for continual care? Do our doctors in the public hospitals in the specialist outpatient clinics spend enough time with their patients? How many patients does each doctor see each time? And are public hospitals still encouraging and remunerating doctors according to the number of patients they see?

Dr Neo, Dr Balaji has only five minutes left!

That is a whole series of questions, but I will try and answer them in general.

Firstly, hospital care is a very complex organism, with so many different people involved and with specialists in different areas. In the hospital, the doctors are also involved in multiple functions. They not only look after patients, they also teach and present papers at international meetings. So, although a patient is under the care of a certain consultant, quite often the patient does not see the consultant. He goes to the clinic, but the consultant may be presenting a paper at a meeting or he may be doing an emergency operation. But what the patient wants, very often, is a familiar face. They very much like to see the same person time after time, so that they know this doctor remembers the complaint that they had eight, nine or 10 visits ago. Really, that is a function of primary care.

So, what a patient should do is that he should have a general practitioner, someone whom he can see all the time and who understands all the complaints. What too many patients do, is that they go to a specialist clinic, once they have a problem, say, a heart problem. They try and make use of the specialist as their primary physician and expect that every time they go to the clinic, he will be there. This is very hard for a hospital to provide, because of the very nature and complexity of hospital care. So, to ensure that when you go to a clinic, the doctor at the clinic is able to read the writing that was written before and the doctor remembers all the complaints over the last 10 visits, really, a lot of patients who are currently going to our specialist clinics and trying to make use of our specialists as their primary physician, should switch their focus and think of the general practitioner as their primary physician, the one who is going to be their friend, confidant and help them navigate through the complex system in modern healthcare.

Dr Neo. We have two minutes left.

Sir, could the Minister of State please answer my questions, especially on our appointments system, whether we allow matching of appointments with designated doctors, and whether public hospitals are still encouraging and remunerating doctors according to the number of patients they get to see?

When the appointments are made, yes, the appointments are made for a specific doctor, and you can do that in our public hospitals. With regard to whether there is a specific remuneration for subsidised patients seen in the clinics, I do not think so. But I can check on that and give the system of remuneration to the Member.

15. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Acting Minister for Manpower following the announcement in May 2004 that the Singapore Labour Foundation (SLF) is giving up its charity status to focus on funding new programmes that will benefit workers, (a) what are these new programmes; (b) how will these programmes benefit workers in general; and (c) how will SLF be classified henceforth.

You have one minute, Mr Mah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer this Question as the Chairman of the Singapore Labour Foundation?

Yes.

Sir, the SLF was set up to support the labour movement in Singapore. The funds of SLF have been derived from the union movement, mainly from subscriptions by union members as well as contributions from its co-operatives and investment income. Trade unions are exempt from income tax. So, SLF was granted Institution of Public Character (IPC) status, and was exempted from tax. According to the Charities Act, 80% of the revenues must go towards charitable activities. However, most of the labour movement activities are not considered charitable activities under the Act. Therefore, during the review of SLF in December 2003, the decision was made to forgo its charity status to enable SLF to better focus on its original mission of supporting the labour movement as enacted under the SLF Act in 1977.

SLF provides extensive support to the labour movement, for its activities, ranging from financial assistance, to training sponsorship to recreational activities. SLF will also be embarking on sponsoring training awards for union leaders. Lastly, SLF will work closely with NTUC to roll out new programmes to benefit workers in Singapore. For example, SLF will be supporting the Individual Learning Account that NTUC is going to provide for the staff of its co-operatives.

3.00 pm

Order. Mr Mah, end of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Written Answer to Question No. 15 on the Order Paper is reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 16 and 17 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

*Cols. 163-164

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore introduced National Service 37 years ago in 1967, just two years after independence. With a small population, we needed National Service to build up a credible SAF in order to deter potential aggressors and protect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of our small and vulnerable nation. This remains as vital today as it was in the early days of our nationhood.

The peace and prosperity that Singapore has enjoyed over the past four decades have been built on the dedication of the generations of National Servicemen who have served since then. About 680,000 Singaporeans have served

National Service in the Singapore Armed Forces, Police Force and Civil Defence Force. Sons now follow their fathers through this rite of passage in which our boys become men as they learn to defend our nation.

Singaporeans understand and accept the need for National Service. Our young men want to do their best when they serve. They put in the extra effort in order to take on the challenge and responsibility of becoming commanders.

Review of full-time National Service duration

The duration of full-time National Service depends on two factors: how long it takes to train soldiers and commanders to be operationally proficient in their duties, and how large a standing force we need, ie, how many full-time units we need for defence and contingency purposes during peacetime.

Since 1971, we have required National Servicemen who are promoted to the rank of Corporal and higher to serve 2½ years of full-time National Service while all other National Servicemen serve for two years. All National Servicemen who have attained A-level and Diploma qualifications or higher are promoted to at least the rank of Corporal and therefore serve 2½ years of full-time National Service.

Over the years, the Ministry of Defence has periodically reviewed the training methods and operational deployment requirements. We want to ensure that, on the one hand, the SAF is always ready to carry out its missions, while on the other hand, National Servicemen spend no more time than is necessary to carry out their NS duties. In other words, we aim to keep the period of full-time National Service not longer than what is necessary for our defence needs.

Sir, MINDEF has recently carried out a thorough review of the full-time National

Service duration. MINDEF has concluded that it can reduce the full-time National Service duration for those who currently have to serve 2½ years by six months, to two years, while maintaining the operational readiness of the SAF and its ability to fulfil its mission. This means that all National Servicemen will therefore serve 24 months or two years of full-time National Service.

Two key factors come together to make such a change feasible now. First, the key driver for this change is the Transformation to the 3rd Generation SAF and second, the key enabler for this change is a surge in the National Service intake over the next 10 years.

Transformation to the 3rd Generation SAF

Sir, we have steadily built up the SAF into a potent fighting force, operating modern, sophisticated and technologically advanced systems. As I informed Members in the Committee of Supply this year, MINDEF will be moving beyond this to transform the SAF over the next decade into the 3rd Generation SAF. The 3rd Generation SAF will be a military force that makes greater use of superior technology in areas such as comprehensive surveillance, battlefield awareness, precision strike and network-centric warfare. The 3rd Generation SAF will rely less on numbers of soldiers and more on the higher education levels and capabilities of our National Service soldiers.

While this transformation will take a decade to unfold, it is already underway and bearing fruit. One example of this is the Apache Longbow helicopter. The Apache's radar, guided missiles and data links between helicopters are an example of battlefield awareness, precision strike and network-centric warfare. The Apache transforms the battle into an asymmetric helicopter versus tank battle, allowing tanks to be destroyed at long range.

Another example is the Army's new Primus self-propelled howitzer, which requires only one-third of the crew but is far more mobile and delivers greater firepower. Our investments in research and development and new systems will pave the way for such transformations not just at the unit and tactical level, but also at the operational and strategic levels.

The transformation of the SAF is the key driver that allows us to transit to a shorter National Service duration. With the transformation of the SAF, more National Servicemen will be deployed in positions which are more challenging and make better use of their education and training, while serving a shorter period of full-time National Service.

Surge in NS intake

The second key factor is the coming surge in the National Service intake. This is the enabler that allows us to make the transition to a shorter National Service duration now. There will be a 15% to 20% increase in the annual intake of full-time National Servicemen over 10 years starting from 2006. This surge is a result of the higher number of births per year starting in the 'Dragon' year of 1988 and lasting till 1997. This surge in NS intake over the next 10 years will allow us to maintain our operational readiness and standing force requirements even as we move to a 24-month National Service system and carry out the transformation towards the leaner 3rd Generation SAF.

Maintaining SAF operational readiness

For officers and section commanders, a 24-month full-time National Service period is needed. This will allow for up to 12 months of training and at least another 12 months of deployment for operational duties. For non-commanders, a 24-month period is sufficient to train a battalion for

operations and to meet our standing force requirements.

Improvement in training effectiveness

The SAF's training and operational standards will be maintained even with the six-month reduction. Over the years, the SAF has significantly improved its training effectiveness through the introduction of new systems and technologies. For example, today, a recruit at the new Basic Military Training Centre in Pulau Tekong learns how to shoot on the Individual Marksmanship Trainer which is within marching distance in his camp. His shooting technique can be analysed, corrected and improved on in this marksmanship trainer before he goes to the live-firing range. In the old days, a recruit could spend the whole day out at the range, mostly waiting for his turn to shoot just ten rounds, and at the end, he would not really know why he shot well or why he shot badly, nor how to improve. Simulators and trainers have also proven effective for drivers, tank crews and signallers. And we have provided more efficient and focused training for commanders with the introduction of wargaming systems. The use of such simulators, war games and Computer Aided Instruction has enhanced training effectiveness while saving time.

The SAF's operational readiness and its ability to achieve its mission will also be maintained. The investments we are making in transforming to the 3G SAF and the new capabilities we are developing will enable us to maintain a strong SAF and reduce our dependence on large numbers of full-time National Servicemen. This reduced NS duration of 24 months will be sustainable over the long term.

I would also like to thank Members of this House for their continuing strong support for national defence. Despite the

economic challenges Singapore has faced in the last few years, this House has remained fully committed to national defence. This year, the budget caps of all Ministries were reduced by 2%, except for MINDEF. And Members of this House have, during the Budget Debate, robustly reaffirmed the need for a strong SAF.

Implementation

Sir, let me now address the implementation details. MINDEF will implement the revised 24-month full-time NS duration with effect from the batch of National Servicemen who will be enlisted in December 2004, ie, at the end of this year.

To minimise transitional anomalies where servicemen who enlist later complete their full-time NS before those who enlist earlier, there will be a graduated reduction in duration for batches enlisted earlier than the December 2004 batch.

Those who are enlisted between June and November this year for 2½ years of full-time National Service will get a four-month cut in full-time NS duration. Full-time National Servicemen who are currently serving their 2½ years of service will get up to a two-month cut in service duration. I said "up to a two-month cut" because the earliest date that the ORD for these in-service National Servicemen can be brought forward to will be 30th June 2004, to allow time for the units to do their administrative out-processing arrangements.

Full-time National Servicemen returning from disruption to serve out the balance of their 2½ years of full-time National Service will also be given a corresponding cut in their NS duration based on the cohort in which they were enlisted.

There will be no change for those serving two years of full-time National Service.

The current eight-week reduction in National Service duration given to National Servicemen who have attained a pre-enlistment fitness level of at least a NAPFA Silver will remain. This eight-week reduction for fit enlistees will be granted in two parts - four weeks at the beginning of their service during the Basic Military Training phase and four weeks at the end of their full-time National Service period.

The Ministry of Home Affairs will be implementing the corresponding changes for National Servicemen currently serving in or who will be enlisted into the Singapore Police Force and the Singapore Civil Defence Force.

MINDEF will be working with our local universities to better align the university intake schedules from 2007 when the first batch of National Servicemen serving the new NS duration completes their full-time National Service.

Conclusion

Sir, the rapid advance of technology and new war-fighting concepts have made it possible for us to carry out a transformation to the 3rd Generation SAF and reduce the duration of full-time National Service. The surge in National Service intake over the next 10 years enables us to maintain the SAF's operational readiness while making this transition. A strong National Service system, with dedicated and committed National Servicemen, both full-time and in the operationally-ready service, remains the bedrock of our defence to guarantee the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Singapore.

Sir, let me conclude by thanking all our National Servicemen who have served

over the years in the defence of our nation. I would also like to thank the parents, wives, girlfriends and other family members for the support that they have given to our National Servicemen. Those who have served are the role models for our future National Servicemen. Their dedication and commitment made it possible for Singapore to enjoy the peace and security, which is the foundation for our prosperity and progress, and made us the nation that we are. [Applause.]

Sir, this is indeed good news for the National Servicemen. I am sure it will be welcomed by all Singaporeans.

I want to ask the Minister whether this move will adversely affect the operational readiness of the SAF, especially now when we are in an era of conflict and terrorism where more demands

than ever are being made on the SAF, and whether the National Service reduction will give the wrong signal to others that we are going soft on defence, and whether the Minister can assure us that we will do whatever it takes to maintain a strong defence force and defend Singapore's sovereignty.

Sir, the Minister is well aware that MINDEF is very cautious about the length of National Service. We wonder what made MINDEF reduce the length of National Service. When was the turning point for such a decision?

Sir, Dr Ong asked what motivated the change in National Service duration. I would like to reassure Dr Ong and Members of this House as well as the public in general that our commitment to defence remains strong. And I would like to thank Members of this House also for their continued commitment to defence.

The transformation to the 3rd generation SAF will make the SAF more

capable of defending Singapore, and will make it more capable while at the same time making the SAF leaner. What motivated this change is that the transformation that we have been making in the SAF over the last few years has begun to bear fruit. We are more confident that the technologies available, the systems that we have fielded, will be able to give the SAF that edge as these technologies unfold and become fielded over the next 10 years. With our National Servicemen who are highly educated, well motivated, we are confident that they will be able to master these new technologies and systems and deliver for Singapore a defence which is even more capable than the one that we have today, notwithstanding the reduction in National Service period. In fact, what I do hope is that with this period of National Service of 24 months, our servicemen doing their full-time National Service will be even more motivated to give of their best during this period.

What was the turning point? There was a confluence of two factors. The 3G SAF is the driver for this change which leads us to this reduction in National Service duration and a leaner SAF. The enabler was the surge in the National Service intake which will be taking place in the next 1-2 years lasting for 10 years. This allows us to do this transformation while maintaining the operational readiness of the SAF. And with the confluence of these two factors, we decided to proceed.

Sir, the Minister has given two reasons for the reduction of the training period. One is the surge in NS intake over 10 years and the 3G SAF. May I ask the Minister whether this NS training period would revert to 2 1/2 years after this NS surge is over? Can the 3G SAF cope with this change when this surge in intake is over?

In other words, is this a temporary measure? How much has public pressure contributed to this shortening of NS period? This is important, because if we just give in to public pressure, then it is not a very good reason to shorten the NS period. Is this a reflection of the confidence of the SAF's ability to defend our country even with this lesser intake of NS men?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Defence has done a careful study and came to the conclusion that the two years of National Service duration will be able to be sustained over the long term even after this 10-year surge. What this 10-year surge provides us with is the ability to do this transformation and maintain our operational readiness at the same time.

If I can refer Members to the chart that I distributed on total National Service full-time resource, the average level of National Service resource for the past 15 years, from 1990 to the year 2005, was 19,100 annually. Over the next 10 years, we expect it to be 24,300, and in the 10-15 years after that, we expect it to come down but not to as low a level as it is today. We expect it to come down to about 20,600, based on current estimates and even current estimates of our total fertility rate.

Sir, I am happy to inform Dr Tan that public support for National Service is high. More than 90% of the people that we surveyed feel that National Service is worth while and is necessary for our defence. And we know that many of the young men who come into National Service today really want to do their best. Many of them strive very hard to become commanders and officers. This is a very good sign. So, this is really not a response at all to any public pressure on National Service. In fact, what it does is that it draws on the very strong public support for National Service, the very

strong motivation of our young men to do well in National Service, to give them more challenging and demanding things to do so that they can give us a better defence.

Sir, I have not served National Service. But I am interested to know whether the nurturing of character development is part of the programme during the course of National Service training. And if indeed it is, would the shortening of six months in any way compromise the continuous training of this aspect of the training for the National Servicemen?

Sir, character development is an important part of National Service training. It is certainly a critical part of the training of our commanders, particularly of our officers. I think all parents know that their sons go into National Service as boys and come out as men ready to defend the nation.

Will the six-month cut affect that? Of course, from a purely defence point of view, I would like to have as long a time as possible, but it is incumbent upon the Ministry of Defence when we have a National Service system to ensure that the length of National Service is always sufficient to meet our defence needs but, at the same time, it is not longer than it is necessary for our defence needs, and that must be the primary consideration.

Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for assuring us that the reduced NS period will not compromise on our operational readiness. I would like to ask the Minister whether the training itself would now be intensive for those who have to be compressed from 2 1/2 to 2 years, and also whether the Minister will consider sending them more on peacekeeping missions to make sure that they are indeed operationally ready to face any conflict situations and we hope that they will not be tested in war.

The second question is that the House has supported MINDEF in its increased budget, because we want to see a strong SAF. And with the change that has been announced today, there will be small savings. Although that is not the motivating factor for the change, can I ask the Minister whether he can assure and enlighten the House on how the budget of MINDEF will be spent to ensure that indeed despite the changes announced today, MINDEF will be stronger and continue to build up its capabilities to deter and to defend Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to some extent, the training will be more intensive and, in fact, this is something which has been happening over the years. For example, we have much more mechanisation in the Armed Forces today. And to train an armour crew is more complex and more complicated than training infantry men, and we have many more armour crewmen today. But because we have very much improved training systems, like our armour simulator, we can take our crewmen and give them very high value and very intensive training and good feedback in that training in a relatively short period of time. So our tank crewmen can actually do the equivalent of a battle with their tanks whilst sitting in the simulators within one or two hours when, previously, they would have had to take out their tanks, drive out for one or two hours administratively to the training areas to conduct an exercise before coming back again for one or two hours administratively. So, from that point of view, you can say that the training is more intensive. It makes better use of time and is much more effective.

Will we send our people for more PKOs? I must say that PKOs have been very useful for the SAF in developing its operational doctrine and giving it

operational experience. And where this fits in with our national objectives, we will do so. But for National Servicemen, the principle that we have followed for PKOs is that we have asked them to volunteer for these PKOs. And I am glad to say that a good number of National Servicemen have done so. This speaks well of the SAF and speaks well of our National Servicemen.

Will there be savings from this reduction in NS period? That was not the primary consideration at all, I should say. In fact, whatever savings that we may get from the reduction, we will absorb completely because of the increase in the number of National Servicemen coming into the SAF. As I said, that was not the primary consideration. We will put in as much as we need to for defence. What we have done in the Ministry of Defence's budget is to place high priority on transforming into the 3rd generation SAF. And if you ask me where would I put the marginal dollar today, I would prefer to put the marginal dollar into investment in transformation of the SAF rather than putting the marginal dollar into more people. Indeed, I informed the House in the Committee of Supply that we are putting aside 1% of the defence budget for experimentation. And I am glad that many Members of this House actually took up my invitation to visit the SAF Centre for Military Experimentation a couple of weeks ago.

Sir, before I put my question, I would like to congratulate the Minister for making a very bold decision in the history of National Service. I would also like to explain why I applauded his decision and also why other Members applauded. I believe we applauded not because of our diminished commitment to National Service nor public pressure to reduce the NS period. The SAF, being a human manpower oriented organisation, I

believe it must have been very difficult to get his commanders' agreement to reduce the National Service period, and that is the reason why we applauded for his very insightful decision.

The question I would like to ask is why would he only reduce the National Service period for those who are committed to serve 2 1/2 years and these National Servicemen are primarily commanders and officers.

Have they considered reducing correspondingly those non-commander National Servicemen by even a token period, not necessarily by six months but maybe three months, given the fact that there is a confluence of two factors which he mentioned, like the 3G SAF and also the increased number of National Service intake?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Dr Wang for his remarks and compliments. But the compliments also go to my officers in the Armed Forces because they have studied this matter very carefully over quite a long period of time. They themselves have come to this conclusion that the way forward for the SAF is the 3rd Generation SAF, and that this is the way to get more capability for the SAF while maintaining the period of National Service for as short as possible in order to meet our defence needs.

Sir, why 24 months of National Service and why have we not been able to cut it shorter for those who, for example, are currently serving 24 months of National Service? As I explained, we need to maintain sufficiently large units in order to have a standing force to meet our peacetime contingencies. Our units are made up of both "A" level and diploma National Servicemen as well as those who do not have "A" levels and diplomas. So they are mixed units. We need about 12 months in order for the men to complete their individual as well as collective training to reach a sufficient level of proficiency for the whole unit. And after

that, we need to have enough units who are operationally ready in order to meet these peacetime contingencies. Our estimation of the situation is that we need the units to serve for one year after they have been trained for 12 months in order to have sufficient units to meet our peacetime contingency requirements. If we were to reduce the period of National Service below 24 months, even for some of the soldiers, what it would mean is that there will be gaps in those units which will not be filled, and those units will not be able to fulfil their operational duties.

Admiral Teo, since there are many Members who want to seek clarifications, maybe you could take the questions first and reply later. Mr Leong.

Mr Speaker Sir, I would also like to join Members to welcome this move and applaud the Minister for his bold policy decision, though it comes a little late for me - I had done full-time NS - as well as for my son who just completed his 2 1/2 years of full-time National Service. Anyway, I do welcome this move because it benefits the nation and the future batches of National Servicemen.

I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any consequential impact from this change of policy, eg, will there be any change or impact on the early disruption scheme? In the past, a person going for tertiary education, who had only a few more months to serve, was allowed to get his NS disrupted, go for his tertiary education, then come back and serve National Service for one or two months. In this case of a shorter NS period, could the Ministry still allow some disruption, so that students do not need to wait for a full year and have their school's programme affected? So, please do consider whether to continue with the early disruption scheme.

The second question is whether it has any impact on the period for reservist

training. At the moment, there is a limit of 40 days. Usually it is shorter for yearly reservist training. In fact, I hope there is no increase in the reservist training period as a result of the shorter full-time training period. On the contrary, as the Minister has said, if modern technology could allow training to be more efficient, maybe, as a collateral, the reservist training period could be reduced further as well.

Sir, I would like to echo Mr Leong's point on what I suppose would be the 2G SAF NSmen, many of whom are probably in this Chamber.

Sir, I would like to know, as we make this transition to a 3G SAF, how will the reservists be prepared for that transition where, I presume, there is going to be a lot of technology input in the way they are trained. In short, what impact would this transition to a 3G SAF have on the nature of reservist training and the duration of reservist obligations?

I join my colleagues in this House in applauding the Minister, especially since I am still a serving reservist.

I would like to ask the Minister to what extent has improved matching of the educational, medical and physical attributes of our National Service cohort contributed to the ability for the SAF to take this bold decision. Can we do even more to prepare our future batches of National Servicemen in this regard, so that we can make the best use of the time available for National Service?

Finally, I wonder whether, in terms of administrative details of enlisting a National Serviceman, consideration will be made to time the enlistment of future batches in such a way that there will be a minimal need for disruption, as has been brought up by other Members in this House, for the purpose of further education abroad or in local universities.

Sir, I applaud the bold decision by the Ministry of Defence, and I fully support it.

My question relates to National Service (Police) and Civil Defence because they will also be affected by the same policy change, and I ask if MINDEF will be working very closely with the Ministry of Home Affairs to ensure a smooth transition such that Police presence and the effectiveness of the Civil Defence will also be maintained.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to declare the fact that my son is doing National Service. He started in January this year.

The introduction of National Service was in 1967. At that time, we had an armed forces of regulars. What is the percentage of regular soldiers as compared to National Servicemen today, say, in 1967? Is there a mindset change today that our parents of National Servicemen are willing to consider the possibility of having professional soldiers as full-time regulars, instead of National Servicemen? Would we want to have a regular Armed Forces not of National Servicemen but actual soldiers doing full-time service for life or until retirement age? And, if so, would MINDEF consider the possibility of having a stronger full-time regular force, instead of a full-time National Service force?

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I should take Mr Chandra Mohan's point first, because I think that is an important point. We have had National Service since 1967. At that time, we had two battalions of soldiers. In fact, not all of them were Singaporeans; many of them were not Singaporeans. We had no air force and we had, I think, one ship, the old and much beloved RSS Panglima.

We would not be able to have the defence force that we have today without National Service - not just full-time National Service but also National Service for those who have finished their full-time service and gone out into the operationally-ready National Service force.

With a population base of three to four million people, we will never be able to have a force which is sufficient to provide for our own security and defence in the situation that we are in. I think that you only need to look at the armed forces of countries which are of about the same population size as we are to realise that it is just not possible to have an armed forces of sufficient capability for our needs, based only on a regular force.

We do, however, have many committed regulars in the SAF, and they do duties which require a longer period of professional service and training. So, many of our people in the Air Force and in the Navy, for example, are regulars, and they have a much higher proportion of regulars than in the Army. In the Air Force, of course, all our fighter pilots are regulars, although we have some who, after their regular service, continue flying with the Air Force in their operationally-ready service. So we will need to continue to depend on National Service for our defence needs for a long, long time to come, unless there is a fundamental change in our strategic circumstances, which I do not see happening.

I would like to thank Mr Leong Horn Kee for his dedicated service in National Service, and also his son. He asked about disruption. The basic principle which we follow today, and which we will continue to follow, is that for people who are in the same cohort, we will allow them to go to university or higher education at the same time in the same year, basically. What it does mean is that we will be less liberal with disruption, because it is a shorter

period and most of the students should be able to go on to higher education within the same year. So, there will be less need for disruption. But, at the same time, we will be less able to give disruption because the period is already shorter. But I do not see any great difficulties. There should not be any cases of students who, with the new duration of National Service, will go to higher education later than they do today. As I said, we will be discussing with our own universities to see what kind of changes in the schedules would be possible. But, of course, we cannot influence the academic calendars of universities in the northern hemisphere, for example.

The impact on reservist training was also a question which Mr Leong Horn Kee and Dr Warren Lee asked about. In fact, I think reservists have already seen some impact on their training. Members may not be aware, but in April last year, we did make a change to our reservist training cycle. We used to have eight high-key years and five low-key years in a 13-year cycle. In April 2003, we changed that to seven high-key years, three low-key years, and three BIT (Basic Individual Training) years where the serviceman is called up for one to two days of basic proficiency refresher. So there has been an adjustment in the requirements for training for operationally-ready National Servicemen. And, again, these adjustments were made consciously and with the defence needs in mind to ensure that this would be sufficient for our defence needs, but that we do not call upon our operationally-ready National Servicemen for more than is necessary.

Dr Warren Lee asked whether we can do improved matching for our National Servicemen so that we can make better use of the resources that we have. In fact, we constantly try to do so. Medical classification is imperfect as a science. So we tend to err on the side of caution. We are not able to deploy them in all the

areas that perhaps they could be deployed in. We have, for example, been relaxing our eyesight standards for various vocations. We have even been relaxing some of our medical fitness requirements for some vocations because there is more mechanisation in some of these vocations. So that means that we can deploy more of our people in such vocations. And, indeed, in many of our vocations, what we do require are people with better

education and the ability to operate more complex systems and this fits in well with the abilities of the National Servicemen who are coming into the SAF today. I believe that is also the question that Mr Iswaran asked.

Mr Heng Chee How asked about whether or not the National Service (Police) and SCDF will also have the same arrangements. Yes, we have been discussing with the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Ministry of Home Affairs will be making similar transitions and arrangements for the Police as well as the SCDF.

"to amend the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore Act (Chapter 138A of the 1993 Revised Edition)",

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 certain statutes of the Republic of Singapore",

presented by 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.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.46 pm until 4.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

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

This Bill repeals the current Police Force Act and re-enacts a new Police Force Act because of the large number of amendments that have been proposed to the existing Act. This Bill consolidates all the amendments and retains all other provisions in the existing Police Force Act that did not need any amendments.

Part IX - Auxiliary Police Forces

The most significant change to the present Police Force Act concerns the auxiliary police forces. Part IX of the Bill details the changes that will be made to the armed security industry. It will address the existing restrictions on the areas of jurisdiction of auxiliary police forces and allow competition in the armed security industry. The Bill will also provide the Singapore Police Force with various powers to strengthen the current regulatory framework.

Existing legislative controls

Sir, the British created the concept of the Auxiliary Police Forces after the Second World War to enable selected entities like harbour warehouses to police their own areas of dwelling or business premises and operations. Today, there are five auxiliary police forces, such as CISCO Auxiliary Police Force, Aetos Auxiliary Police Force, the Singapore Airport Terminal Services (SATS) Auxiliary Police Force, with a total of some 5,000 auxiliary police officers. Currently, all auxiliary police forces, except for the CISCO Auxiliary Police Force, are regulated under section 71 of the Police Force Act and the Police Force (Auxiliary Police) Regulations. The CISCO Auxiliary Police Force is regulated by section 12 of the CISCO Act.

Under these Acts and Regulations, the auxiliary police officers in these auxiliary police forces are vested with a wide range of police powers, for example, search, arrest and the right to bear and discharge firearms.

New Operating Environment

Given the increasingly complex security environment since September 11, the security measures at the various critical infrastructure and key installations have been stepped up. However, it is not possible for the Singapore Police Force to do everything and be everywhere. To ensure sustainability of our security measures in the long run, the owners of critical infrastructure and facilities must assume some responsibility for their physical security and protection by engaging auxiliary police forces, instead of relying solely on the Singapore Police Force. For example, CISCO Auxiliary Police Force supports the Singapore Police Force in ensuring safety and security of Singapore by providing armed security services to power stations and

Government buildings. They also assist in crowd and traffic control for large scale events, such as the Chinese New Year Carnivals at Chinatown.

However, with the exception of the CISCO Auxiliary Police Force, all other auxiliary police forces can only exercise police powers within the limits of the areas owned by, or under the control of, the entities that own and operate the auxiliary police forces. For example, the Singapore Airport Terminal Services (SATS) Auxiliary Police Force may only operate within the confines of Changi Airport. This limitation on the areas of jurisdiction of the auxiliary police forces is no longer satisfactory.

Establishing auxiliary police force

Clause 86 will empower the Singapore Police Force, with the approval of the Minister for Home Affairs, to authorise the creation of auxiliary police forces that may operate commercially anywhere in Singapore, subject to specific conditions relating to ownership and the management of the auxiliary police forces. These conditions are necessary to ensure that only trusted agents may operate and manage auxiliary police forces in Singapore. Apart from being a Singapore-owned company, the Minister's approval is required for a change in ownership or substantial shareholder, so as to ensure that control of auxiliary police forces remains within Singapore's control and in good hands.

By allowing more auxiliary police forces to operate islandwide, we will increase the pool of armed security officers that can support the Singapore Police Force in ensuring safety and security of Singapore. At the same time, we would also be introducing competition into the armed security industry, unlike currently where only CISCO is allowed to operate islandwide.

With the liberalisation of the armed security industry, it is no longer tenable for CISCO to remain as a statutory board under the Home Affairs Ministry competing with other auxiliary police forces. In view of this, the Ministry of Home Affairs has decided to corporatise CISCO, to create a level playing field for all players in the armed security industry. With its corporatisation, CISCO will be freed from the various obligations and restrictions placed upon it as a statutory board under the Ministry of Home Affairs, and may allow market forces to determine its business ventures and decisions completely. Other auxiliary police forces will receive the assurance that CISCO will not enjoy any preferential treatment arising from its status as a statutory board. More details on the corporatisation will be announced when they are ready.

However, Sir, this does not mean that with the opening up of the industry, there will be a proliferation of auxiliary police forces that will operate commercially anywhere in Singapore. While the Ministry of Home Affairs will allow market forces to determine the number of players the industry can support, a significant increase in the current number of auxiliary police forces in Singapore is clearly undesirable from both the security and economic viewpoints. Having too many players may result in an environment where industry standards are lowered as the auxiliary police forces respond to competitive pressures by cutting corners in order to win contracts. Thus, we will probably be allowing only two to three auxiliary police forces to operate islandwide.

Limiting the powers of auxiliary police officers

Sir, auxiliary police officers do not perform all the functions of a regular police officer. They do not undergo the same intensity of training as police officers. Their entry requirements are also

different. Because of these factors, there is a need to exercise further controls on the auxiliary police officers and impose practical limits on the exercise and scope of police powers by them. Such limits are necessary since auxiliary police officers will only need selected police powers in the course of their professional duties. This will distinguish them from the regular police officers.

Stronger regulatory controls

The existing Police Force Act does not contain provisions to hold the auxiliary police forces accountable to the operational standards and requirements as determined by the Singapore Police Force and to regulate competitive behaviour between the auxiliary police forces. This is because the existing auxiliary police forces, with the exception of CISCO, operate only within the confines of their workplace and cannot operate islandwide. However, the new provision on auxiliary police forces will allow them to operate islandwide if they meet the standards set by the Singapore Police Force.

The proposed Bill will allow the Singapore Police Force to issue directives relating to operational standards in armed security services, as well as codes of practice relating to competitive behaviour and market conduct. To enforce these directives and other requirements, the Singapore Police Force will have powers to conduct audits of the auxiliary police forces in the areas of operations, training and staffing. The Bill provides for punitive measures against anyone who obstructs such audits. In addition, auxiliary police forces will be required to seek approval from the Singapore Police Force before undertaking any new armed security services. This will ensure that auxiliary police forces can provide the service adequately.

Stronger disciplinary measures

The current Singapore Police Force Act

does not provide for sanctions against auxiliary police forces as an entity. The proposed Bill provides for a comprehensive range of sanctions against auxiliary police forces as a whole, and against office bearers in the auxiliary police forces, when discipline and procedures have been breached. The sanctions include financial penalties for anti-competitive behaviour, which were modelled after the Telecommunications Act and the Media Development Authority of Singapore Act. The disciplinary measures that may be undertaken against errant or negligent auxiliary police officers have also been enhanced.

Powers of mobilisation

The Ministry of Home Affairs is also taking this opportunity to amend the Act to enable it to tap the auxiliary police forces to augment the homeland security when necessary. Currently, the Ministry can only mobilise CISCO auxiliary police officers in the event of a crisis. MHA does not have such powers over other auxiliary police forces, whose officers constitute an important and strategic resource in an emergency or crisis. Clause 97 of the Bill empowers the Ministry to mobilise any auxiliary police officers to support the Government during any peacetime contingency and crisis situations. Clause 98 ensures that auxiliary police forces whose officers are so mobilised are fairly compensated.

Other amendments

In addition to enhancing controls over auxiliary police officers, the Bill also makes other amendments and change outdated provisions in the existing Act. I shall briefly mention the main ones.

Deployment of officers overseas

The Police Force Act currently provides for the deployment of police officers to other countries, only if it is for the purpose of escorting and guarding of prisoners, or to Malaysia for any purpose. Clauses 20 and 56 of the Bill will widen the scope of this provision by allowing police officers to be deployed outside Singapore. Clause 56 also allows for the voluntary overseas deployment of Police National Service full-time officers, Police National Service officers, and officers of the Volunteer Special Constabulary. The revised provisions in clauses 57 to 59 will also allow disciplinary procedures to be invoked against breaches committed by officers while on overseas duty.

Rationalising outdated provisions

The Bill proposes to repeal sections 44 to 48 of the Police Force Act pertaining to the deployment of Malaysian police force officers in Singapore. These provisions, which pre-dated Singapore's independence, are no longer necessary since in practice any such deployment will require Singapore's consent. The provisions have not been used since Singapore's independence. Even without these provisions, there is already excellent cooperation between the Singapore Police Force and the Royal Malaysian Police on operations, investigation, training and information exchanges pertaining to criminal cases.

Other minor changes

A number of other minor changes have been made. Outdated references to three classes of police officers, "subordinate officer", "inspector" and "gazetted officer", have been deleted. The Police Force Bill has been aligned with the Constitution, and now reflects that the Public Service Commission is invested with the power to appoint senior police officers. The range of service offences and disciplinary measures for police

officers have also been updated to remove outdated forms of punishment, whilst ensuring that they are adequate to maintain high standards of discipline. The procedures for a Committee of Inquiry, including its composition, powers and conduct, have been updated and aligned with that of the other uniformed services. Likewise, the provisions related to powers, duties and discipline of National Service police officers have also been updated. We have also taken the opportunity to refine the list of statutory duties of a police officer to better reflect the core functions of the Singapore Police Force.

Sir, given the prevailing security climate, this Bill will enhance the physical security and protection of our critical infrastructure and key installations by raising the standards and performance of the auxiliary police forces, through regulated and open competition. It will also free up the Singapore Police Force to focus on its core duties while empowering it to maintain adequate controls over the auxiliary police forces and mobilise them when needed, to support the Government during any peacetime contingency and crisis situations. With these changes, we are confident that the armed security industry will be a competent and responsible partner of the Home Team in ensuring homeland security.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill that repeals and re-enacts the current Police Force Act.

The police is now a highly professional organisation well supported by the public in general. It has achieved an excellent reputation for its fight against crime and terrorism. In so far as this Bill seeks to update the law on the main police force, I do not see any cause for concern.

Indeed, the Bill seeks to enhance the disciplinary procedures and create new offences. These will no doubt make the police force an even more professional and trustworthy organisation.

Sir, my main concern is with regard to the auxiliary police forces (APFs). The Minister has assured us that there will not be that many auxiliary police forces, and that there will be quite a number of checks and controls over such organisations. The intention, as I understand it from the Minister, is to allow owners of key installations and organisations to engage commercial auxiliary police forces, rather than to rely on the main police force. The Minister sees such auxiliary police forces as partners in their role to enhance and maintain Singapore as a secure and safe place to live and work. The Bill envisages that there will be several such forces, and that they are allowed to compete for work. Such forces can also be mobilised by the Ministry for contingencies and emergencies. I just have a couple of concerns.

First, such organisations as the auxiliary police forces would be commercially based. So, costs do become an issue. Would the increase in the number of such APFs create an even more serious demand for suitable manpower? Will such auxiliary police forces be allowed to employ foreign employees as officers? If so, how do we know whether such employees would be reliable and trustworthy? Screening them for past employment records would prove to be difficult, as it involves foreign authorities. These officers might be armed but, hopefully, not going to be dangerous. I hope there will be enough checks in place to control this problem.

Secondly, the Bill envisages that in times of emergency or other peacetime

contingencies, the auxiliary police officers can be mobilised by the Ministry and they will then have the full powers of police officers. What safeguards do we have that they will be responsible in the exercise of such powers? The Minister explained earlier that the auxiliary police officers would not have the same standards of training and recruitment as the ordinary regular police officers, and they are not subject to the same disciplinary procedures, nor are the offences the same as those in the main police force. So, in effect, they are given the powers and privileges of police officers but not subject to the same strict regimen of discipline and proper conduct.

I hope the Minister can assure this House and the public that such auxiliary police officers will perform their duties responsibly and that there will be sufficient checks in place to ensure that the officers in such organisations would be reliable and disciplined in their approach.

With these comments, Sir, I support the Bill.

Sir, I wish to comment on clause 4 of the Bill which states the functions and the duties of the police force. The functions and duties of the police force are so wide that the police can be used by the authorities as they like, and even can be misused, especially in Singapore where the Government is so powerful. For this reason, I would like to see clause 4 amended by inserting a new paragraph (q) to clause 4(2) as follows:

"The duties of the police force shall be to take lawful measures for maintaining a neutral stance in all its dealings and it shall not be seen to be working with or used by any political party or used for any political purposes."

I am not making this suggestion without any substance. As an Opposition

Member, I have experienced the misuse of the police, and I really think that the amendment is necessary for the good of Singapore. Personally, I have not been dealt fairly by police officers during my years in politics, especially during election time. I have also recently seen the police being used by grassroots organisations in their house-to-house visits in my constituency, and I have also seen the police officers being ordered by a senior grassroots officer not to answer a question I put to that police officer in regard to the places where the police officers have escorted grassroots leaders in their walkabouts and their house-to-house visits. As a Member of Parliament and a representative of the people, surely I have a right to ask a police officer a legitimate question and not be over-ruled by a grassroots leader. But, unfortunately, such a situation exists in Singapore, ie, a grassroots leader can order a police officer not to answer lawful questions put to him by an MP.

If Singapore wants to remake itself, the first step it should take is to tell the whole world that it is not a police state. For this, the Government can do it by entering in the statute books that the police in Singapore is neutral. The police shall not take sides at all. In the dispute of a person, the police in Singapore must be neutral. The police shall not take sides at all, whether the person supports the Opposition or the ruling party. Only when this is done can the people of Singapore be confident that the police shall be neutral. If this is not done, the people shall always have a lingering doubt, and the Remaking of Singapore programme shall be doomed to failure.

Sir, although I have not had such a bad experience with the police as Mr Chiam had described, I do share his concern. I also feel that, during elections, the police does not seem to be fair to the Opposition in terms of controlling election activities. It is

important that the confidence of the public in the police must not be eroded. Otherwise, the question would arise as to whom the police should serve, as they are being paid by the people through taxpayers' money. It is an important question. I hope the Minister will clarify to assure the public that the police is serving Singaporeans and not only the PAP, and that it is not under the order of the PAP as a party.

Sir, I have three points of concern on

this Bill. The first point of concern is the liability of the Government for acts of auxiliary police officers. Clause 105(1) provides that any act done by an auxiliary police officer shall be deemed to be an act done in the course of his employment with the company or statutory board who employs him. Clause 105(2) further provides that the Government will not be responsible for acts of auxiliary police officers. Clause 105 is not new in that it re-enacts the existing section 71 of the Act. However, one crucial difference is that the role of the auxiliary police force (APF) is now expanded. Under the existing section 71, the role of the APF is to safeguard life and property within designated areas. That was in the old Auxiliary Police Force Act. But now under the new Bill, clause 86(1)(c) and (d) provides that an APF may now be called upon to assist the Singapore Police Force and any Government departments. And clause 97 of the Bill even provides that the Commissioner of Police can mobilise members of the APF for police duty. In such a situation where the APF officers are acting on the instruction of Government, should not the Government be liable for the acts of the auxiliary police officers?

Secondly, Sir, on the punishment for disciplinary offence by the police officers, clause 95(1) of the Bill provides that when an auxiliary police officer has committed a disciplinary offence, instead of dealing with the case internally, he

could be prosecuted in court. If he is prosecuted, then the sentence will be a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment of up to two years or both. By comparison, for a State police officer, clause 41(2) provides that if there is no specific sentence for the offence, the general punishment for a State police officer prosecuted for disciplinary offence is a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment of up to six months or both. Could the Minister clarify why the sentences for both SPF officers and APF officers are not the same? Is there a reason why APF officers are exposed to more severe punishment and sentence than the State police officers for similar offences?

Sir, my final point concerns clause 91 which aims to ensure fair market competition in the armed security industry in Singapore. Clause 91(1) states that any agreement, practice or conduct which distorts market competition, or which amounts to an abuse of a dominant position by any APF is not allowed. Under clause 91(3), such practice or conduct is void. But, nevertheless, clause 91(7) allows the Commissioner of Police to exempt any APF employer from anti-competitive practice, such that the Commissioner can allow an APF employer to abuse his dominant position in the market. Could the Minister clarify what kind of situation will justify the Commissioner to allow such a behaviour? And if other APF employers are affected by the Commissioner's decision to exempt the dominant player, do they have any recourse or is the Commissioner's exemption final?

Sir, as Prof. Chin rightly pointed out, liberalisation of the armed security industry will lead to an increase in the demand for auxiliary police officers. The concern is whether this would lead to a lowering of standards. I would like to assure Prof. Chin that the

current recruitment criteria will not be lowered. In addition to the criteria on educational qualifications and physical attributes, new applicants will need to undergo the various security screening and be cleared by the Singapore Police Force before they can be recruited. This would also apply to foreign applicants who have to furnish a certificate of no criminal conviction or its equivalent. The concern that he may have records that the Police does not have in Singapore can be addressed by this certificate of no criminal conviction issued by the home country of the foreigner concerned.

To further address the point that competition may lead to a lowering of standards and control, the Singapore Police Force will be setting up a regulatory unit to oversee the auxiliary police forces and the auxiliary police officers. This unit will ensure that the standards will be maintained and that the auxiliary police officers will not abuse the powers given to them in the course of their work. The following measures will be taken.

Firstly, through testing. With the liberalisation of the armed security industry, the auxiliary police forces will be allowed to set up their own training school or unit, as long as they are able to meet the criteria and standards set up by the Singapore Police Force. To ensure that high training standards are maintained, the Singapore Police Force will put in place a comprehensive certification and testing process. The auxiliary police officers will be required to pass written and scenario-based tests as well as shooting tests. The assessment syllabus will also include physical fitness, protective security, Police procedures and the relevant aspects of the law and handling of firearms. The whole assessment process will ensure that only well-trained auxiliary police officers are deployed.

Secondly, it is through the use of directives. The control of standards will

be strengthened through directives issued by the Police Force which will then lay out the operational standards and the requirements. The Singapore Police Force will also carry out regular ground inspections and audits to ensure strict compliance with the directives. Controls and checks will include assessing the general proficiency levels of the auxiliary police forces. When gaps such as failures to ensure adequate training of the officers are identified, the auxiliary police forces will be required to take steps to close them, failing which sanctions may be imposed. These sanctions could range from written warnings to imposing financial penalties or, in the worst case, suspending the auxiliary police force from providing armed security services.

Thirdly, through an enhanced disciplinary framework. While the auxiliary police officers will be trained and briefed on the exercise of their Police powers, there will inevitably be "black sheep". The Singapore Police Force would introduce an enhanced disciplinary framework that will allow the auxiliary police forces to take appropriate measures against the errant or negligent auxiliary police officers. Senior auxiliary police officers will also be subject to the same disciplinary proceedings as regular officers and subject to disciplinary action by the Singapore Police Force. In the case of the junior auxiliary police officers, the Singapore Police Force will have oversight of the disciplinary proceedings by the auxiliary police forces. In addition, the errant auxiliary police officers may also be prosecuted in court and the penalty, in this instance, has been enhanced.

Lastly, through restricting the powers of the auxiliary police officers. Under the current Police Force Act and the CISCO Act, all auxiliary police officers carry arms and have the powers, protection and immunities of police officers of corresponding rank within the specified areas of jurisdiction. These powers can

be exercised even when they are not on duty. Under the new legislation, auxiliary police officers will only be able to exercise their powers when they are on duty. Such limits will help to ensure that the auxiliary police officers do not abuse the Police powers. With all these measures, we will ensure that the standards are upheld and only well-trained auxiliary police officers are deployed.

Coming to Mr Chiam's comment, it is a serious allegation that our regular police officers have not been neutral. I think that is not a fair comment. Our police officers uphold the highest standard of conduct, as well as professionalism. They treat all alike, whether he is a foreigner, a citizen, the ruling party or the Opposition party. All individuals in Singapore must observe the law. It is the police officers' duty to uphold the law and to ensure that law and order is maintained.

The instance cited by Mr Chiam of police officers accompanying grassroots leaders on house visits is not something new and only done for the ruling party. It is part and parcel of the grassroots leaders' role in helping to educate the public on crime prevention. That is the role of the police officers, not as escorts for grassroots leaders on house visits. They do not serve that purpose. When the police go on such rounds with grassroots leaders or with advisors on the ground, it is purely for the purpose of promoting crime prevention, as well as to get to know the residents. That is what they have been doing for a long time.

On Mr Chiam's specific incidence on why his question was not answered by the Police, I cannot give him an answer unless he writes to me specifically and tells me what actually took place, and I will have it investigated. Our police officers, as far as public surveys are concerned, year by year, have received high marks from the public. Just from

Police records of publicly-assisted arrests, we are quite proud of our statistics. 40%-50% of the arrests made in Singapore are done with the help of the public. If he goes to any other country in this part of the world, I do not think he can hear that kind of confidence that the public has on our police force. We should do nothing to undermine the sense of confidence that the public has in them. If there are other specific instances where Mr Chiam felt aggrieved that he has been slighted by the Police, please write to me and let me know, and I will have it investigated. The same goes for Mr Low. He complained that during the elections period, Opposition Members were treated unfairly. I can tell him that PAP candidates also felt that the Police treated them very unfairly by not allowing them to do certain things. But that is the job of the Police, to ensure that it is fair and neutral to all parties concerned and not just to the ruling party's candidates. Let me state quite categorically that the police officers act without fear or favour.

Mr Low has specific comments on the clauses. On the liability of the Government for acts done by the auxiliary police force, if the auxiliary police officers are fulfilling a commercial contract and they are doing a job, that certainly must be the responsibility of the individual employer. Of course, in a situation where they are mobilised to assist the Government, then they have to obey the instructions of the Government. And in the course of their duties, something does happen and it is during mobilisation, then the Government will have to take care of the problem.

On the punishment of the auxiliary police officer and the regular police officer, for the regular police officer, this has not been changed because this is the existing provision. For the auxiliary police officer, under the old provision,the

punishment was $500 and an imprisonment term for a short period. But the recent case shows that this is totally inadequate and that even this $500 is totally out of tune with today's times. And since the law has not been amended for some time, it therefore has to be updated and there must be good reasons why there is this difference between the regular police officers and the auxiliary police officers because the regular police officers are also subject to the Police's General Orders, as well as to other disciplinary rules and proceedings of the civil service and the Police Force.

On fair competition and whether the power given to the Commissioner to exempt dominant players will be abused or not, let me assure the Member that it is not the intention to abuse the power of the Commissioner by exempting certain dominant players. For example, if Mr Low has in mind CISCO, let me say that CISCO will be treated no differently from any other auxiliary police forces if the other auxiliary police forces so decide to compete in the open market like CISCO. Right now, I know that there is already an existing one formed from several other auxiliary police forces into one new company called Ateos. They will be competing with CISCO in the marketplace. I am sure that if they believe that they have been done in, because the Commissioner has been unfair, the matter will be raised and will be looked into.

Sir, I would like to clarify with the Minister. He said that the Government will be responsible. From what I read from clause 105, it says that the Government shall not be liable for any act done or omitted to be done by any auxiliary police officer who is not employed by the Government.

Sir, the key words are "not employed by the Government". If they are employed by the commercial companies themselves, then certainly it

must be the companies that will be liable for them. But if they are employed by the Government, then they will not be covered by the provision.

Is the Minister saying that as long as the Government has mobilised them, it is considered that they are being employed by the Government? For instance, CISCO officers employed by CISCO are employed by CISCO as a company. So the moment the Government mobilises them, it is considered that they are employed by the Government. Am I right to say that?

Yes. I think there are also terms of contract which will be a matter for the courts to decide as to where the liability actually lies.

Sir, the Minister has not said whether or not he is willing to amend clause 4(2) to add another clause to say that the police shall always be neutral.

Mr Chiam, are you proposing an amendment? If you are proposing an amendment, you must give prior notice.

I am asking the Minister whether he is willing. If he is willing, then we go on to the second step. He has not mentioned it.

He also alleged that I have made a serious allegation. But I go down on record to say that I have made this not without substance. I have personally experienced the treatment of the police. So, I am not plucking something out of the air to make an irresponsible allegation. I have been in politics for many years and this happened during my tenure in politics. I am surprised that he says the police accompany grassroots leaders in their house-to-house visits. This is just like bringing an Alsatian dog to visit the house.

Mr Chiam, I do not think it is right to say that.

The residents will be intimidated. The policemen are armed with revolvers. It is not friendly house visits. They are fully armed. They have revolvers. I have seen it with my own eyes. That is not police work that they are doing.

Sir, the fact that Mr Chiam says something of substance does not make it substantiated. If he has any reason to believe that he has been unfairly treated, he can write to me and I shall have it fully investigated. He should not say that he has substance to make an allegation and therefore it is substantiated.

The police officers go on rounds. They do house visits. They accompany grassroots leaders from time to time to do that. They also do house visits on their own as part of community policing. I do not see residents as being scared of the police as if they are like Alsatian dogs. Not at all. I think our public know that our policemen are friendly policemen. In fact, sometimes I get feedback that our policemen are becoming too friendly that people are not afraid of them any more. So his suggestion that our police officers go on rounds with grassroots leaders is like bringing along Alsatian dogs is totally absurd.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

4.50 pm

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

Sir, this Bill seeks to provide for expenditure on investments of moneys in the Development Fund to be paid directly from the Development Fund.

Expenses on investment are currently apportioned to the Consolidated Fund, the Government Securities Fund and the Developmental Investment Fund. However, in the case of the Development Fund, these expenses are not apportioned to the Development Fund but to the Consolidated Fund.

The Development Fund Act is therefore being amended to allow the expenses on investment to be appropriated from the Development Fund just like the other Funds. This is in line with our move to assign costs correctly so that the financial statements of Government agencies will more accurately reflect their financial performance.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lim Hng Kiang].

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

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

This Bill amends the Legal Profession Act to promote Singapore as an arbitration venue and to allow lawyers to practise on a freelance basis, similar to a locum practice which is well known in the medical profession.

Foreign Counsel in Arbitration

Sir, in 1992, we amended the Legal Profession Act to allow foreign counsel to argue arbitration cases involving Singapore law. When we did that, we also provided at that time that they should appear jointly with a Singapore lawyer.

Arbitration has since then grown into a major form of dispute settlement, and is increasingly becoming an attractive alternative mechanism to resolve large commercial disputes.

We have made good progress in promoting Singapore as an arbitration centre. We are already a major arbitration centre, but our aim is to make Singapore the location of choice for arbitration in the Asia-Pacific region.

To further promote this objective, we have reviewed the requirement for foreign counsel to appear jointly with a Singapore lawyer. There is no similar restriction in the laws of the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Australia. It is a requirement which has put us at a disadvantage with jurisdictions that do not have it, and it may be a factor against the use of Singapore as an arbitration venue. Foreign parties are more likely to recommend or choose a place with less restrictions. To be competitive in this field, we need to remove this requirement, and allow foreign counsel the choice of appearing without local counsel.

Let me stress that this amendment does not mean that local lawyers will be excluded altogether. Foreign counsel may still choose to appear with a Singapore lawyer, for example, where there are complex issues of Singapore law. If they choose to appear on their own, it would be prudent for them to engage a Singapore lawyer for advice on Singapore law.

Legal Profession

Let me move on to another key amendment. Under our current system, Singapore lawyers who are admitted to practise in Singapore are required to apply for a practising certificate (PC) from the Supreme Court on an annual basis. The current PC regime requires practising lawyers to practise in a law firm or law corporation.

The Law Society has proposed a new class of conditional de-linked practising certificates for "locum lawyers". It is a common practice in the United Kingdom for solicitors to be employed as locums, who may have associations with more than one firm. Barristers in the UK work on their own account, and they are not restricted to taking work from a single firm of solicitors. Under the UK system, specialists may offer their skills to multiple firms. Such specialists are able to develop and strengthen their expertise through a broader range of work than may be available in a single firm. Law firms have more flexibility to build expertise in specialist areas, especially when the current volume of work may not justify a full set of specialist lawyers. The UK system also allows firms to fill casual vacancies with freelance solicitors, eg, arising from maternity leave or when the sole practitioners are on leave or if they are ill.

Such a scheme will promote specialisation, minimise the loss of talent and improve manpower allocation. It will

also allow the market to tap the large pool of solicitors who have left active practice for one reason or another, for example, to start a family. I believe it might also reduce the number of young lawyers leaving practice. It is envisaged that like doctors, the locums will also be useful for general practitioner's work, particularly in areas like conveyancing, family law, personal injury and debt recovery.

Sir, there will be safeguards in place. Locum lawyers will be covered by insurance taken out by the law firms or corporations engaging them. A locum lawyer will not be allowed to deal with client's moneys and must have at least three years' legal experience. He may be required to complete a professional development course prescribed by the Council of the Law Society if his experience is not within three years of the application for a PC. He must also be a permanent resident or citizen of Singapore, and must practise under the supervision of a lawyer in the Singapore law firm or law corporation that engages him.

In addition, holders of de-linked practice certificates will continue to be practitioner members of the Law Society, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Society and the Supreme Court in ethical and disciplinary matters.

In closing, Sir, let me say that we are confident that this new scheme will strengthen our legal industry, and I believe it will ultimately be for the benefit of those who require legal services.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Sir, I rise to support this Bill.

At this juncture, I must declare my interest. I am a newly retired lawyer and I am eligible for application for a locum solicitor practice.

I understand that it was only last year, at the opening of the Legal Year, that the Law Society mooted the idea of allowing locum practice in local law firms. In England, of course, locum solicitors have been in practice for more than 10 years. When the Law Society suggested to introduce locum practice in Singapore, its object was mainly to allow small and medium-sized law firms to tap the specialist knowledge of the more senior lawyers who have retired and who can still contribute to a project taken up

by the small and medium-sized legal firms which otherwise would not have been able to do so. And being small, these firms do not have the requisite expertise in that area of the law. However, it is noted that a lawyer can practise as a locum only if, within the last five years, he has an aggregate practice for not less than three years as a solicitor. I think the three-year period as a solicitor can hardly make one a specialist or expert in any area of the law. Such a lawyer is probably more suited to practise as a locum in a general practice. This section of the law seems not to be in line with the intention of the Law Society as regards tapping the expertise and legal knowledge of old retired lawyers.

The rules, which I understand that the Law Society has drafted, are comprehensive and they cover all aspects of locum solicitor practice, including prevention of conflicts of interest. The definition section allows a locum solicitor to work in more than one firm at the same time. Under such a situation, a conflict of interest can easily arise for that solicitor. Therefore, a set of strict rules for locum practice is necessary to prevent problems of conflict of interest and other problems.

There must be many retired lawyers who have expert knowledge of certain areas of the law but are too tired to work full-time. Their expert knowledge is still very marketable. The locum practice will allow them to take on temporary jobs which may suit them very well and also at the same time, meet the needs of small and medium-sized firms when there is a surge of work and they need lawyers with specialist knowledge.

With the availability of expert professional help from locums, small and medium-sized firms need not forgo business which may not be their regular line of work. I welcome the locum practice especially at this time when many lawyers choose not to go into practice. They said that legal practice is too stressful. This Bill will help to make up for the dwindling numbers of lawyers who want to go into legal practice. I hear that the Law Society has already drafted a set of rules to govern and control locum practice. The rules, I understand, cover the areas of clients' money, risk management, insurance and indemnity, confidentiality, privileged information, supervision and special licence in relation to locums.

I hope that when this Bill is finally enacted, the Law Society shall allow locum solicitors to take up half-yearly practising certificates and the membership fee shall only be a token fee, to encourage more young lawyers who are not in practice to take up locum practising certificates to give them a chance to keep in touch with the law.

Resolved,

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

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this proposed amendment to the Legal Profession Act (LPA) is timely and is an added benefit to the Singapore legal profession and to the Singapore public seeking legal advice. The introduction of locum solicitor into the Legal Profession Act widens the pool of available legal talent in Singapore. Many of the legally trained law graduates, who have been admitted as advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore and who are not in full-time legal practice currently for various reasons, can now practise, so to speak, on a part-time or on an ad hoc basis as a locum solicitor once this Bill becomes law. This amendment would, hopefully, encourage some lawyers who have retired and do not wish to practise on a full-time basis to come back to legal practice as locum solicitors. This would minimise the waste of legal talent, especially amongst bright lady lawyers who become housewives in order to take care of their young children.

A locum solicitor is an advocate and solicitor engaged in employ on a temporary or freelance basis by one or more law firms, law corporations or solicitors practising on their own account. He or she is an employee. In introducing locum solicitor, the legal profession must ensure, through the rules to be introduced under the Legal Profession Act and especially under section 25 of the LPA, (a) the protection of the public as far as clients' money is concerned and the need for insurance coverage for negligence by the locum solicitor. This presumably will be covered by the employer law firm; (b) the need for the locum solicitor to keep up with the law and keep pace with continuing legal education to give proper

legal opinion and legal advice to clients; (c) prevention of conflict of interest when a locum solicitor is allowed to be engaged by more than one law firm; and (d) disciplinary matters for professional offences under the LPA and the general law.

Sir, clause 4 relating to the new section 26(1A) seems rather stringent in that a person would not qualify to be a locum solicitor unless he or she is a Singapore citizen or permanent resident of Singapore and, in the period of five years immediately preceding the application, has been a solicitor in practice or a legal officer for a period of not less than three years, or has completed such training within such time as prescribed by the Council of the Law Society of Singapore. May I suggest, Sir, that it would be fairer if the period of five years is deleted or the duration be extended from five to, say, 10 years so that more lawyers can practise law on a locum or part-time basis.

Whilst we are encouraging locum solicitors, may I also take this opportunity to ask that, in order to give greater opportunities and to increase the legal pool of practitioners, we consider amending the relevant sections of the Legal Profession Act and the Legal Profession (Qualified Persons) Rules. Many of our law graduates from recognised foreign universities with Second Class (Lower) and Third Class Honours, and with Third Class Honours from the Law Faculty of the National University of Singapore cannot be admitted to the bar. This has deprived these young Singapore citizens of the chance to practise law in Singapore as private practitioners. Their dignity, pride and self-esteem must have been affected adversely for having done not so well either abroad or locally in NUS. Their parents, spouses and siblings must have been saddened by this deprivation. Please re-look at these restrictions, Sir. Give

these graduates a chance to practise law. After all, there are many law graduates who fall into these categories but who were older law graduates and were not caught by these rules which were introduced in the 1990s, and who are successful practitioners and had even been appointed judges. A good degree holder may not turn out to be a good legal practitioner, and a bad degree holder may turn out to be a good legal practitioner.

Section 35 of the LPA is being widened to allow foreign lawyers to do any arbitration work in Singapore without doing so jointly with a Singapore advocate and solicitor. We in Singapore are opening up the legal profession to foreign lawyers to do arbitration work in Singapore, except having any right of audience in any Singapore court. This is in line with the requirement of the World Trade Organisation and the General Agreement on Trade and Services for the various professions to open their doors for non-Singaporeans to compete.

In line with this, Sir, our Government should do its level best to ensure that there is a level playing field amongst other World Trade Organisation member nations. It would be encouraging if foreign countries like Malaysia and other ASEAN countries, who are WTO members, England and the United States of America, Australia and Canada could do likewise and open their doors for our Singapore lawyers to practise in their countries. I believe that some of these countries do allow but there may be stumbling blocks by way of immigration and work permit or employment pass restrictions. Our Government should play an active role in minimising these obstacles so that more of our younger lawyers can practise in different jurisdictions and become better and more versatile lawyers.

Overall, Sir, the proposed amendments are to be welcomed and I support the same.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Chiam and Mr Chandra Mohan for their comments and support of the Bill. If I may turn to some of the specific points raised by them. First of all, I am sure I speak for all Members in wishing Mr Chiam many happy years of lucrative locum practice!

First, he commented on the three out of five years' requirement. And, here, there seems to be a difference of views between Mr Chandra Mohan and himself. Mr Chiam felt that the three out of five years' restriction seems not to be in tandem with one of the Law Society's objectives of locums being possibly a means of tapping specialists. In three out of five years, one may not be able to say he is a specialist. On the other hand, Mr Chandra Mohan thought that was a bit too rigorous. So, there you are, you can have many different approaches.

But I believe the answer to Mr Chiam's question is that this locum practitioner is not being proposed only for one objective. There are several objectives. Of course, it could lead to a specialist who is a locum and whose knowledge can be tapped. But it also serves several other objectives, like people who have to leave the profession on a temporary basis but yet their services are not entirely lost to the profession. While we are on this point, in answer to Mr Chandra Mohan, let me say that three out of five years is a balance because it is intended to signify that the person has not been completely out of touch with practising or with the law. I think if it is three out of 10 years, one could say that it is a risk that he has been completely out of touch with the law. So we can have a debate on that, but I think three out of five years is not an unreasonable requirement.

Both Mr Chiam and Mr Chandra Mohan talked about the need to ensure that there is avoidance of conflict of interest. Mr Chandra Mohan also said that we must ensure that public interests must be safeguarded. I completely agree, including areas of handling of clients' money, continuing legal education, and so on. I referred to these points in my speech and I believe the Law Society is mindful of these considerations and they will be taken care of in the rules. And I would add that the Ministry of Law will pass on the suggestions to the Law Society. So as we monitor this new system and see how it operates in practice, I am sure that they will have to make modifications and adjustments to the rules as we go along.

Mr Chiam also mentioned some suggestions as to the length of the tenure of the practising certificate, whether it can be half a year, reduced fees, and so on. Let me say that my purpose here in coming to Parliament is to make an amendment which will enable the introduction of the locum practice. The details of the administering of the scheme, I must, of course, leave it to the Law Society, and trust that they will have sufficient oversight of the actual operation of the new system

and ensure that, while it meets the objectives, at the same time, public interest is protected and the requirements are not so burdensome that it puts off the very people that we want to bring back into association with legal practice.

Mr Chandra Mohan raised two other points. The first point is not very germane to this Bill. But he asked whether I can have a look again at the requirement for graduates who want to practise law to possess a Second Class (Upper) Honours degree or a Second Class (Lower) Honours degree depending on whether he graduated abroad or from here. I believe Members will recall that I have mentioned in Parliament several

times on the reasons why we introduced this requirement sometime ago, as a result of the Committee on the Legal Profession, chaired by the Attorney-General. It was a two-fold objective to relate to the number of graduates as well as to maintain certain standards. In other words, when a student intends to embark on law studies, he knows at the very outset that, if he intends to practise law, then this is the standard that he ought to obtain when he graduates, ie, Second Upper or Second Lower, as the case may be. In the many years in which the system has been in operation, I believe it has worked well. Both students and parents have a clear indication, before they start the law studies, that this is the benchmark if they want to practise law. During these years when we revamped the system, we have also increased the number of overseas institutions which are recognised for this purpose.

The question he has posed is: because there may be a certain number who did not reach this benchmark it is unfair to them to be deprived of an opportunity to practise law. But if we were to easily change the system and to enable those who did not obtain the required benchmark or the standard to practise, then you will have a system made inoperable and the system will not be meaningful. He asked me to relook at it and my approach is we are always prepared to relook at any issue, or any institution, or any process that we have. But I do not want to raise false hopes because we have a system that is working and to allow those who do not have it to nevertheless practise, it means that the system will be rendered quite meaningless.

He has asked about the amendment concerning arbitration. If his point is that the Government, when it makes any provision for foreign lawyer, as a general principle, should seek reciprocity, it is

very difficult to disagree with him, and we always try to ensure that our firms and our lawyers get maximum access elsewhere. This particular amendment that I am proposing for arbitration to do away with the restriction, in fact, we have imposed restrictions that many other countries do not have it. So we are in fact bringing ourselves in line with many of the other leading jurisdictions.

May I seek a clarification from the Minister?

Yes.

Sir, I wonder whether by allowing the locums to work for several law firms at the same time could be a conflict of interest. For instance, law firm A might act for the plaintiff of the case and law firm B may act for the defendant of the same case. And these locums who are working for these two firms will come across information or files which are related to the case. So will a situation where a locum has information on both sides compromise on professional practice?

I do not want to appear to prejudge the details of whatever rules are going to be drawn up by the Law Society. I must leave it to the Law Society. They already have rules in the legal profession applicable to practitioners, generally speaking, on conflict of interest. All those rules will apply to locum practitioners. But there may be situations peculiar to locum practitioners where the Law Society will have to devise additional rules. The example that he gave where, in one case, one firm is representing the plaintiff and another firm representing the defendant and the locum - because I have said that a locum can be a locum for more than one firm - I should think, subject to being corrected later, if he is working for the

two law firms in the same subject matter, then obviously a question of potential conflict or real conflict of interest will arise. I am sure the Law Society's rules will take care of that. But it does not mean that a locum cannot work in the two firms on other matters. So I believe that the Law Society will have the good sense and judgement to take care of these issues.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

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

If I may give an overview, Sir, of this Bill and three other Bills in this House today which relate to the protection of intellectual property (IP) rights which my colleague, Senior Minister of State Ho Peng Kee, and I will take through. Let me first make some general observations on these four Bills, before I go into the specific provisions of the Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill.

These four Bills are to support Singapore's ongoing transition into a knowledge-intensive and IP-rich economy. In recent years, there has been a tremendous growth of IP-rich activities in Singapore: Private and public sector R&D activities continue to bear fruit; the biomedical industry is making

commendable strides; our companies are investing in branding and going international; and the Government has committed further funds to grow our media industry. As Singapore moves forward towards an IP-rich economy, our IP legislation must likewise move in tandem.

At the same time, the global IP landscape is changing. The standards set by the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS agreement, have become a minimum standard which businesses and investors expect. We reached the TRIPS standard in 1999. Five years on, it is timely to update our IP legislative framework, to ensure that we meet the needs of the new industries we are grooming, as well as remain competitive in this fast changing IP landscape.

Several amendments in the Bills are also connected with our obligations under the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (USSFTA). When we started FTA talks with the United States in late 2000, we decided to carry out an extensive review of our IP legislation in conjunction with those talks. It gave us an opportunity to study the key features of the US IP framework, and to examine which are the ones relevant to us.

But while we aspire to higher standards, we also need to be mindful that Singapore companies are at different stages of development. The concerns of our companies will be different, depending on whether they are or are not predominantly owners, or users, of IP. We have given special consideration to this. Therefore, let me assure the House that as we provide greater incentives for innovation by strengthening the rights of IP creators and holders, we will also consciously provide safeguards to balance the needs of IP users.

Let me also stress that the proposed amendments were finalised after extensive discussions with numerous industry constituents, IP professional groups, and relevant Government Ministries. These discussions lasted almost two years. In addition, the IP Office of Singapore (IPOS) made available the draft Bills on its website for consultation and conducted a public engagement seminar for interested parties. All these have generated useful feedback, which we have incorporated some of the suggestions.

Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill: overview

I now turn to the specific provisions of the Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill. This Bill will improve and provide more clarity on certain aspects of trade mark law, to enable the Registry of Trade Marks to be more efficient. The Bill also implements certain commitments of Singapore under the USSFTA.

In 1998, we took a significant step to amend our Trade Mark regime, to modernise it in accordance with international standards. Trade marks and branding now are recognised as key components in a company's business strategy. The present amendments will further keep pace with international developments, and ensure that trade mark owners will continue to enjoy a high standard of protection here.

Key features of the amendments

The key amendments in the Bill are to improve the trade mark regime to (a) the definition of trade marks; (b) well-known marks; (c) trade mark licensees; (d) civil remedies; and (e) border enforcement measures. If I may take these in turn.

5.25 pm

Expansion of trade mark definition

Today, Singapore trade marks are commonly associated with signs that we all can see. But there are also marks that cannot be seen, but can be just as important in marketing and distinguishing products, for example, the Intel chime and the MGM lion roar. Several countries, such as the US, UK and Sweden, already recognise non-visual marks. Singapore too must keep up with these new techniques in marketing and branding. Hence, clause 2(e) will remove the requirement that a trade mark be visually perceptible. Of course, non-visual marks must still satisfy the same registration criteria as more traditional trade marks.

Expansion of rights for well-known marks

Madam, the Bill will give better protection for well-known marks. These are marks which are famous and known to many people. Their owners would have invested substantial amounts of time and money, to generate the high levels of recognition and goodwill

associated with these marks. Well-known marks are already recognised in our laws. For example, an owner of a well-known mark can stop another party from registering or using an identical or similar mark, if the use is likely to cause confusion with a well-known mark.

Madam, unfortunately, there can be situations where the reputation and value of the well-known mark is diluted by blurring or tarnishment, even though there may not be consumer confusion, for example, if someone uses a well-known mark on inferior quality goods or on goods, say, of an obscene nature. Therefore, clauses 5, 9 and 26 amend sections 8, 23 and 55 so that the owner of a well-known mark can stop a party

from registering or using an identical or similar mark which dilutes or takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character of the well-known mark. In addition, clause 26 allows the well-known mark owner to stop a third party from using a business identifier, such as a company name, that is identical or similar to the mark in certain circumstances.

With these amendments, we will also give effect to the Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well Known Marks (1999), which is an international standard adopted by the Assembly of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property, and the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organisation, on the level of protection for well-known marks.

Improved protection for trade mark licensees

I turn now to the improved protection for trade mark licensees. The Bill will give trade mark licensees more flexibility to enforce their rights. This can save time and costs, especially where the trade mark owners are overseas. Clause 17 amends section 39 so that a licensee no longer needs to register his licence with IPOS before suing an infringer for damages or an account of profits. Clause 20 of the Bill amends section 45 so that an exclusive licensee no longer has to involve the trade mark owner before proceeding with legal action to enforce his rights. Of course, Sir, the courts will still have the discretion to involve the owner if appropriate.

Improved remedies in civil actions

Turning to improved remedies in civil actions, the Bill refines the remedies available to trade mark owners when instituting civil actions. Currently, in an infringement suit, a trade mark owner can either obtain damages or he can obtain an account of profits from the infringing

party. Clause 14 will amend section 31 so that, where the court awards damages, the court is also empowered to make an order for an account of any profits attributable to the infringement that have not been taken into account in computing damages.

We have also proposed, for infringement cases that involve the use of a counterfeit trade mark, a new remedy of statutory damages that will complement the current process of assessing damages. This is because, in certain cases, it may be difficult to prove actual losses or obtain an account of profits. For example, some infringers may not keep clear records of their sales. Hence, a new section 31(5) provides that the trade mark owner can seek statutory damages. In such a situation, the court will assess the quantum of statutory damages on compensatory principles, taking into account the guidelines in section 31(6).

Border enforcement measures

The Bill also deals with border enforcement measures. Madam, it is not enough just to put in place good legislation. There must also be a suitable enforcement environment. We will be making several amendments to enhance our border enforcement measures. For example, clause 30 amends section 82 to make it easier for the owner of a registered trade mark to rely on the enforcement mechanism under section 82. The new section 93A will confer additional powers on enforcement officers. Customs officers will be empowered to take immediate action if they detect any counterfeit goods in the course of their duties. These powers will be exercised judiciously by our enforcement authorities and they will continue to work in close partnership with the rights holders.

Revised "Fair Dealing" provisions

As we strengthen the trade marks regime to provide greater protection for

trade mark owners, we must also maintain the balance between trade mark owners and users. We have taken the opportunity, therefore, to review and clarify that certain uses of a registered trade mark will not amount to infringement. As stated in clause 12, fair use in comparative commercial advertising or promotion, use for a non-commercial purpose, or use for news reporting or news commentary will not constitute an infringement of a trade mark.

Streamlining administrative procedures

Let me add, Madam, that we are also taking steps to refine some administrative procedures to improve the overall operational efficiency of the Trade Marks Registry. Some measures are geared towards harmonising administrative procedures to be in line with international standards, such as the Trademark Law Treaty. In addition, the Registrar of Trade Marks is authorised to prescribe forms and issue practice directions on certain administrative matters.

To sum up, Madam, while many of the amendments are technical in nature, this Bill will further strengthen Singapore's intellectual property regime in the area of trade marks.

Madam, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this Bill. As the Minister has explained, this Bill, together with the next three Bills, is intended partly to implement the obligations undertaken by Singapore in the USSFTA. The US has always been crying out for more intellectual property protection and enforcement in Southeast Asia, which is perceived to be a region rife with pirates not just of the maritime kind but also of the digital kind. So, it is

no surprise today to see that several Bills are introduced to shore up the laws protecting intellectual property rights. It brings us closer to the international conventions on intellectual property as well as the US on intellectual property.

Since the Minister has discussed the general concept of intellectual protection in Singapore, I would just like to direct a question to him. Will the new laws be readily understood not just by MNCs and foreign investors but rather by our local companies and individuals? Will they work for our local companies and individuals' interests rather than MNCs' interests? Do our own consumers know why we are implementing such strict laws on intellectual property protection while Singaporeans can actually obtain pirated software at a fraction of the cost from shops just across the shores of Singapore? The need for respecting intellectual property rights is not so instinctively felt as, say, the right of an individual to be protected from physical harm or theft. What can be done to increase the awareness of Singaporeans to respect intellectual property rights even when it hurts their pockets?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, these Bills are very technical in nature, so I shall restrict myself to a very simple point on the Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill. I would like to ask the Minister whether the concept of well-known marks is really relevant to Singapore or will it result in giving more protection to foreign marks, making it more difficult for our own businessmen, as it were, to build new products based on well-known marks. Are these amendments more relevant to the big MNCs I have referred to just now rather than our smaller local businesses?

On that note, I support the Bill.

I thank Prof. Chin for his support of the Bill.

He has raised two main points. One is a general point, applicable to all these Bills, whether the average consumer or small company would be familiar with the rationale for these Bills and what more could be done to make them understand the concept as well as the need for such laws. I take the Member's point. This is something that both my Ministry and IPOS are mindful of. But as I have said in my main speech, we have taken care over a period of two years or so to have a fairly comprehensive consultation process with the industry, and it was not just with the big players, we also had discussions with the relevant people in the market. But the education process has to go on. It is a task which both the industry as well as IPOS and other authorities have to be engaged in continuously. People need to understand why a breach of intellectual property has to be treated in the same way as theft of physical property. It may not be immediately grasped by all, but the consequences are similar.

Apart from individual victims, the broader consequence is that we will not be able to compete with countries in attracting the kind of new businesses and investments we need if we do not have the kind of intellectual property legislative framework which is essential to attract the investors. And investors, especially those involved in the knowledge industry, will not go readily to a place which does not have the necessary legal norms and legislative framework as well as the necessary enforcement mechanisms. But let me assure him that we are mindful of this and that we will continue to be involved in this process of consultation and dissemination, particularly as I have indicated that there are other Bills and, as I will mention later in moving another Bill, that these Bills are not the sum total of all the amendments that we are going to make. Later on, in the course of the year, we may have other amendments.

The second point that he has asked is whether the changes that we are introducing would really be for the benefit of the bigger companies. I do not think so, and my response to that is that all companies, whether big or small, should pay attention to how they brand themselves, and trade marks are an essential component of any branding strategy. The amendments in this Bill, in my view, should benefit all companies, whether they are SMEs or big MNCs. Protection of well-known marks is an existing concept in Singapore and, with these amendments, what is it really we are trying to do? I believe what we are trying to do is to give enhanced protection for well-known marks. And it is not just enhancing the protection to marks from a foreign company. Enhanced protection is given to a mark that is a well-known mark in Singapore. So a Singapore mark that meets the relevant criteria will qualify as a well-known mark and benefit from enhanced protection. And let me say in this connection that there are Singapore companies which are putting in substantial investments to develop their brands. Well-known examples, of course, are Singapore Airlines, Tiger Beer and Tiger Balm, which are household names in Singapore and many other countries. But if we want to do more, to encourage more companies to invest and create new products, then I think it is timely to have a regime that will give greater recognition to these brands and to future brands.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. Jayakumar].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Overview of the Bill

Madam, this Bill amends the Patents Act to strengthen our patent regime. The changes will encourage innovation and research activities in Singapore. In particular, they will support the growth of the pharmaceutical and biomedical industries. As the Minister has said earlier, many of the amendments are a result of consultations with patent professionals stretching over two years. Several of the amendments are also an outcome of the USSFTA.

Key features of the amendments

Let me highlight the key amendments in the Bill.

Patent term extension

Clause 9 provides for an extension of the patent term to compensate for delays. These delays may occur either in the process of obtaining a patent grant or, in the case of a pharmaceutical product, in the process of obtaining marketing approval. Getting a patent grant can be a lengthy process. Patent offices have to conduct rigorous examinations on the invention, to determine if it is patentable. A delay in the grant of a patent can affect a company's ability to enforce its rights in any event of infringement. Applicants should not be prejudiced for delays arising from the patent office's processes. For this reason, should there by an undue delay on the part of the patent offices, we will compensate the patent owner by extending the term of protection correspondingly.

Section 36A(1)(c) further recognises that a patent term for a pharmaceutical product can be curtailed if there were unreasonable delays in the granting of marketing approval by the relevant authority. While the pharmaceutical product may have been granted a patent, the owner can only market the product in Singapore after the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has granted approval for the sale of the product in Singapore.

Madam, the drug discovery process is a high-risk and costly venture for pharmaceutical companies. I am told that in the United States, it takes US$400 million to bring a drug to market. Pharmaceutical companies depend very heavily on patent protection to recoup the investment and R&D costs involved in developing new drugs. Unreasonable curtailment of the protection period will have significant impact on the company's business viability, as it will have a shorter period of market exclusivity.

Just as we should not prejudice an applicant for undue delays in the granting of a patent, we should likewise not prejudice applicants if there were unreasonable delays in the marketing approval process caused by HSA. We want to assure the pharmaceutical industry that the patent period available to them in Singapore would not be unfairly shortened. Already, countries such as Australia, Japan and the United States provide for patent term extensions arising from delays in marketing approvals.

Let me say that these amendments do not imply that IPOS or HSA have been tardy in their processes. Rather, countries with advanced patent systems have chosen to set out the expected standards in the laws. We too want to reflect the standards in our law, and thereby reassure patent owners that in

the event of an unreasonable delay, they will not be disadvantaged in Singapore.