Hansard, 2004-11-16

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 (2005) To (2004) Dr Ong Chit Chung 25 Oct 26 Oct 17 Nov 18 Nov 10 Dec 10 Dec 13 Dec 13 Dec Mr Mah Bow Tan 26 Oct 27 Oct 09 Dec 23 Dec Dr Lily Neo 27 Oct 30 Oct Mr Gan Kim Yong 28 Oct 29 Oct 03 Nov 04 Nov Mr Inderjit Singh 01 Nov 07 Nov Mr Lim Hng Kiang 01 Nov 04 Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 15 Nov 25 Nov 27 Nov 01 Dec Miss Penny Low 02 Nov 05 Nov Mr Loh Meng See 04 Nov 06 Nov Ms Indranee Rajah 05 Nov 05 Nov Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng 05 Nov 06 Nov Mr Ang Mong Seng 07 Nov 12 Nov Mr David T E Lim 07 Nov 14 Nov 24 Nov 27 Nov Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 07 Nov 11 Nov Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 08 Nov 10 Nov 11 Nov 25 Nov 26 Nov 01 Dec 02 Dec 03 Dec Column: 993Mdm Halimah Yacob 08 Nov 13 Nov 01 Dec 04 Dec Mr Lee Hsien Loong 08 Nov 09 Nov 11 Nov 12 Nov 16 Nov 24 Nov 28 Nov 01 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 09 Dec 10 Dec Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed 08 Nov 20 Nov Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 09 Nov 13 Nov Mr Wee Siew Kim 09 Nov 12 Nov Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 09 Nov 11 Nov Mr Lim Boon Heng 10 Nov 15 Nov Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan 11 Nov 15 Nov 10 Dec 21 Dec Mr Charles Chong 11 Nov 15 Nov Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 11 Nov 12 Nov RAdm Teo Chee Hean 11 Nov 12 Nov 13 Dec 21 Dec Mr Chew Heng Ching 12 Nov 12 Nov 27 Nov 01 Dec Dr Lee Boon Yang 12 Nov 16 Nov Mr S Iswaran 12 Nov 12 Nov 17 Nov 18 Nov 21 Nov 03 Dec 27 Dec 03 Jan Dr Jennifer Lee 14 Nov 18 Nov 04 Dec 21 Dec Mr Goh Chok Tong 15 Nov 20 Nov Mrs Fang Ai Lian 16 Nov 19 Nov Mr Heng Chee How 16 Nov 20 Nov Mr K Shanmugam 16 Nov 19 Nov 22 Nov 23 Nov Mr Ng Ser Miang 16 Nov 20 Nov Mr Chay Wai Chuen 17 Nov 17 Nov Dr Ong Seh Hong 19 Nov 21 Nov Mr Sin Boon Ann 19 Nov 25 Nov Mr Wong Kan Seng 19 Nov 24 Nov Dr Balaji Sadasivan 21 Nov 24 Nov Mr Ong Kian Min 22 Nov 24 Nov Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani 25 Nov 29 Nov Column: 994Mdm Cynthia Phua 25 Nov 30 Nov Mr Khaw Boon Wan 25 Nov 27 Nov Dr Warren Lee 26 Nov 04 Dec 16 Dec 21 Dec Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 28 Nov 04 Dec 16 Dec 17 Dec Mr Lee Kuan Yew 30 Nov 03 Dec Mr Lim Swee Say 13 Dec 23 Dec

Mdm Halimah Yacob

Mdm Cynthia Phua

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

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

28th October,2004 (1) Singapore Armed Forces (Amendment No. 2) Bill 4th November,2004 (1) Building Maintenance And Strata Management Bill (2) Registered Designs (Amendment) Bill (3) Trustees (Amendment) Bill (4) Competition Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order. On behalf of hon. Members, I welcome the delegation from the United Kingdom Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association,led by the Hon. Mr Harry Barnes, Member of Parliament, who are present in our Gallery today. [Applause.]

1. Mr Gan Kim Yong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what impact will the high oil prices have on the costs of utilities and public transport in Singapore; and (b) whether these costs will be passed on to the consumers, and if so, to what extent.

Mr Speaker,fuel costs constitute about 10% of public transport operating costs. As such, an increase in oil prices will raise the operating costs of the public transport operators.

As to whether this will translate into fare increases, it will only be known at the next fare review exercise which is scheduled forMay 2005. As of now, the Public Transport Council (PTC) has not yet received any formal indication or application from the public transport operators seeking a fare increase next year. If an application is received, PTC will

take into account the conditions facingthe operators and commuters before making a decision.

Fuel cost makes up about 50% of the cost of electricity. Our fuel sources for power generation are oil and gas, and gas prices in Singapore are indexed to oil prices. An increase in oil prices will thus lead to higher electricity costs. The electricity tariff is reviewed quarterly and reset if necessary, to allow a full pass through of changes in the costs of electricity, including increases in oil prices.

To mitigate the increase in electricity bills, we would like to urge consumers to adopt good energy conservation practices, such as using energy-efficient electrical appliances like fluorescent tubes, choosing the correct capacity of air-conditioner for their needs, and so on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, in view of the unemployment rate still on the high side and also there are quite a number of residents who are unable to pay their utilities bills, whether he would consider deferring some of the increases in the utilities fees in time to come when they are due for review.

Mr Speaker, electricity costs are not subsidised in Singapore. We do not subsidise these costs because we do not want to distort the price signals which the subsidised price would have on our economy.

With respect to lower income families who require assistance, we have specific assistance schemes run by the Community Development Councils (CDCs) and by the local community organisations to help these families. Members may be aware of the Rental and Utilities Assistance Scheme for those who are living in rental flats who experience cash

flow problems from time to time. Similarly, for those who live in purchased flats, there is the Interim Financial Assistance Scheme to help them with specific needs which may arise from time to time.Even in the case of public transport, Members may be aware that the public transport operators, together with NTUC Club, SLF and the CDCs, have set aside a sum of $6 million in a public transport fund and this fund is used to help low income families pay for public transport expenses of their school-going children.

In summary, the point is that we do not subsidise these prices but we will customise specific assistance programmes for those segments of our society who need help.

Sir, can the Minister please explain what he means by "gas price is indexed to the oil price", especially when they are from different sources?

Thank you for that question. 97% of our gas comes from Indonesia and 3% from Malaysia. In the market for gas, we entered into long-term contracts which are indexed to oil prices because, in the case of production of electricity, these two fuels are, in a sense, interchangeable. When oil prices go up, because of the nature of the contracts which we have entered into, our gas prices will also go up. Similarly, if oil prices come down, so will our gas prices. This means that, as far as we are concerned, at this point in time, our cost of producing electricity is indexed to the cost of oil although 60% of our electricity production is produced using gas.

Sir, I am glad to hear the Minister saying that there are CDC-run schemes to provide support for our needy families. Can I ask

the Minister to request the Government to provide for more money so that the CDCs can do more in supporting all these families?

Thank you for the request. At this point in time, the CDCs are not short of funds to support assistance schemes for specific sectors of our society. Butonthe question of whether or not prices should be subsidised overall, the answer is no. Specific assistance schemes are present and funding is not the limiting factor at this point in time.

Further clarification and requestfor the Minister, Mr Speaker. I understand that some of the power supply companies do provide instalment plans for residents who are in arrears. That has been very helpful. I would like to ask the Minister whether he could consider reducing the upfront payment that Singapore Power is charging the residents. As I understand it, Singapore Power usually asks for 50% upfront paymentin order for them to qualify for an instalment plan. Can I ask the Minister whether this amount could be reduced to make it easier forthe residents to pay by instalments?

Mr Speaker, I do not want to get involved in the specific details of what is a commercial arrangement between the power retailers and the specific customers concerned. But the point is, so long as the customer is paying and has a realistic plan to pay off and settle his arrears, usually the commercial operator will not take drastic steps. I think Members of this House will agree that the minimum is that they have to at least settle their on-going charges which they are incurring every month because if they do not even settle that, it means that their arrears are going to escalate and they end up in a deep, deep hole which they cannot recover from.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether, in light of what he has said about not getting involved in the nitty-gritties, he would consider the intervention of the CDCs so that we will have a more robust arrangement in helping these low-income families when they come for assistance with regard to their financial help in this area. This is in relation to Mr Gan Kim Yong's question about some assistance to lower the requirement for the payment before assistance is given.

It is really a repetition of the same question. I think our retailers exercise a considerable amount of forbearance and the key point they want to see is that there is a serious and concerted effort to settle the arrears and not to just allow things to escalate out of hand. If we do that, we are really not doing anyone any favours and, in fact, Members will know that a few years ago, when there were problems with the billing system which resulted in delayed billing of power bills, it actually caused a situation in which households were stuck with huge amounts of arrears whichtook time to clear, both on the part of the households as well as the retailers. So the general principle which I want to emphasise is that power is not subsidised in Singapore.

Secondly, please conserve energy to the maximum extent that you can and, thirdly, make serious efforts to settle your bills, and if you really have difficulties,please seek help from the local community organisations. We do not want to confuse the role of the retailer with the community assistance organisation or with that of the Government either.

2. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Manpower (a) if he will give an assessment of the labour market situation; and (b) whether the lower

unemployment rate of 3.4% for the third quarter is an indication that the job market has improved or is this an aberration as has been suggested by some economists.

3. Dr Wang Kai Yuen asked the Minister for Manpower what are the reasons behind the sharp drop in the unemployment rate while structural unemployment remains a persistent problem.

4. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Manpower given the recent significant dip in overall unemployment rate (a) if he will give a comparison of the unemployment rate of (i) workers below 45 years of age and those above 45 years of age, as well as (ii) those who possess tertiary education to those who do not; and (b) if he will state the success rate of schemes that have been implemented by his Ministry to help the older and less educated workers to find jobs and what other schemes are being considered to help such workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together because they are related?

Yes, please proceed.

Mr Speaker, I have also asked the Clerk of Parliament to circulate one Table* to help me illustrate the employment changes.

Members have asked for the reasons for the unemployment rate drop in the third quarter of this year. The labour market typically lags economic performance and this partially explains the improved numbers in the third quarter of 2004. Let me elaborate. Members will easily recall how SARS, starting in April last year, affected all sectors drastically, especially the services sector which accounts for the majority of jobs in Singapore. If you look at the Table, you will note that in the first half of 2003, in

*Cols. 1149-1150

the midst of SARS, we lost some 30,000 jobs and if you take into account that each year's new labour entrants into our market is about 32,000, we basically lost in that six months a whole year's worth of jobs for new entrants. Yet the overall unemployment rate peaked not in June of last year but a quarter later in September 2003 at 5.5%, again illustrating that the labour market typically lags economic performance.

By September 2003 when the unemployment rate went up to 5.5%, Members would also note that economic recovery was already on its way and net jobs were being created. In fact, from July 2003 to September 2004, about 60,000 jobs were created. The last four quarters were particularly strong ranging from 11,000 jobs to the last quarter where we had the strongest employment creation - 16,600 jobs.

But even with strong job growth from September last year, unemployment figures did not improve as the labour market had to "soak up" many who had earlier given up looking for jobs, but now chose to re-enter the improved job market. This explains why, despite our good economic growth for the first two quarters of this year, our unemployment figures did not improve earlier than the third quarter this year. The number of workers retrenched by private sector establishments also eased to 1,700 in the third quarter, the lowest since 1997. Workers and job seekers have also responded well to new job market demands and have become more realistic and adaptable to take on new jobs. Another factor for the improving unemployment rate is that the combination of policy changes which we have instituted, including CPF cuts and wage restructuring, have helped businesses turn around.

These factors have led to an improved employment situation, for workers across all education and age groups. As a result, the overall seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell to 3.4% in September 2004, compared to 5.5% in the same period last year.

Members have asked for figures for those aged 45 and Dr Amy Khor has asked for some figures. Sir, let me give some statistics.

For residents aged 45 and above, the non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 3.2%. This is a substantial improvement from the 5.9% compared a year ago. However, once unemployed, older workers still have greater difficulties finding a job. Older job seekers were unemployed for 16 weeks on average, compared to 8 weeks for their younger counterparts.

For workers without tertiary education, these workers also experienced a higher resident unemployment rate of 3.7% compared with 3.2% for those with tertiary education. Again, there has been a marked improvement for both groups of workers compared to the same period last year. The duration of unemployment was 12 weeks for those without tertiary education, longer than the 8 weeks for the tertiary educated.

Sir, while we are comforted by the improved job situation, we should reiterate the point that the less skilled workers remain more vulnerable to structural unemployment even as our economy improves. MOM, therefore, agrees with Members of this House that we should give more assistance to the less skilled workers, especially the more mature workers. We must help them remain employable or re-enter the job market.

Members of the House have asked for specific figures on how our various

programmes have worked. Let me name a few. As you would recall, we have the People for Jobs Traineeship Programme (PJTP), which is a scheme specifically for workers above 40 years of age. Nearly 20,000 older workers have benefited from PJTP since it was launched in November 2001. In addition, for Place and Train programmes, 41% were for workers aged 40 and above.

The People for Jobs Traineeship Programme lapses at the end of this year. MOM is working with NTUC and the CDCs to re-focus our energies to help the less skilled workers adapt and remain employable. New programmes will be announced in due course.

Sustained economic growth should lead to further employment growth. However, we still need to be wary of a slowdown in the global economy due to higher oil prices. Even so, unemployment rate is likely to end the year at, or slightly, below 4%.

My Ministry would provide more details in the Third Quarter Labour Market Report to be released on 15th December 2004.

Sir, I have two questions to ask the Minister. If I could refer him to the Table that he had just circulated, I would like to ask him that in the fourth quarter of 2003, first quarter of 2004, as well as the second quarter of 2004, there had been positive employment changes in each of these quarters. But I see that the unemployment rate has remained the same - 4.5% for each of the quarter. Could the Minister explain to us why there is no change, whereas in the third quarter of 2004 there was a sharp drop from 4.5% to 3.4%?

My second question is to ask the Minister whether he would foresee that, with continued economic growth, there

would be a continuing improvement in the unemployment rate?

Sir, I have explained the changes that Mr Leong had asked for, but let me go back to the Table. The reason is that there is a lag between economic growth and job creation. Even when jobs were created, we have to soak up those who have left the labour market. To understand labour market statistics, you have to understand the denominator, which is the Labour Force Participation Rate. If one chooses not to be looking for work, then he would not be counted in the denominator. When the job market gets better, many people start looking for jobs, and that grows the denominator. So, even if you have more jobs, and you have more people employed, your unemployment rate may not shift and, therefore, you would notice it from the statistics that we have generated.

I have asked my staff to change from focusing on "unemployment" to "employment change", which is a more accurate start. We really want to see whether our economy could add jobs because the denominator shift is based on definition, but in terms of employment growth, the number of jobs in the economy is a discrete number which people could better analyse and see. And, if you look at our labour market statistics for employment change, it is quite encouraging. It tells us that our economic fundamentals and labour market policies had been correct, because in the last quarter, we have now about 2.17 million people who are employed, which is the highest number for the last three years. And the fact that even during SARS, many of our sectors were devastated, our economy bounced back very quickly. Again, it gives us good reasons to be confident of our economic fundamentals and the changes that we undertook during those difficult periods. And these, as Members would remember,

were the CPF cuts as well as the wage restructuring and other aspects.

Mr Leong also asked how we project further growth. Again, let me reiterate the point that the greatest factor for job creation is good economic growth, not rigidity and protective aspects in the job market. This had been a very striking lesson, even with the ups and downs of our economic performance over the last five years. But let us assume, and you have to assume some figure, that GDP is 3-5%, that would generate enough jobs for each year's new labour entrants. But there is an area of concern. Even if we have enough jobs, as many people have rightly pointed out, there would be some workers, especially those who are less skilled, mature worker who are displaced and who have a skills mismatch in terms of our new economic restructuring, the types of jobs that we are creating, that we now want to focus on in terms of our assistance and training programmes, to help them remain employable or to help them to return to the employment market if they are retrenched. This is a big challenge. I estimate this to be 1-2% of the resident workforce and we would need a combination of measures, as well as the help of all agencies, grassroots agencies and MPs explaining to these vulnerable workers the importance of skill upgrading to remain employable.

I would like to ask the Minister: of this 3.4% unemployment figure, how many percent comprise those who are structurally unemployed and, additionally, what are the programmes that could be put in place to assist them, other than the ones that the Minister had just described?

The second question that I would like to ask is: of the 16,000 jobs created, 57% are jobs created in the services sector and largely in the sectors like IT,

banking, financial services and so on, what kind of jobs would be available for workers who are lesser skilled, despite all the retraining that they have undergone? There is also a trend where there are now huge increases in jobs of cleaners, but I do not think that is the only job that we want to create for those who are not tertiary educated.

Mdm Halimah has asked what percentage of the 3.4% of the unemployed would consist of those we term as "structurally unemployed". Once you are structurally unemployed, you fall out of the labour market. So that is not a good proxy. A better proxy in the transit would be "long-term unemployed", which means that someone who has been looking for a job, is still looking for a job, and is unable to find another job for six months.

There are two interesting factors from our labour statistics. Last year, when we had an unemployment rate of 5.5%, the long-term unemployment rate jumped up to about 1.7%. Normally, it is 0.3%, a very small proportion of our resident workforce but this quarter it had dropped back to about 0.8%. So it is halved. So what the figures tell us is that when there is good economic growth and job creation, even though some of the jobs do require skills, our workers can respond and our labour market is able to absorb them. So I think we should continue in our efforts in terms of getting our fundamentals right, making sure that our labour market is flexible and that our businesses have the flexibility to respond, right-size or up-size, when business condition has improved. That is fundamental.

But, for this particular group of workers, yes, we would continue to have programmes. Mdm Halimah has asked for some specifics. We are currently working with NTUC, as well as the CDCs, to see how we could shape and refocus our programmes. Basically, it would be on

two main fronts. One is to increase the productivity and the premium that these jobs have. The problem is not that they are not available but, as she rightly pointed out, some of these jobs require less skills and with our open labour market policies and globalisation, there is a wage deflation for these jobs. In other words, the wages of a cleaner may have fallen, both in nominal and real terms and, therefore, sometimes our residents do not find them attractive and so we have to add premium to the jobs so that both the worker and company could justify the cost and product of the job.

In line with this, NTUC would also look at certain aspects of job redesign. They are taking the forefront of this and we are looking at a number of sectors that are possible. It is a large undertaking and we will take a sector at a time.

The third element that job counsellors have fed back to us is the mental attitudes of our workers. And this is where I think Members' help is needed to explain to our residents how the labour market has changed, to get them to adapt to the situation, to overcome their lack of confidence and the many barriers that prevent them from re-entering the labour market. We would roll out the programmes, redesign jobs and look at pay-scales. But, ultimately, at the end of it, it is up to the worker to have the right attitude to re-enter the labour market.

I would like to ask the Minister what is the retention rate for the People for Jobs Traineeship Programme. For job redesign, I recall an announcement was made some time ago that NTUC, together with MOM, was looking at various sectors for job redesign. How successful has this endeavour been, and what are the hurdles that had been put up against such job redesigns, because most of what we have heard seem to be only in the cleaning industry?

Sir, I mentioned that in the People for Jobs Traineeship Programme, about 20,000 residents benefited. The retention rate, if I were to recall from memory, was about 40% at the end of six months. We have looked at the scheme and that is why we allow it to lapse and to refocus it. It was of limited success - quite successful in getting people started. The People for Jobs Traineeship Programme was aimed mainly at the employers, and the lesson that this programme had taught us was that it really needs a multi-pronged effort aimed also at the employees for long term sustainability for them to stay on the job. There are a number of factors why mature and less skilled workers fall out. Sometimes, it is just a loss of confidence. They have to change sectors and they thought that they could not perform. Even though others want them to stay, they feel that they do not add value to the job and so they leave. Sometimes, they really find it is difficult. We have taken all the various reasons why the retentionship is not higher than we would like it to design new programmes. It is a learning curve.

The second aspect about job redesign, how successful this has been and how we should extend it beyond cleaners, I agree. There are a number of sectors that we are now looking at. We have to start from the point of view that it could not be artificially maintained or otherwise it would be unsustainable, either for the company or the economy. It just means higher taxes for subsidised jobs. And I think we should take things in perspective - 97-99% of workers earn a decent day's wages by giving good value to the job and we should not distort our labour market or our economic practices in trying to help this minority. So, the starting point is that the jobs could be redesigned, given higher productivity and better premium to justify the wages. This is a process. There is no magic bullet. It would not be a systemic quick sweep across our economy, but it would have to be taken

sector by sector, group by group, occupation by occupation.

But I am confident, given the positive results of our efforts so far, there is no reason why we cannot continue to have better results.

Let me also make one observation. No developed economy in the world has managed to solve fully its structurally unemployed, and that is a fact. But we will do our very best to mitigate the problem to reduce it to manageable numbers.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister how many of the new found jobs had actually gone to the PMETs - the professionals, managers, executives and technicians. Is there any specific programme or assistance that will be targeted at this group of people as well other than the low-skilled workers?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must apologise to Mdm Ho. I do not have the specific figures as this is a specific query. But let me use a proxy and take the tertiary educated as a rough indicator of jobs for what she called PMETs - professionals, managers, executives and technicians. As I said, the unemployment rate has fallen for all age groups and occupations compared to a year ago. In fact, for the tertiary educated, it fell from 4.7% in September 2003 to 3.2%, a drop of 1.5%, which means that when our economy recovers, it recovers across all sectors. It tells us, indeed, as we have been rated if not the most flexible labour market, that our fundamentals are right.

Will there be groups within the PMETs who are also what we term "vulnerable" to structural unemployment? It is a matter of definition, not so much that they cannot find jobs, they are well trained, but compared to their last jobs, where the grade of the job was higher, the responsibilities and the pay they were

getting, they may not be amenable to the new jobs. So I think we have to create more pathways -

Sir, may I ask the Minister, in view of the fact that 75% of Singaporeans do not have enough savings to maintain their lifestyles at retirement age of 62, is it not urgent to address their predicament? When will his Ministry raise the retirement age beyond the age of 62? Will he incentivise measures to make them more employable? What does he plan to do with regard to employers' mindsets on older workers?

Sir, if I may, let me congratulate the Member for introducing questions by the side door and every other direction that she can! I would appeal to her to file specific questions because these are weighty matters that I should not address offhand, and I will do my best if she does file a question.

I will just take one component of her many questions in terms of mature workers. The Member is absolutely right. Mature workers add considerable depth and give enhanced value, and many employers know that. Many companies that

have employed mature workers have found it to their benefit, and some have done it counter cyclically and, in fact, employed mature workers when the job market was difficult.

Let me also state one fundamental aspect. The best protection for a worker is a tight labour market. Members would have read in the newspapers that wages are going up and there is a scramble for workers. So, once we get our economic fundamentals correct, once we get our policies correct, then we could address small select groups. And to me, if you look at our data, that is what the recurring lesson is - that the best protection for anyone who wants to work is good economic performance and a tight labour market. It becomes an employees' market. But when the economy is down, then, of course, it is an employers' market.

Sir, the Minister provided a table with the numbers of employment changes. I would like to ask the Minister whether these new jobs are occupied 100% by resident Singapore workforce or the non-resident workforce is also involved. If non-resident workforce is involved, what is the percentage of the non-resident workforce?

Sir, I do not have the exact data with me. But let me give some rough numbers to indicate what the Member is asking for. The final measure would have to be employment change for the total workforce - whether it is local or foreign. For our local resident workforce, it has grown. In other words, the majority of these jobs did benefit the locals. The figures that I have stated in terms of the resident unemployment rate for September 2004 was 3.5%. So the resident unemployment rate has also fallen.

Let me make a point in terms of labour market flexibility. Over the last five years,

foreigners have lost more jobs than locals proportionately. And this tells us that our foreign worker policy has been, in a sense, correct. Because when employers need to retrench, foreign workers have taken the brunt of the retrenchments. If there was not that flexibility to do so, I would have expected that more locals would have lost jobs. And when the economy turns around and businesses need to ramp up and if our employers did not have access to foreign workers who are readily skilled, they would not have that responsiveness to turn their businesses around. If I may use a medical analogy, it is just like a treadmill. You do not really know how your heart is until you are stressed up and down. And the fact that our economy was stressed by difficult circumstances gives us confidence that our policies are well placed and that our fundamentals are correct.

One last question. Mr Leong.

Sir, the Minister said earlier that in contrast to the unemployment rate, a better figure to look at would be the growth in the total employment figure. Could his Ministry perhaps publish these figures? If he has the figures right now, could he let us know what is the growth in the total employment figure?

The Minister also mentioned that it is very difficult to solve structural unemployment. Could he also give us, in labour statistics terms, the frictional unemployment rate as well as the structural unemployment rate? And if you add the two rates together, it actually implies a medium and long-term unemployment rate for Singapore.

Sir, I do not propose to go into technicalities. Mr Leong has asked for certain numbers in terms of employment change. As I have said, our total employment numbers are the highest

in the last three years. So that tells us that the economy has created jobs.

Let me give Members a sense of this. Mr Leong has asked for these numbers to be published. I will tell him that, yes, we do publish them routinely but he has to look at the right column. In terms of employment change, in the year 2000, for the total workforce, we created about 100,000 jobs. In 2001, we did not create any jobs for the whole year - no net growth. In 2002, the economy lost 23,000 jobs. In 2003, last year, we lost 13,000 jobs. And as I have mentioned to Members, in the last five quarters, we created 60,000 jobs. So that is the right number to look at.

Mr Leong has also asked for the sectional unemployment rate plus structural unemployment rate. Let me just say that even as our economy grows, and assuming that we have 3-5% GDP growth per year, as we said, there will be a group that will have difficulty finding new jobs because of the skills mismatch. How large that number is, we estimate to be one, possibly two, percent of our resident workforce. And broken down to constituencies, that is about 200-300 residents in each constituency. It is not an unmanageable number. It is a number that, with concerted effort from various Government as well as non-Government agencies, we will be able to alleviate. So I think it is a manageable problem. If Members want more figures, I will be happy to provide them when they ask for specific queries.

The following Question stood in the name of Miss Penny Low -

5. To ask the Senior Minister (a) what is the expected impact of the recent

tightening of rules on malpractices in the financial industry with respect to churning, credit card/credit line auto-approvals and structured investment products on (i) the industry and (ii) the consumers; and (b) what is the recourse that the investing public can engage, should there be any suspicion of such malpractices.

Question No. 5, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Senior Minister. Ms Low refers to a number of Guidelines recently issued by MAS to improve business conduct standards in the financial advisory industry.

The Guidelines on Switching were released after MAS' inspections of the industry revealed that financial advisers paid insufficient attention to monitoring the switching activities of their representatives. The Guidelines provide guidance to the industry on the controls, processes and procedures that MAS expects financial advisers to implement, so as to monitor and deter improper switching or churning activities. The Guidelines include enhanced disclosure requirements to ensure that consumers are fully informed of the costs and implications of switching.

The Guidelines on Structured Deposits were introduced because structured deposits, unlike conventional deposit products,have an investment element. They may be complex and not immediately understood by the consumer. The Guidelines will ensure consistency in sales and advisory process standards across the industry in respect of structured deposits. Under the Guidelines, advisers are required to ensure that all marketing materials disclose key information in a clear and adequate manner

and, of course,do not include false or misleading statements. Representatives selling these products must be qualified and have a reasonable basis for making recommendations. Banks have also been prohibited from labelling structured products as deposits if they do not meet the definition of a deposit under the Banking Act.

MAS' credit card regulations preserve the Government's objective of discouragingexcessive use of credit for consumption purposes. While the regulations permit card issuers to issue additional cards to existing principal cardholders without first having received an application, card issuers are not allowed to hold the cardholder liable for any amount charged to the additional card until he has conveyed his acceptance of the card. Furthermore, there must be no increase in the aggregate amount of credit granted.

The financial industry has to ensure that they have adequate systems and procedures in place to ensure compliance with all the relevant rules, regulations and guidelines. MAS will monitor compliance through both on-site inspections of the financial firm as well as off-site supervision. But it is in the interests of financial firms themselves to conduct their activities with fairness, transparency and integrity to secure the trust and confidence of consumers in the industry.

Consumers will benefit from improved business conduct standards across the financial industry. But consumers must also play their part. MAS has published consumer guides on switching and on structured deposits. Consumers should equip themselves with the information they need to better understand the financial products and services being offered, and learn to ask the right questions of their financial adviser, so that they can make well- informed investment decisions.

If a consumer feels that a financial institution has behaved in a manner that is improper or unfair, he should raise a complaint directly with the financial institution concerned. MAS expects all financial institutions in Singapore to have in place an internal dispute resolution process to handle complaints from consumers in a fair, consistent and prompt manner.

If consumers are dissatisfied with the financial institution's response, they can approach one of the independent industry-based dispute resolution schemes for assistance. In the case of disputes with a bank, they can approach the Consumer Mediation Unit (CMU). In the case of disputes with an insurance company, they can turn to the Insurance Disputes Resolution Organisation (IDRO). By the first half of next year, consumers will be able to bring all disputes, regardless of the type of financial institution or product involved, to a single one-stop centre known as the Financial Industry Dispute Resolution Centre.

6. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Senior Minister arising from the recent incident of safe deposit boxes being destroyed at the DBS Bank branch in Hong Kong, what valuable lessons can be drawn to ensure that there is a due diligence process in place for our banking sector.

Mr Speaker, the Monetary Authority of Singapore places importance on our banks exercising comprehensive and effective risk management in Singapore and in their overseas operations. This includes being risk conscious and putting in place a robust risk management framework and control processes to manage the risks.

The recent incident in DBS' Hong Kong operations is unfortunate. The bank's investigations into the incident have concluded that it was the result of a combination of factors, namely, human error, inadequate oversight of the project by the bank and its external service providers, and gaps in internal procedures. While it is an isolated incident, it has certainly heightened the risk consciousness of the banking industry, and reinforced the importance of banks being vigilant in operational controls.

DBS is tightening its procedures to ensure that incidents of this nature will not happen again.

I would like to ask the Minister, in view of the heightened security in Singapore, what plan or measure is there to ensure that safe deposit items are scanned for dangerous items?

Despite the apparent similarity of the issue, ie, safe deposit items, this is a completely different question. Heightened risk management, of course, applies across the bank's operations. This was an isolated incident specific to safe deposit boxes, but it illustrates a more general principle that we need to be more alert to a range of operational risks, be it physicalor security risks or traditional risk management issues like market risk,and so on. We do not have a specific policy to do with safe deposit boxes, but we expect banks to take sensible actions, to beon the alert and to think hard about their own reputation.

7. Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a)

how does the Senior Minister propose to proceed with the vision of a dialogue between South-East Asia and the Middle-East; (b) what major benefits can Singapore, by itself and as a member of ASEAN, achieve from this dialogue; and (c) whether the dialogue will help to enhance security in the South-East Asian region and worldwide.

Singapore will be hosting the inaugural Asia-Middle East Dialogue (or AMED) in June 2005. We will bring together officials, academics, religious leaders and other opinion makers from some 50 countries in the Middle East and Asia over a two-day period. The aim is to forge closer political, security, economic and socio-cultural relations between peoples of the two regions.

We have established a Steering Committee to help prepare for the inaugural AMED. The Steering Committee is comprised of senior officials from eight countries - Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait from the Middle East; and Bangladesh, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore from Asia. These countries were selected to provide a diversity of views representative of large and small states and different sub-regions within the broader regions of Middle East and Asia.

The Steering Committee held its first meeting in Singapore from 11th-12th October and made a few key decisions. For instance, the theme for the inaugural AMED would be "Asia-Middle East Dialogue: Common Interests and Common Challenges". Based on this theme, we will select appropriate topics covering politics, economics and socio-cultural issues. The Steering Committee will meet again in Jordan sometime in the first quarter of next year to work out the other details.

The Member also asked what are the benefits of AMED. The benefits are manifold. The Middle East is a region rich in heritage and with tremendous growth potential. When SM travelled to the region, he was struck by the economic developments and different aspirations of countries in the Middle East and found mainstream society to be diverse, open and inclusive. AMED will provide a platform to show these changes taking place in the Middle East to Asia and the rest of the world, as well as provide the framework for Asia and the Middle East to interact more intensively. It is useful to note that Egypt has offered to host the second AMED in 2006 and Bahrain has indicated its interest to be a future host. This demonstrates the strong level of interest in AMED. AMED will be a long-term process and not a one-off meeting.

Stronger inter-regional linkages will also yield economic opportunities for Singapore and the rest of Asia. Besides the oil industry, many Middle Eastern countries are liberalising and diversifying their economies as well as looking East for investment and trading opportunities.

The Member also asked how this would enhance security. The Middle East is undergoing fundamental changes in the political, economic, social and cultural spheres. All these developments have an impact on Southeast Asia. For example, the threat presented by global terrorism stems from a militant, extremist ideology that uses religion to foment divisions between and within societies. To help counter this threat, the Asia-Middle East Dialogue seeks to provide a platform for moderate Muslim countries to speak up and challenge the extremist strain of Islam.

Sir, looking at the progress made, either specifically in the Steering Committee of the coming June 2005 conference or in general, how does the

Minister assess the acceptance rate among Southeast Asian countries of AMED?

The response from the Southeast Asian countries has been very positive. All the ASEAN member states will be invited to send representatives. It is important to stress that this is not a government-to-government platform but a people-to-people platform. And so academics, scholars, opinion makers from these countries will be invited.

8. Mr Andy Gan Lai Chiang asked the Minister for Transport whether (a) the Port of Singapore is still the choice port of call for international shipping lines; and (b) Singapore is still commanding the strategic geographical location for ships passing through the Straits of Malacca.

Sir, the Singapore port is of strategic importance to our economy and remains the choice port of call for international lines.

Singapore is the largest transshipment hub in the world, connected by more than 200 shipping lines to some 600 ports in 123 countries world-wide. The Singapore port is the world's busiest port by vessel tonnage, with total tonnage of 986.4 million gross tonnes in 2003. We are also the top bunkering port in the world, having supplied 20.8 million tonnes of bunkers last year. Singapore handled 18.4 million TEUs or containers in 2003, up 8.7% from 2002, retaining our position as the world's second busiest container port, after Hong Kong.

Our port achieved new records in several areas such as container throughput, cargo throughput, shipping tonnage and bunker sales in 2003, and is on track to achieve record-breaking performance again this year. However, we must not rest on our laurels as competition in this sector remains intense.

Sir, Mr Gan has also asked whether Singapore is still commanding the strategic geographical location for ships passing through the Straits of Malacca. The Straits of Malacca remains a vital international waterway for ships passing through this region. A significant part of the world's maritime trade passes through the Malacca Straits. This includes cargo carried by container ships, bulk carriers, car carriers and tankers. Owing to our strategic location and hub port status, many of these ships now call at our port to load or unload cargo, take bunker, replenish supplies and change crew.

For the Malacca Straits to remain open to such heavy traffic, it is vital to ensure the safety and security of the Straits. In this regard, Singapore has been working closely with the other littoral states, Indonesia and Malaysia, to implement various maritime safety measures, such as the Traffic Separation Scheme as well as a mandatory ship reporting system known as STRAITREP.

As part of on-going efforts to enhance security in the Malacca Straits, the initiative, Trilateral Coordinated Patrols, involving Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore was launched in July this year. This initiative involves ships from the three littoral states patrolling their respective waters. Besides patrols, there will also be enhanced communications links between the three states to enable greater information sharing. In addition, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore are also working with other stakeholders in the

international community to enhance navigational safety and security of ships sailing through the Malacca Straits.

I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I have two supplementary questions, Sir.

Firstly,since the Minister of State has mentioned that Singapore will be a major transshipment hub, does she see this as an increasing trend for the port here? Secondly, is our share of market for all the international shipping lines increasing as well?

Sir, the bulk of Singapore's shipping business is indeed transshipment and that would remain, as our proportion of trade of domestic origin remainssmall. In terms of our share of the overall market, that would really depend on the trade flows. Suffice it to say that Singapore is well positioned to capture the increasing trade flows around the region, especially within theFar East and European routes.

As an anecdotal indication, I wish to inform the House thatPSA will be actually building 15 new berths at its Pasir Panjang Terminal over the next five to seven years to boost its capacity from 20 million TEUs to 31.3 million TEUs to tap the increased flow.

9. Ms Indranee Rajah asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the deployment of armed police officers from Special Operations Command in public places is due to an assessment of increased risk of national security.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the deployment of the officers from the Special Operations Command (SOC) does not signal an assessment of increased risk

to our national security. Like the public Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) systems deployed at Newton Food Centre, Boat Quay and Little India, the projection of strong police presence at various locations is part of the ongoing effort to keep Singapore safe and secure. It serves as an added deterrent to terrorist activities, provides assurance to the public, and reminds the public of the importance of constant vigilance.

The operations will be carried out at various locations in Singapore, including the entertainment, commercial and residential areas. The timings and locations of the operations will not be specified in the interest of operational security.

Thus far, the Police are encouraged by the generally positive reaction from the public since such operations have commenced. We hope that Singaporeans will continue to take these changes in their stride and accept them as part of the daily landscape, while maintaining their vigilance at all times and be resilient when confronting the terrorist threats.

If I may ask the Minister a couple of supplementary questions. Firstly, apart from projecting the image of strong presence, what specificallythe Special Operations Officers intend to do? Are they merely just to patrol or are they expected to be able to respond in the event of an emergency?

The reason why I ask is that during the National Day Investiture, when I was in the area, I was not able to find the car park entrance. To be fair, of course, that was my fault. But I actually asked one of the Special Operations Officers where the entrance was. To be fair to him, he was extremely helpful and cooperative for which I gave full credit, but he did not know where the entrance was. So he asked his officer who did not know where

the entrance was and they then asked, I think, either a parking valet or somebody else nearby who did know. So I gave full credit to them for the helpfulness.

It is a rather long supplementary question.

My question is this, Sir. I am just a bit concerned. If the officers are patrolling, they must know the points of ingress and egress and, generally, the access routes to the area. So, my question is: what is the extent of their responsibility?

Sir, I am quite amused by the experience of Ms Indranee Rajah. The SOC officers are not car park attendants. So, of course, theymay not know where the entrance of this National Day Investiture was supposed to be, because they were supposed to guard the outside of the building. And theyshould know where the car parks are and they should know where cars are supposed to enter. But as to where Ms Indraneewas supposed to enter, I am afraid that they may not know.

I understand there were some difficulties with regard to the parking arrangement for those who turned up at the National Day Investiture, but these were operational issues which had been looked into. Let me assure Members that the problemwill not occur next year.I was very concerned thatthere wasa long queueof people trying to get into the venue - and there was some confusion as towhere they should enter the Suntec City Convention Centre.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his response. That was not specifically my question. My question was: for Special Operations Officers, to what extent are they expected to be able to respond to emergency, for example, and in order to be able to do that, it requires a certain familiarity with the

area? So it is not a question of access to car parks.

Yes, I get that point too. One of the responsibilities, of course, is to respond to emergencies. If they are not there to do the job, then what are theysupposed to be there for? They are supposed to do the patrol and, at the same time, they are supposed to get themselves to be familiarised with the area. In fact, one of the objectives of deployment of our SOC officers is to get to know the area better so that when they are needed in that specific location, they know what to do about the building, what to do about the accesses, the roads,etc.So that is part and parcelof their deployment. And they were not just in areas whichhad been publicised, they were also in many other areas which have not been publicised.We can expect to see them inthe neighbourhood, in the business district, in the MRT stations,and so on.

As for this case where they are actually deployed at the Suntec City, I am sure with time they will also get to know the place better. But,let us say, we have an incident in Suntec City, the Division officers in charge would definitely know the place very well because they are the ones whovisit the place very often and they shouldknow the actual layout of the building, just like our officers from the Civil Defence Force, who knowthe layout of the building and the various accesses.

Could I ask the Minister how were the places for CCTV chosen, ie, Boat Quay, Little India and Newton Food Centre, and whether Geylang is also a place perhaps that CCTV might prove useful?

Sir, the public places where the closed circuit television cameras would be placed in areasof

concern to the security agencies.When we first started deploying these cameras at Little India, for example, it was also for reasons of crime. And now it has gone beyond that. We have gone to Boat Quay, Newton, and so on. And who knows, we may also find them in Geylang in future.

10. Mr Arthur Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in light of the high human traffic flow found in major town centres which have well developed transport facilities such as bus interchanges and MRT stations - for example Toa Payoh, Bedok, Clementi and Jurong East - what is being done to (i) improve the awareness of shopowners in the area of security and prevention against terrorist related activities; and (ii) take advantage of the school holiday season to educate and increase security awareness among students in our schools.

Sir, continuous efforts are being made by the Police to raise the community's vigilance in fighting terrorism. This outreach effort employs a three-pronged approach. Firstly, we raise general security awareness through the mass media. In fact, that is the most important means. Secondly, we reach out to both the grassroots leaders and the community at large through security briefings and seminars under the Community Safetyand Security Programme (or CSSP in short). Thirdly, we engage groups of special interest (such as the private security industry and the managements of key installations and hotels) to encourage them to adopt measures that enhance the physical security of their premises. This initiative to increase physical security has also been applied to owners of soft targets, such as nightspots and entertainment outlets.

Neighbourhood shopkeepers also form another segment of the community which the Police have reached out to. Most recently, the Police, together with the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC), the Federation of Merchants Association, and the Retail Promotion Centre, organised a "Neighbourhood Retail Security Conference" on 18th October 2004 at the HDB Hub. In addition to crime prevention messages, the conference emphasised the need for the shop owners to be vigilant and to act as the eyes and ears of the security agencies. This conference reached out to about 250 neighbourhood shop owners and was very well received. Similar forums will be conducted so that the Police can reach out to the rest of the retail industry.

On the question of engaging students to increase security awareness, the Neighbourhood Police Centres (NPCs) have established good working relationships with the schools and the Police's outreach efforts are mostly conducted during the school term. Security awareness programme or education for students has been an ongoing process undertaken by the Neighbourhood Police Centres to reach out to the schools within their areas of coverage. The Neighbourhood Police Centres have also been working closely with the schools and together, they have been organising security awareness programmes in schools in conjunction with the Community Safetyand Security Programme. These activities are carried out throughout the year.

An example of such initiatives is the forum organised by the Inter-Racial Confidence Circle Committee of Southwest Community Development Council. About 300 tertiary students and community leaders were invited to learn from experts from the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS) on terrorism prevention and share their views on how

best to encourage the community to stay vigilant towards terrorist threats.

The Police will continue to engage specific groups such as students, neighbourhood shop owners, and other groups (in response to changes in terrorist tactics) as well as the general public to raise the awareness against terrorism, as well as stress the need for vigilance in ensuring the safety and security of Singapore.

11. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Education if he will (i) update the House on the impending changes to the education system and (ii) explain how teachers, parents and students are being prepared to embrace these changes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the changes taking place in education are not new. They reflect the stepwise implementation of the broad initiatives that the Ministry of Education has embarked on in recent years.

First, we are introducing greater flexibility and diversity in the education system. We have introduced new types of schools and programmes, such as the Integrated Programmes and the Specialised IndependentSchools. We are also broadening the choices that students have across the system, to help them build on their strengths and interests. This includes introducing greater choice in the subjects they take, and in the study of the mother tongue language. It also includes greater flexibility in the implementation of streaming into different courses in schools. Further, the Normal (Technical) curriculum is being customised and will offer electives to better match the learning style of this group of students. Primary schools will be able to develop stronger niche programmes, supported by a Pro-

gramme for School-Based Excellence from next year. At the post-secondary level, the ITEs and polytechnics are also broadening their offerings. The university sector is moving towards a more competitive and diversified landscape.

Second, we are refocusing our efforts to provide a broad-based, holistic education for our students, with an emphasis on academic training, on CCAs and on character development. This is being reinforced by a broadening of admission procedures. Secondary schools, junior colleges and universities are being given a greater degree of flexibility in admissions, to allow for a broader measure of student talents and achievements. These changes have also been complemented by the new School Achievement Tables, which replace the old ranking tables. Within the academic curriculum, we will also be introducing a broader and more flexible junior collegecurriculum from year 2006.

Third, we have a series of continuing initiatives to support our teachers in their efforts toraise the quality of education that we provide our children. We are reducing class size in the early primary years starting from next year, and reducing the pupil-teacher ratio across the board over the nextfive years. Schools are being given increased manpower grants and counselling resources, to provide greater support to teachers. These initiatives, taken together,will give teachers more space to reflect on their teaching, experiment with new techniques and upgrade themselves professionally. And each time we change our curriculum, we engage teachers in briefings and training to ensure that they are well-equippedwith the necessary skills and knowledge to implement the changes well.

We have consulted our stakeholders extensively on the changes that we are

making. There is broad agreementon the intent and direction of these changes, as being essential to providing a conducive environment to developing our students to the fullest. In September, we started a series of Education Forums with students, teachers and parents respectively, as well as with leaders in industry, to communicate the intent of educational changes as well as obtain views on what we should do. Their feedback has been valuable in thinking through our policies and how they are implemented on the ground. This process of regular engagement with our stakeholders in education will continue.

MOE also spends effort and time to communicate with teachers and school leaders. The Director of Schools has regular meetings with all school leaders to discuss and clarify policy and implementation issues. School leaders, in turn, communicate these changes to teachers and students in the school, and, where necessary, to their parents. Schools are also engaging more actively with parent support groups, which areuseful channel to help parents understand how the school's programmes benefit students, and to draw on their support and ideas.

I would like to ask the Minister, from the positive feedback that he has received with regard to all these communication sessions that have been organised for stakeholders, how does he assess the position of the ownership of these changes in the education system with regard to these stakeholders? In other words, does he feel very positively that these stakeholders indeed feel owners of these inherent changes that are going on?

Ownership is a process. It starts, in fact, before we finalise any policy changes. If you take the major changes that we are talking about, for instance, the new junior college

curriculum, the new Normal (Technical) curriculum, changes in the admission procedures and the changes to the teaching of the Chinese Language that Parliament will soon be debating, there is a process of consultation thathas beendeep and wide. Inparticular, we have involved teachers themselves, getting their ideas and, as we develop new policies, getting their refinements of the policies.By the time we announce the policy, it is not something thatis going to be new to teachers.

But post-announcement, there is also awhole processcascading down through school leaders to teachers andto parents. It is hard to say when full ownership has been achieved. But my sense is that on the ground, there isa belief that these are the right things to do, these are the right directions for us to proceed in. It takes a bit of time for every teacher to acquire the requisite skills and knowledge to implement changes well. That is why we provide them with not just a one-off briefing but a series of training programmes and exposure.But there is a certain confidence in the system that these changes make sense, and we will make them work.

Mr Speaker,I am very happy to hear about all these changes that the Minister is doing for the education system in Singapore. I would also like to ask the Minister if he is going to take a look at the pre-school education sector to see what can be done or improved in this area.

I would like to thank the Member for his question. About a year and a half ago,we did take a fundamental look at the pre-school sector and, in fact, provided the pre-school industry with a broad framework for curriculum development that we felt was appropriate for our children at that age -from 4 to 6. Theresponse from the pre-school sector has beenpositive,

both the major pre-school providers as well as the various smaller operators. Our main initiative is really to improve the quality of teaching in the pre-school sector. Our guidelines are known. We provided the pre-school sector some time to be able to achieve the required guidelines and provided them with some incentives to also achieve them in time. That is still work-in-progress. At this point, we are quite

confident that by 2008 we would have met our key objectives in upgrading the quality of teaching in our pre-school sector.

I would like to ask the Minister: in view of all these very drastic changes - it is a major overhaul of the education system - when will the Ministry come up with a comprehensive publication that setsall these out? With all these bits and pieces of changes, many parents are very confused now. Their mindset is still on the old system, and we need to educate the public in a very systematic and holistic way.

First, I would not describe the changes as drastic or representing an overhaul. Our system is basically functioning quite well. There are some new initiatives that mainly build on previous initiatives, but they basically boil down to a few very simple points. We are introducing more flexibility and more diversity. It is what parents and students want. A student with a special talent in the arts, for instance, is keen that we are providing new opportunities, both within the mainstream, for certain schools to have stronger niche programmes in the arts, starting from primary school, as well as to have a specialised school for the arts, which is going to be set up.

So, for each of the changesthat we are introducing, there is demand anda keenness on the part of the people for whom these changes were meant, people with that particular interest or talent.

When we add them all up together, it looks like many changes. But they appeal to different groups of students with different learning styles, talents and interests. And that is the whole idea. We have a system that is rock solid and that allows us now the flexibility of providing more options and choices.

We will have to continue our communication process. SomeMembers may have noticed over the last few weeks that the Straits Times, for instance, had put out quite extensive summaries of all the policies that have been introduced, with their own examples and colouring, but quite an effective set of articles that summarises what we are doing. The Ministry itself is also undertaking this communication.Some time early next year, we intend to put out fact sheets for every parent, to be distributed through the schools for each level, ie, primary, secondary and so on, so that parents know, for different levels, whatall the changes are about, and howthey add up. It is a continuing process.

12. Mr Gan Kim Yong asked the Minister for Education whether he will give an update on the progress of the implementation of the Integrated Programme.

There are currently two schools and two families of schools that are offering the Integrated Programme (IP) this year. They are Anglo-Chinese School (Independent), National Junior College, the Hwa Chong family of schools, and the Raffles family of schools. A total of about 4,700 Secondary 1 and 3 students have joined the IP this year. From 2005, Dunman High School, NUS

High School for Mathematics and Science, Temasek Junior College and Victoria Junior College, willbe offering the Integrated Programme.

The intent of the IP is to give our students more time and space to engage in broader learning experiences beyond the regular curriculum. While it is still early in the experience of this new programme, the schools are making good use of the space offered by the IP for a wide range of activities and learning opportunities. Through projects and research work, for example, students are given more opportunities to explore and apply the concepts that they have learnt.

Some schools have set aside one week in a term as a sabbatical for students to take leave from their studies and take partin enrichment activities of their choice, eg, in digital music, virtual reality or environmental science research. Another innovation is a series of inter-disciplinary colloquia at intervals of a few months, which bring together experts and teachers in different fields and disciplines. Some of the schools have also increased the number of mentorships and attachments at research institutions as part of their Integrated Programme.

In addition, as announced earlier, Dunman High School and the Hwa Chong family will also be offering the Bicultural Studies Programme for Chinese, with opportunities for up to six months of immersion in China for selected students. These additional activities are made possible because of the flexibility offered by the IP.

As the IP only started this year, more time is needed for the full benefits of the enhanced curriculum to be felt. On the whole, however, parents and students have been positive about the activities and programmes offered by theIP schools.

As with any change to the school system, there will be some adjustments in the initial stage as we go up the learning curve. We are confident that our IP schools will ensure that their students reap maximum educational benefits from the programme.

Sir, first of all, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry has a set target of the total number of students that should go through the IP andhow many percentthat would be for each cohort. My second question is: given that the IP would give them more time and space, would there also be more room for them to pursue non-academic interests, including character-development programmes?

As a rough guide, we expect about 10% of pupils in each cohort to go through the Integrated Programme. It is nota hard and fast target. It is an interim target that we have set. If we look at the current numbers, we will have about 8-9% of pupils in Secondary 3. Once we get up to the steady state in each of the current IP schools, about 8% of our students would be covered. So, we will assess the situation as we go along. The 10% guideline is a sensible one for now.

Character development and non-academic activities are provided more space for in the Integrated Programme. If we look at the IP schools, they are in fact doing that. Each school has its own programmebut there has tended to be greater emphasis placed on non-academic development, be it in character development or other specific, non-academic activities in the IP schools since the programme was launched.

13. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for National Development with

the impending implementation of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, whether HDB is or will be looking into ways to help and educate affected residents deal with the need to ensure that their windows do not fall off by getting contractors to check and, if necessary, change the windows.

Sir, under their Lease Agreement with HDB, HDB flat owners are responsible for maintaining the windows in their flats in good condition. Like private sector homeowners, they need to comply with the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Actwhich requires them to maintain their windows properly and ensure that they are safe.

To informresidents on their responsibility, HDB has implemented a number of initiatives since the beginning of this year. These include:

Distributing to every household a "HDB Residents' Handbook" to help residents carry out simple checking and maintenance of their windows;

Sending out an advisory letter to all households on where to findapproved contractors to check and repair their windows if necessary;

Placing advertisements in the major newspapers to reiterate the same message;

Putting up posters on the notice boards of Town Councils and Residents' Committees to remind residents to check their windows; and

Working closely with grassroots organisations to publicise the window legislation to residents throughex-

hibitions, community events and at block parties.

VariousTown Councils have alsonegotiated special rates with approved contractors to lower the cost of retrofitting windows for the benefit of our residents.HDB will continue to educate residents on window safety and maintenance. However, I must stress that every resident must also play his or her part in ensuring that our high-rise living environment is safe and pleasant.

I understand that HDB is replacing windows of flats which are less than five years old from the date of taking or handing over and there is some sense of urgency among the other residents as regards replacement of the rivets. I would like to ask the Minister if the HDB can consider giving information regarding, say, the estimated cost of replacement of such windows, as well as the standards that will meet HDB's requirements so that they would not be unwittingly taken advantage of.

Sir, there are two programmes as regards rivet replacement for aluminium casement windows of HDB flats. The first programme involves HDB-installed windows. Under this programme, HDB will conduct a goodwill rivet-replacement programme whereby residents will be informed beforehand that a particular contractor has been assigned by HDB to conduct the replacement and the cost will be shared between the resident and HDB. Our estimated cost foreach resident is in the range of $35 to $82, depending on the size of the flat and how many windows in the flat require rivetreplacement.

For privately-installed windows, ie, windows that are installed privately by the lessees themselves, HDB has worked with various Town Councils to negotiate bulk

rates with nine bulk contractors, and these contractors are offering between $106 and $250 for each housing unit. However, residents are free to choose any BCA approved contractors in the market, if they feel that they can get a better deal.

14. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the reasons for the HDB giving a three-year Temporary Occupation Licence in respect of the open field in front of Block 142 Potong Pasir Avenue 1 to the Potong Pasir Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC); (b) whether the HDB will allow the police to designate the field as a rally site in the next General Election; and if so, (c) whether permission for use of the rally site at the next election will also have to be obtained from the Potong Pasir CCC.

Sir, the vacant State Land in front of Block 142 Potong Pasir Avenue 1 is reserved for future development. As there are no plans to develop the land at the present moment, HDB has issued a Temporary Occupation Licenceto the Potong Pasir CCC to use the land for community events and related uses.

If the police deem the site suitable for election rally uses, HDB, as the Government's managing agent for the site, will have no objection. In this case, permission from the CCC would not be required.

Sir, the granting of the 3-year TOL to the Potong Pasir CCC, in my view, is very political in nature. I am asking whether the Minister of State is willing to rescind the TOL forthwith.

Sir, as I said, this is a piece of vacant land where there is currently no plan for development. Therefore, it would not be right for the HDB to deny the CCC the use of this land, sincethey have applied for it to build jogging tracks, simple playgrounds, benches and so forth. It is also not right for the HDB, oranyone for that matter, to deny the residents use of such facilities.

Sir, is the real purpose of granting a 3-year TOL to the CCC not to prevent the Potong Pasir Town Council and myself, as the MP, from using that open field, hoping that, by doing so, my re-election prospects would be lessened?

Sir, I do not think that the hon. Member has only one place to do his electioneering. Nevertheless, as I said earlier,there are no development plans for the next three years and beyond, and since the CCC at Potong Pasir has applied for it for the benefit of the residents, we have therefore approved it.

Last question, Mr Chiam.

Sir, I do not understand why a 3-year TOL should be given. In the past, anyone who wants to use the land can always apply to the HDB on an ad-hoc basis.I think that would be the fairest, and not to give a blanket 3-year TOL, cutting off all other residents and parties who want to use that field.

Sir, as I said, the Potong Pasir CCC plans to install some simple playgrounds, jogging tracks, benches and so forth. So, they do need some certainty of tenure before they would be prepared to invest in such equipment. Nevertheless, if the hon. Member would have use for this site, he could apply through the Potong Pasir CCC for such use.

You have half a minute, Mr Chiam.

In fact, we have applied for the use of that land this year and we were refused on two occasions already. That goes to show the things to come for the elections.

Let me reiterate that, for election rally purposes, it is really the police who decides whether or not it would be used for election rally purposes, and some of the criteria the police uses are safety and disamenity. On the two occasions that the hon. Member cited, my understanding is that the dates of the events which he wanted to hold clashed with that of the CCC.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos.20, 22, 23, 25, 28 and 29 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos.15-19, 21, 24, 26 and 27have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 17 November 2004.]

* Cols. 1139-1148

"relating to diplomatic and consular privileges and immunities, and for other purposes, and to repeal the Consular Conventions Act (Chapter 52 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and the Diplomatic Privileges (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act (Chapter 83 of the 1985 Revised Edition), and to make related amendments to the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 2004 Revised Edition) and the Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 179 of the 1996 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members of the House may recall that in June this year, four Bills were enacted to strengthen our intellectual property regime. At that time, I had informed the House that a further set of amendments to the Copyright Act would be proposed later in the year.

Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Copyright Act to enhance and strengthen our copyright regime, particularly to ensure that our copyright laws remain relevant in an age of rapid technological development. Major amendments to the Act were last made in 1999 to keep pace with the emerging popularity of the online environment and the growth of electronic commerce. Even then, I had said that the amendments would by no means be the last word on the subject.

Today, we all are aware of the rapid pace of technological advancement, particularly in the realm of digital technology. Singapore's information communications technology (or ICT) environment has also correspondingly evolved. In 1999, only 42% of Singapore households enjoyed home Internet access. This has since increased to 65%, or almost two-thirds of all households. More households also have high speed access to the Internet - 40% of households have broadband

access now compared to only 3% in 1999.

The amendments in the Bill address the needs of both copyright owners and users in this new environment. These changes in the Bill will also further strengthen Singapore's position as an attractive location for copyright-based activities. Several of the amendments in the Bill also relate to our obligations under the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement.

The proposed amendments, Sir, are a result of a two-year review of technological and international developments, and were finalised only after extensive consultations with the relevant stakeholders. Since June 2003, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, or IPOS, has chaired an IP taskforce in order to obtain well-rounded feedback. The taskforce comprises members from business associations such as the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises and the Singapore International Chamber of Commerce, as well as Government statutory boards such as the Economic Development Board and the Media Development Authority. To complement the IP taskforce, an inter-Ministry committee comprising the relevant Government agencies was also set up to review the proposed amendments.

In proposing these amendments, we have sought to strike a good balance between the interests of copyright owners and those of the copyright users. We have taken into account legislation in other countries including that of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.

We made available a consultation draft version of the Bill on IPOS' website, and IPOS invited further feedback through a public seminar. We received useful feedback from several IP rights organisations, user groups, the Law Society and experts

in IP law. All feedback was carefully considered and modifications incorporated where appropriate. The Government is also committed to extensive public awareness initiatives.

Let me first deal with the amendments related to enhancing the copyright regime to meet the needs of copyright owners and users in the new digital environment.

The first group of amendments introduces several new rights, in recognition of changing business models in the digital realm.

First, new right of communication for works. Sir, the Internet is becoming an increasingly important platform through which copyright owners promote and disseminate their copyrighted works. Such digital dissemination of works has become the basis for businesses such as home-grown music distributor Soundbuzz. Clause 8 of the Bill introduces a new right to enable the copyright owner to control the communication of his work to the public. This new communication right encompasses both the existing broadcasting and cable programme rights, and also the right to control the dissemination of works on the Internet. This new right will enable copyright owners or other entrepreneurs to fully leverage on the Internet platform as a means to disseminate copyrighted material.

Next, new rights for producers of sound recordings. Likewise, Sir, clause 20 provides, for producers of sound recordings, a new right to publish a sound recording, and the right to make available to the public a sound recording by means of, or as part of, a digital audio transmission. These new rights will enable producers of sound recordings to control interactive transmissions of their recordings, and give them greater confidence in the protection of their IP in this medium.

Next, let me speak about new rights for performers. Clause 51 provides new rights to performers such as the right to control indirect recordings of their performances, the right to be attributed, the right to publish and the right to communicate a recording of their performance to the public. These rights will enable the performer to control the way his performance is used and exploited in the commercial market. We are confident these amendments will be welcomed by performing artistes in the music and media industry.

But let me say, Sir, that we have been mindful that the introduction of new rights does not lead to an undue restriction of the fair uses of copyrighted material. Exceptions to these rights have therefore been provided, for example, for educational institutions and libraries. These exceptions can be found in clauses 7, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 24. We have also catered for exceptions in specific situations, such as an exception for the digital transmission of sound recordings within a business establishment, as long as such transmission is not the core business of such an establishment. There are also necessary exceptions to cater for technical processes; for example, temporary, transient, incidental copies that could occur as part of making a lawful communication. In the case of non-interactive transmissions such as webcasting, we have provided a limited right to equitable remuneration. These exceptions can be found in clause 26 of the Bill which introduces new sections 107A to 107E.

Mr Speaker, these amendments will bring our copyright framework in line with international standards, embodied in international treaties such as the World Intellectual Property Organisation's Copyright Treaty, the WCT, and the Performances and Phonograms Treaty, the WPPT. With these changes, Singapore will provide a similar copyright regime to

the 48 other member states party to the WCT, and 45 others that are party to the WPPT.

Let me say something about the removal and alteration of rights management information. The Copyright Act already provides civil remedies for copyright owners to prevent the unauthorised removal or alteration of rights management information, or RMI. RMI refers to information which may identify the work, the author, or the terms and conditions of use of that work. In the digital environment, an example of RMI could be a digital watermark, which incorporates information identifying the author of the work.

For example, RMI enables copyright owners to track usage of their works on the Internet. It also gives users confidence in the authenticity of the source of a work, and certainty as to the conditions of its use. It is thus important to protect RMI and to prevent the distribution of copies where such information has been removed or manipulated in order to induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement.

The Bill enhances protection by providing civil remedies against unauthorised distribution or importation for distribution of altered RMI. It also provides civil remedies against the unauthorised distribution, importation for distribution or communication of works or other subject matter in respect of which RMI has been removed or altered. In addition, the Bill also creates a new criminal offence in cases where any of the prohibited acts in relation to RMI are carried out wilfully and for the purpose of obtaining a commercial advantage.

Next, I turn to technological measures protecting copyrighted works. Sir, the

advent of digital technology has made it easy to make perfect copies of copyrighted works. This new technology has made effective enforcement of copyright in the digital realm therefore a much more difficult undertaking than for conventional physical works of copyright. So in order to protect their works from being infringed, copyright owners may employ technological measures to protect their works. These technological measures include access control systems such as encryption and copy control systems. These technological measures could also include a measure applied to a tangible copy of a copyrighted work, or used in connection with the exercise of copyright. Copyright owners should reasonably expect their efforts in employing such measures to protect their works from infringement not to be thwarted and not to have those technological measures circumvented.

Accordingly, Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 59 introduces a new Part XIIIA providing civil remedies and criminal penalties for the circumvention of technological measures used by copyright owners in connection with the exercise of their copyright. A copyright owner can bring suit against a person who manufactures or trades in circumvention measures, or offers services related to the circumvention of a technological measure. If the person does these acts wilfully and for the purpose of obtaining a commercial advantage, he may also be guilty of an offence.

We have also built in review mechanisms that will allow our law to be responsive to technological changes. Where it has been determined that a dealing with a work or a class of works does not amount to an infringement, and that the legitimate use of these works has been adversely impaired or affected, the Minister has the discretion to exclude such works from the operation of these provisions which I have mentioned.

As before, we have provided here exceptions such that legitimate forms of such acts would not be unduly impeded. These are enumerated in new sections 261D and 261E. Briefly, examples of such exempted acts include authorised encryption research and security testing, specific reverse engineering to ensure interoperability, law enforcement, intelligence and other Government activities such as defence and security, amongst others.

Sir, having consulted the relevant stakeholders, we will also exclude public non-profit organisations and institutions such as libraries, archives and educational institutions that routinely come into contact with large volumes of copyrighted works. These institutions have been exempted from criminal liability although they may remain subject to civil remedies for any violation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these provisions will provide greater assurance to copyright owners and improve their ability to protect their copyrighted works from infringement. We will join the US, UK, Australia, the European Union and Japan in recognising the importance of such measures in protecting copyrighted works from infringement.

Let me turn now to stronger enforcement measures.

Sir, all the rights which I mentioned thus far, would be meaningful if they are backed up by a robust enforcement framework. We have proposed amendments to enhance both the civil and criminal remedies to infringement. Let me touch on some of these changes.

First, changes to civil procedures and remedies beginning with presumption of copyright.

Clause 35 of the Bill, Sir, refines the existing provision under our Copyright Act

on the presumption of copyright in infringement actions. This refinement is intended to facilitate the process of copyright infringement actions, and to render such actions less onerous for the copyright owner. The presumption in favour of the copyright owner plaintiff, namely, that copyright subsists in the copyrighted work and that he is the owner of the copyright, will apply so long as the defendant does not satisfy the court that he puts these matters in issue in good faith. However, if the defendant, in good faith, puts these matters in issue, the plaintiff may now, by affidavit, assert relevant facts attesting to the ownership and subsistence of the copyright. Such affidavit will serve as prima facie proof of the matters asserted unless, of course, the defendant proves otherwise.

Turning to statutory damages regime, Members would recall that in June this year, when I moved amendments to the Trade Marks Act, we enacted a statutory damages regime as a complement to the current process of assessing damages in an infringement suit. In this Bill, we proposed to introduce a similar regime for the Copyright Act. This provides copyright owners, in an infringement action, the option to choose, in lieu of actual damages suffered, a new remedy of "statutory damages". This will be especially useful in situations where it is difficult for the copyright owner to prove the quantum of actual losses. Instead, the court will assess the quantum of statutory damages, based on compensatory principles, elaborated in new subsection 119(5). This remedy of statutory damages will also be available for the provisions relating to the circumvention of technological measures, rights management information and performances. This provision will serve as an additional deterrent against infringers.

Let me turn to criminal liability for wilful infringement of copyright.

Sir, if I may first generalise, under the current Copyright Act, two types of acts attract criminal liability. The first involves an act where a person derives benefits by dealing commercially with infringing articles. A person who manufactures, imports, distributes or sells infringing copyright material is guilty of an offence. The second type considers the harm the act causes to the copyright owner. A person who, for non-trade purposes, distributes infringing articles to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright will also be guilty of an offence.

With the advent of digital technology, the impact of infringement on the interests of copyright owners has, as a result, become very much more severe. For example, Internet technology now makes it possible for syndicates to post movies and software for all to download for free, sometimes in return for nothing more than recognition and notoriety. While these infringers may not directly profit from these activities, their actions may cause substantial harm to the copyright owner, his investments and creative efforts.

The new section 136(3A) provides criminal penalties for wilful copyright infringement, in the case where the extent of infringement is significant, and/or where the person does the act to obtain a commercial advantage. For the first case, the new section lists factors to assist the Court in determining if the extent of an infringement is significant - these include the volume of articles that are infringing copies, the value of these infringing copies, and whether the infringement has a substantial prejudicial impact on the copyright owner. For the second case, new section 136(6B) defines the element of commercial advantage. Since in either case, a significant infringement, or an infringement linked to a business or trade

is involved, and both the extent of harm and the degree of culpability are sizeable, such infringements will attract criminal penalties. The first-time offender under the new section 136(3A) will face penalties up to a maximum fine of $20,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months. Subsequent offenders will face heavier penalties.

Let me turn to limitation of liability for Network Service Providers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the provisions on Network Service Provider liability in this Bill are intended to make NSPs more pro-active in assisting copyright owners to protect and enforce their rights. In the current Act, NSPs enjoy blanket immunity for acts of infringement of copyright or copyright infringing material on their networks. In other words, NSPs are completely absolved of responsibility for such acts or infringing material that they host or provide access to. The provisions in this Bill serve to create a better balance between the interests of rights owners and NSPs, by ensuring that the benefit of immunity that NSPs can enjoy are now accompanied by certain responsibilities.

In 1999, I noted that NSPs play a vital role in the online delivery of content for both copyright owners and users. Today, NSPs continue to play key roles in the transmission and routing, as well as the provision of connections to and storage of information. Thus, the new provisions provide greater clarity as to the different roles NSPs play, and their associated responsibilities for each role.

Let me stress that these provisions do not mean that an NSP is liable for copyright infringement if it chooses not to meet the requirements to qualify for the immunity. They only mean that in cases where the NSP chooses not to meet the qualifying requirements for immunity, the NSP's liability will be governed by the general provisions of the Copyright Act,

and the NSP will not be able to rely on the immunity provided by this section.

The new provisions will provide greater certainty for NSPs operating in Singapore, as users and businesses become more sophisticated in their dealings over the Internet. At the same time, the new provisions would also provide copyright owners with a more accessible course of action to enforce their rights in the event of infringement. This is particularly important to protect the interests of up-and-coming local content producers and, ultimately, further our efforts to make Singapore a knowledge economy and a global centre for innovation and creative industries.

Let me now turn to ex-officio and border enforcement.

Clauses 37 to 42 of the Bill align border enforcement powers with those provided in the Trade Marks Act. The new provisions will enable authorised officers to detain infringing imports, infringing goods consigned to a local party and infringing goods that are to be exported from Singapore. In addition, Customs will also have the powers to examine suspected infringing goods, including those in transit. Several other amendments have also been incorporated to make it easier for a copyright owner to initiate the detention of infringing imports by Customs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have repeatedly mentioned in my speech the need to strike a balance between the interests of copyright owners and users. Like all our IP laws, copyright laws are intended to be an incentive to create original works through the granting of exclusive rights. This objective can only be achieved if the exchange of information and ideas is not unduly impeded. Therefore, we have put in place specific exceptions in relation to new rights, and for public interest

organisations such as educational institutions and libraries.

I will now deal with proposed amendments to the general "fair dealing" provisions, which apply throughout the Copyright Act. Where an act is determined to be "fair dealing", it means that it is not an infringement of the Copyright.

Presently, Singapore has a fair dealing system that permits the use of copyrighted material for specified activities, namely, research and private study, review and criticism, and news reporting. While this system provides certainty, it is also restrictive in that it does not cater for other new uses which could fall under the concept of fair dealing.

While the current permitted activities have been retained, clause 9 of the Bill refines our fair dealing system by allowing other acts to be assessed according to a set of factors in determining whether these acts could constitute fair dealing. We have also proposed a new factor for consideration, namely, "the possibility of obtaining the work or adaptation within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price". In addition to the new fair dealing amendments, we have provided, in clause 11, new exceptions designed to ensure that computer-related research is not hampered by the enhanced protection for copyright works in the digital environment.

Mr Speaker, these amendments have been proposed after a careful review of the fair dealing provisions in jurisdictions such as the UK, Germany, France and the United States. I believe they will create an environment conducive to the development of creative works, and also facilitate greater investment, research and development in the copyright industries in Singapore.

Overall, Sir, let me say that the Bill also includes transitional provisions to

ensure that the new rights do not interfere with prior arrangements between contractual parties. Rights under any contracts entered into before the operation of this new law will be governed under the previous copyright law.

In conclusion, let me say that these amendments in the Bill, although fairly complicated and technical, are necessary to update Singapore's copyright legislation to meet the needs of businesses, creators and users in the fast-evolving digital age. It provides enhanced enforcement measures to encourage stakeholders in the creative industries to further engage in high value-added activities in Singapore. It also provides balancing measures to ensure that our copyright laws serve to foster greater creativity in Singapore. In short, the Bill will provide Singapore with a copyright system comparable to those in the most advanced countries in the world.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

I rise to speak in support of the Bill. The majority of the proposed amendments are certainly very welcomed. I should also declare my interest as a lawyer and a practitioner. There are three points in respect of which I would like to seek clarification from the Minister. The first relates to statutory damages, second, the criminalisation of infringements which are not for commercial advantage and, third, in relation to the take down requirements relating to transmission, routing and provision of connections by Internet service providers.

I will take the first point, which is the proposed amendment to section 119 that deals with statutory damages and, in fact, statutory damages run through certain other provisions of the Act as well. At

present, when a copyright owner takes civil action against an infringer and intends to extract compensation, he is required to prove the actual damage that the infringer's act has inflicted on him or, alternatively, he can seek an account of profits made by the infringer in monetary terms. In copyright disputes, however, in practical terms, proving such damage or getting an account of such profits can be difficult. For example, a copyright owner may face difficulty in proving how many copies of his work have been distributed over the Internet. With the introduction of statutory damages, the copyright owner can recover compensation even where the proof of the actual extent of infringement may be difficult. So to that extent, the amendment is welcomed.

However, the provision, as drafted, states that the plaintiff can claim statutory damages amounting to not more than $10,000 for each work or subject matter and not more than $20,000 in the aggregate, unless the plaintiff proves that the actual loss exceeds $200,000. From a practical viewpoint though, I wonder if it might be helpful if the Act could also set out a minimum sum of statutory damages claimed because the intent behind the provision for statutory damages is to make it slightly easier for the copyright owner to recover compensation because of the burden of proof. So to the extent that this is the intent, having a minimum sum or perhaps a form of guidance on the amounts recoverable would be helpful because, if not, the copyright owner is still put in a position of having to prove the actual damage within the $10,000 or $20,000 limit. And the same comment would apply to section 253 of the Act which also provides for statutory damages.

There is another provision which deals with statutory damages. This is section 261 that relates to the removal or alteration of rights management information (RMI). In that provision, section

261 as well as section 261F, there is a cap on the amount of statutory damages to be awarded. It states that it should be not more than $20,000. However, the Bill does not specify whether it is $20,000 per device or measure or whether it is $20,000 in total. It would be helpful if this could be clarified.

I move on now to the second point which is the proposed amendment of section 136, and that is criminalisation of infringements which are not commercially motivated. At present, Singapore's copyright law only criminalises the commercial manufacture, commercial importation, distribution or sale of infringing copyright material. Where non-trade activities are involved, Singapore's copyright law only criminalises distribution of infringing material that is of a degree that has a severe impact on the copyright owner. The new section 136(3A) extends criminal liability to ordinary users if the infringement of the copyright is wilful and either one of the following: (a) the extent of the infringement is significant; or (b) the person does the act to obtain a commercial advantage.

"Commercial advantage" is defined fairly well in the Act but the word "significant" is still a little loose. The concern here is: what is significant? Because the impact on the ordinary user can be quite great. An innocent user or someone who is not very well informed but acting innocently may inadvertently find himself facing a criminal charge. It is true that new section 136(6A) does give some guidelines as to what may be significant infringement. It cites, for example, the volume of infringing copies. But what kind of volume would attract criminal liability? For example, if one downloads two songs, that may not be significant. But if one downloads three, is that significant? What about the value of the infringing copies? What value would attract criminal liability? And the other guideline is whether the infringement has

a substantial prejudicial impact on the owner of copyright. But how do you measure substantial prejudicial impact? Some guidelines on the meaning of "significant" would be helpful, particularly since the intent behind this section is to criminalise illegal use by end users, ie, non-commercial exploitation.

The third point that I intend to raise relates to the new proposed section 193B which deals with transmission, routing and provision of connections by Internet service providers. The provisions in relation to new sections 193C and 193D allow for a copyright owner to request an Internet service provider (ISP) to take down offending material. And if the ISP does actually take down the offending material, then the court's options to deal with the ISP are a bit more limited. But in the case of new section 193B, there is no similar provision for taking down of offending material. And I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what is the rationale for that.

It would also mean in relation to new section 193B that copyright owners must resort to court action to compel the ISP in such a situation to seek relief or remedy. And if some clarification on that could be given, it would be extremely helpful.

With these comments, Sir, I support the Bill.

Sir, I support the Bill. The proposed amendments are indeed extensive. They are so wide-ranging and extensive, as we have heard that one wonders whether the current Act ought to be repealed and replaced by this new digital era version to reflect its significance. A new Act may make it easier for the public and all parties interested in copyright matters.

Sir, first, I need to declare my interest as a lawyer and practitioner.

The amendments are not just about enhancing the rights of computer software programmers or commercial products. It also enhances the rights of literary, dramatic and artistic works of composers, authors and performers. In this regard, I need to declare my second interest and this time as independent director of COMPASS - not Community and Parents in Support of Schools but Composers and Authors' Society of Singapore. This Society collects royalty from users of artistic publications like musical performances and redistributes them to copyright owners such as performers, recording companies and composers. Therefore, Sir, I feel that such provisions are in line with the vision to make Singapore a culturally creative and vibrant society.

While copyright owners ought to be happy with these amendments, what about the public? Would the public lose out? I think yes and no. Yes, in the sense that one can no longer download music from the Internet, as alluded by the Hon. DPM earlier, and disseminate it by mass mail to, say, 100 friends without running foul of the new section 254A. Yes, they lose out in the sense that the user public can no longer rely on the likelihood that ownership of copyright is difficult to prove or that the amount of damages is difficult to quantify. There are deeming provisions in the Bill that get rid of such obstacles. But, no, Sir, the public does not lose out in the sense that the user public has the defence of fair use or fair dealing. Students in educational institutions can still photocopy pages of red spot books so long as the unauthorised use is not "significant" or for "commercial advantage". My learned friend has commented on the need to clarify the ambiguity arising from these two terms. But I do know that "commercial advantage" does not mean mere savings alone but directly related to the user's

business. Some guidelines are found in the Bill.

More importantly, the public's gain, I believe, is in the long run. If we accord adequate rights and reward to composers, programmers, designers and innovators, in time, the public will benefit from better products and more useful innovations and thus an improved quality of life. This is the philosophical thrust of the Bill. It is worth reminding ourselves and the public of it.

Will the public suffer higher cost? This is inevitable especially in the short term. However, like the COE, I believe that the market will adjust itself. Copyright owners cannot demand too high a price for their work without the risk of pricing themselves out of the market. It is important that the general public be educated in this regard. I understand that IPOS had conducted useful publicity work in this regard in the last few months.

In addition to educating on the rights and wrongs, I think we should also educate the public and bring them on board in this new venture. It is a venture where we accord the highest value to human creativity and contributions. If the public, especially our young, is with us on this, I believe enforcement will be much less painful.

Sir, one of the most important aspects of this Bill is that it enhances our only national asset - human resources. It does so by enhancing the rights due to those who have exercised their human faculties to create or produce better things that benefit and are enjoyed by others.

May I now touch on a couple of specific aspects of this Bill? One aspect relates to the shifting of the burden of proof. In ordinary cases, it is for the plaintiff or claimant that first has to prove his course of action and substantiate the amount of his claims. Some provisions in this Bill, called deeming provisions, make

this job easier for the claimant. We see this in sections 16(6), 119 and 130. Deeming provisions, perhaps in copyright law, are quite necessary to enhance the legal rights of claimants in a meaningful way. However, Sir, the use of this enhanced sword, now like a sabre, must be carefully monitored. We do not wish to see over zealous prosecution or abuse of process. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister earlier alluded to the need to balance between the interest of copyright users and copyright owners. If I may add, there is also a need to balance between the need to protect present intellectual property against the need to develop intellectual property via research on present technology.

I concede, Sir, that the Bill also provides for numerous specific defences against copyright claims. This helps much to clarify the rights of the user. Nonetheless, I urge the Ministry, by itself or through IPOS, to continue to work closely with Copyright Tribunal, the Law Society of Singapore and CASE to monitor our progress in this regard.

Sir, under the new section 254A(9), the court may issue a warrant authorising a police officer to enter and search the premises for articles and documents specified in the warrant. As we know, such searches or raids can cause severe damage to the business run at the premises. In civil cases, in order to obtain documents in a similar way, the applicant is usually required to furnish security for the damages and costs, but not so under new section 254A(9). But this is not a totally new concept. The police are known to make raids upon being issued warrants to do so in other cases. However, it is always useful to remember the way enforcement action against potential damage to otherwise innocent or legitimate enterprise.

The Bill further enables customs officers to investigate suspicious ship-

ments of copyright works. I seek clarification as to how this would be done. I believe we do not have sniffer dogs for this. I reckon customs officers therefore must be trained for this purpose. Shippers too should be educated on how to protect themselves against dealing with copyright contraband and risk being prosecuted.

I understand, Sir, that much of the Bill is to enable us to comply with the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. But as the Minister has mentioned, the Bill also goes beyond such provisions. I wish to ask whether there are any provisions in the Bill which are Singapore's own initiatives. And if there are, why do we want to enact them and what is the basis for the Ministry's belief that these would work?

Subject to my concerns above, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the important subject of intellectual property protection.

Rather than focusing on physical assets, competition in knowledge-based global economy focuses more on intellectual assets including intellectual property. Singapore's continued economic growth hinges on encouraging and protecting knowledge creation. With globalisation and rapid technological advancement, a strong IP regime will be strategically more important than the traditional strength of geographical location, large domestic market or natural resources in abundance. Because I agree when DPM mentioned a globally relevant IP regime will also enable Singapore to attract more high-value added set-ups to our country, which will in turn lead to creation of new jobs and multiple economic benefits for all Singaporeans.

In manufacturing alone, there are some 4.7 million patents world wide and 60% are held in the US and Europe. Singapore has to continue to position itself as the launch pad for companies to manage their IP activities in Asia and as a location for these companies to further develop products for the Asian markets.

We are beginning to see the results of our efforts. In 2002, the World Economic Forum ranked Singapore as top in Asia for IP protection. In a more recent survey by the Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, Singapore has emerged as Asia's safest place for intellectual property. I quote from the survey:

"Foreign companies feel comfortable about being able to protect their IP in Singapore and the system offers a tightly policed and regulated environment which discourages piracy and a legal system that offers good support to victims of IP abusers."

Under the IP umbrella, copyright protection deserves special focus, as core copyright activities are one of the fastest growing industries in Singapore, outpacing Singapore's economy over a 15-year period from 1986 to 2001.

Based on preliminary findings of a recent research survey in 2001, copyright-based industries generated approximately S$8.6 billion in value added which, in turn, represents 5.6% of Singapore's GDP. These industries also have a strong impact on Singapore's workforce employing a total of about 116,000 persons, equivalent to 5.7% of the total employment.

Furthermore, copyright protection has to keep up with the fast paced developments of the IT sector. To reflect these developments, the Copyright Act of 1987 had been amended in 1994, 1998 and

1999 and now in 2004, we are looking at another amendment to the Copyright Act. How is this amendment different from the previous ones, Sir? The proposed amendments are intended to keep our Copyright Act relevant in the digital age. I do agree that it also strengthens our position as an attractive location for copyright-based activities. Similarly, I am confident that it will further directly promote our local creative industries such as literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. It is clearly visible that the proposed amendments offer new and enhanced rights and updated enforcement provisions for the copyright owners. For the copyright users, the amendments put into effect enhanced fair use provisions and specific exceptions.

While I strongly support the intent behind the amendments, Sir, I would like to put forth some of my concerns. One of my main concerns here is ambiguity and the lack of reference to specifics. According to the proposed amendment to our Copyright Act, anyone caught illegally downloading files, using files and benefited from the commercial advantage could face criminal charges, including six months in jail and fines of up to $20,000. At this stage, however, the term "commercial advantage" is rather ambiguous, in my opinion. Where exactly does criminal liability begin? The public needs to know. The issue of home users also comes to mind. The new laws are originally aimed at businesses which make use of pirated materials for financial gain and not meant to put average home users behind bars. I hope not. There is still the issue of file swappers that we need to contend with. We all know that the free Napster is no longer around, but nowadays file sharing or peer-to-peer programmes are still plentiful and all have these unique names like Gnutella, Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster, and all this while I thought Gnutella is a hazelnut chocolate spread.

This brings us back to my earlier concern regarding ambiguity. If someone has downloaded one hundred songs, for example, will this be considered "commercial advantage" or "significant"? As a comparison, this is almost equivalent to six audio CDs. Interestingly, a lawyer commented that the ambiguity is deliberate. It may be a good way to keep infringers guessing as a preventive measure. Knowing when criminal liability begins will encourage them to work around the limits. For example, if 500 is defined as "significant", then they will download 499. In a global piracy survey conducted by the industry body, Business Software Alliance, early this year, it was found that about 43% of the software installed in PCs here are illegal. This rate is close to developed economies such as France and Italy which recorded 45% and 49% respectively. We must remember that Bill Gates himself has once mentioned that there is no technically feasible way of preventing copyrighted digital material being replicated. So, it is likely in future that attempts to protect copyright works by solely introducing and implementing increasingly tougher laws will not be economical as well as popular. It is the attitude and the mindset of the users that need to be addressed. And for those die-hard users who are unwilling to pay for software, there is always the alternative free or open source software and materials. I believe the Government could do more to increase awareness and encourage the development of this free or open source software.

In conclusion, I fully support the amendments to the Singapore Copyright Act but would urge the Ministry to clarify some of the areas that I have highlighted. The hope is to ultimately find a win-win solution and create a balance between public domain and copyright-protected materials.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members - Ms Indranee Rajah, Mr

Ahmad Khalis and Mr Zainudin - for their support of the Bill and for the specific comments that they have raised, which I will do my best to clarify.

I am glad that the Members have recognised that we need to have a good IP regime for the interest of our economy and for our national interest. Because, if we did not have a sound and modern IP legislative framework, we will never be able to get the kind of IP industries to locate here - I doubt very much - for example, whether we would have succeeded in having prominent film industries, like Lucasfilm, to have a presence here. So, a sound IP legal framework is a key infrastructure that we need to put in place.

Mr Zainudin rightly gave a chronology of all our amendments. Will there be more amendments? I do not know. But, given the pace of technology and digital technology, where creators of works are trying to ensure that the copyrights which they own keep in pace with technology as well as those committed to circumventing the technology also keep in pace with the fast-moving developments, so do not be surprised if we have to come back to Parliament from time to time to ensure that we are in tune.

May I first take up the points made by Ms Indranee Rajah, some of which were alluded to by other Members. Her first point was about statutory damages (section 119). Just to recap, as I said, the statutory damages regime should provide an alternative for rights holders to be compensated for losses suffered due to infringements. Where a plaintiff elects for statutory damages, there is no need to prove actual or foreseeable loss of the infringing activity. Her point was: why not have a minimum sum? I think it is possible to conceive that approach, but we have elected for a system of damages based on compensatory principles. And in view of these principles, the court will award an

appropriate amount based on the evidence and circumstances in each case. We have tried to make the set of guiding factors as comprehensive as possible. The court will look into the nature and purpose of the infringing act, including whether the infringing act was done for commercial purpose; flagrancy of the infringement; whether the party acted in bad faith; any loss suffered or likely to be suffered; any benefit shown to have accrued to the defendant; the conduct of the parties; the need for deterrence; and other relevant factors.

We have not opted for the minimum sum because the situations can be so complex, so diverse and so varied. The works can be varied. The nature of the copyright infringement can also be so diverse and the mitigating factors, if there are any, can also vary. So, we decided that it is best to adopt this approach and see whether it works. And if it works, we can maintain the system. But if experience shows that it might be better to have a minimum sum, then we will have a relook at it. But I take Ms Indranee Rajah's point. The reason why we have opted for it is because, I think, it may be very difficult to work out the minimum sum, as it is not foreseeable with the kind of circumstances of the cases where statutory damages may have to be awarded.

The next point that she made was about the new section 261 on the maximum statutory damages, and whether it is applicable per device. The way the provision is drafted, the maximum statutory damages award is applicable for each action brought by the owner of the copyright against the person who contravenes the relevant provisions, and it is not pegged to the number of devices or measures recommended, although we envisage that this fact - number of devices or measures - can be a relevant

factor in determining the appropriate award.

Ms Indranee Rajah also spoke about section 136 - the guidelines for the courts to determine whether the extent of the infringement is significant - and I think Mr Zainudin also mentioned that in connection with the other limb of commercial advantage. What we have tried to do in this section, and with parallel sections elsewhere, is to provide guidelines. Because of the concerns of Ms Indranee Rajah and Mr Zainudin that the way it is drafted may catch the odd home user who in good faith innocently downloads some items, I think I should assure them that the way it is drafted is unlikely to have that result. Because, if you look at the guidelines, this end-user criminalisation provision applies where a person infringes a copyright work and the infringement of the copyright is wilful and the extent of the infringement is either significant or the person does it to obtain a commercial advantage. And in determining whether it is siginificant or not, the courts will have a set of guidelines. They look at the volume of the articles. They look at the value of the articles. They will then examine whether that person's infringement has a substantial prejudicial impact on the owner of the copyright. So, you can imagine that, if someone at home is downloading some items for personal use, these guidelines will give sufficient guidance.

For commercial advantage, the person is said to obtain a commercial advantage if the act is done to obtain a direct advantage, benefit or financial gain for a business or trade carried on by him. You have to look at these two limbs in totality to the provision. So, it is really what it is intended to catch and what it is not intended to catch. If someone uploads many popular films, if I may give an illustration, such as the Lord of the Rings or Spiderman II and so on, without the

authorisation of the copyright owner, and he uploads it into a website, before these films are commercially released so that it pre-empts theatrical release, then, of course, many people will just download the movies and, as a result, the copyright owner suffers because the people do not go to the cinemas or buy the films. While the person who uploaded the films may not have personally benefited, he would have definitely caused substantial impact on the owner of the copyright. But it is not intended to catch a person who commits an infringement by occasionally downloading an article or song from the Internet for his own personal enjoyment.

But let me add that it does not mean that he is scot-free because, legally, that is still an infringement but attracting a civil action. Here, in the Bill, we are talking about criminalisation. That example of downloading some songs for enjoyment is not caught within this provision. So, here, again, we have decided to take this approach of leaving these criteria which, I think, in my view, is sufficiently workable and gives sufficient guidelines. But I realise that I am dealing with lawyers here. Of course, similar approaches are not unknown of in our legal system. For example, in our Penal Code, section 320 designates grievous hurt. It is also using qualitative and quantitative approaches. Because grievous hurt is defined as something which causes a sufferer to be within the space of 20 days to be in severe bodily pain. How do you decide whether the sufferer is in severe bodily pain? It is a question of fact. How much bodily pain must a sufferer suffer before you decide? So you lay the criterion, 20 days' severe bodily pain. It is qualitative and quantitative. You have many other examples. I think we have tried our best to work out the criteria and the mischief which this law is intended to deal with in a way such that one will know that if you do this, it is not a mischief that is going to land you in jail, as Mr Zainudin was worried about.

On Network Service Providers, I should explain to Ms Indranee Rajah that these provisions actually set out a comprehensive framework. But they are slightly different because they cover the different functions of the NSPs. The different functions, for example, which the provisions deal with are transmitting, routing or storing of materials. For each of these functions, the NSPs are required to comply with different sets of conditions. So not all sets of conditions will apply for every one of their functions. It is pretty technical. I sat down with our people who understand it, and the way I understand it, and I believe it is correct, is that section 193B deals with the NSPs' function in the transmission or routing of materials. In the transmission or routing of materials, it is not appropriate to require the NSPs to take down infringing materials in the course of carrying out that function. However, the court may order the NSPs to take reasonable steps to disable access to an online location or to terminate a specified account. However, where the materials are stored in the NSP's systems, the NSP is in a position to comply with the take down notice. So that is how the provisions have been drafted in that way, which caught Ms Indranee Rajah's attention.

Now, let me deal with some of the points raised by Mr Ahmad Khalis. He asked a question: since we have made significant changes to the copyright regime, should we not enact a new Act? We decided not to repeal and re-enact because the fundamental policy intent or the principles behind the copyright legislation still remain unchanged. Amendments will augment and refine the existing regime. We have not completely overhauled it. I would think the legal fraternity and the industry are already familiar with the present structure in the existing Act.

He spoke about public education, I agree with him, and also about the need

to create public awareness. The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has done quite a bit and it will continue to do so. As regards this Bill, it was put up for public consultation. We have held sessions with the key players in the industry. And I take his point about the general public. The reason I agree with him is that all of us, Singaporeans, can easily understand the need to take action against theft of property belonging to somebody, ie, physical property, somebody enters your home and steals the property. There is no quarrel about that. It is a well-established concept. But, somehow, it is not as easily understood that there can be theft of intellectual property which can cause equal harm and damage to the owner of the property. So this is something that we have to work on. Because, as I just said in the beginning, a sound IP regime is absolutely important for future economic growth.

I believe Mr Ahmad Khalis also touched on shifting of the burden of proof. I should clarify that, as I see the provisions, we had not actually shifted the burden of proof. Take section 254, for example, which is really an extension of an existing provision which covers application of search warrant for criminal prosecution for performance rights. This provision actually continues the existing system where an applicant for search warrant needs to satisfy the court that there is a reasonable cause for suspecting the items to be seized within the premises constitute evidence of such offence. Let me assure him that all search warrants, of course, will be executed by the Police and not by the IP rights holders who would use due discretion in exercising the power. The only change is that the rights holder now has a flexibility to list the items to be seized in general categories where it is not possible simply to specify each and every item. By the way, these provisions in the Copyright Act are similar

to, and actually they mirror, the amendments which were moved to the Trade Marks Act in this House in June. So they are quite different from the civil actions, whether it is the Mareva or Anton Piller remedies.

On border enforcement, Mr Khalis spoke about the need to educate shippers and how we train customs officers. These provisions on border enforcement are also to be found in the amendments to the Trade Marks Act which we adopted earlier. Let me say in reply to him that we will of course continue to work closely - ICA, Customs, MPA, and other relevant agencies - to ensure that shippers and other affected industries are aware of the requirements of these new laws. And IPOS on its part has been working and will continue to work with enforcement agencies, rights holders and other relevant agencies to ensure that there is adequate education and training for enforcement personnel.

Finally, I think there is one more question that Mr Ahmad Khalis asked on whether there is provision here going beyond the US-Singapore FTA, I would say that the main set of provisions, which is not connected with the FTA in this Bill, deals with the fair dealing provisions which I spoke at length during my Second Reading speech. As mentioned earlier, currently, the fair dealing provisions are somewhat restrictive. They deal with specified activities and those specified activities have been retained, but we have also refined the fair dealing regime to allow for other activities to be considered, such as fair dealing based on a set of factors. And I think that is better because they are also in tune with developments in other countries, like the US and Australia. I think it is an amendment which we need because they seek to preserve the unimpeded exchange of information and ideas to create an environment which is conducive to the development of creative works.

I think I have dealt with Mr Zainudin's points and I have also dealt with the questions raised by Ms Indranee Rajah. I thank the Members for their support and comments on the Bill.

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. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.12 pm until 4.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.35 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Introduction

Sir, Singapore is a small country with limited resources. The presence of immigration offenders, such as illegal immigrants and overstayers, poses a serious social problem, and compromises our safety and security. MHA has taken, and will continue to take, a tough stance against all immigration offenders as well as anyone who harbours, employs or assists them to enter or remain unlawfully in Singapore.

The Immigration Act regulates the entry, stay and exit of foreigners into and out of Singapore. This Bill amends the Act to enhance the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority's (ICA) operational powers to tackle the immigration offender problem.

The immigration offender situation

The widespread publicity on the harbouring of immigration offenders has helped to raise public awareness of the problem. Through our public education efforts like Crime Watch and the circulation of information leaflets, as well as media publicity on the tough sentences meted out to harbourers, the public is well-aware of our tough stance on the harbouring of immigration offenders. Our concerted efforts have resulted in a 40% drop of harbourers arrested, from 527 in the year 2000, to 333 last year.

Sir, this drop is a result of the measures taken over the past four to five years. Our efforts have, therefore, borne fruit. While we arrested some 16,500 illegal immigrants and overstayers in 2000, this number fell to 11,900 last year, a drop of almost 30% over three years. But we cannot be complacent.

In strengthening our multi-pronged approach to deal with the supply and demand of immigration offenders, MHA has reviewed the Immigration Act to ensure that the current provisions remain relevant. This amendment Bill is a result of this review. Let me now elaborate on the key amendments.

Harbouring of immigration offenders

Lower limb for harbouring of immigration offenders

Sir, when the due diligence requirements were introduced more than 10 years ago in 1993, the clearly spelt out

checks helped landlords to verify the identity and immigration status of their foreign tenants. These checks not only play a vital role in keeping Singapore safe, but they also ensure the personal safety of the landlords, especially since they are renting out their premises to strangers.

We have previously informed the House that the police and ICA have in place a set of internal guidelines to determine whether landlords caught for harbouring immigration offenders should be charged in court. Over the years, we have constantly reviewed and finetuned these guidelines to ensure their relevance and effectiveness. Consequently, between 2000 and 2003, about half of the harbourers arrested were prosecuted while the rest were issued with a stern warning. Those prosecuted, if convicted, faced mandatory imprisonment of six months or more.

Given the seriousness of the harbouring offence, we will retain the current mandatory jail sentence to provide a clear deterrence to and aid the prosecution of defiant or recalcitrant offenders who knowingly or recklessly harbour immigration offenders.

What is new in these amendments is that those found guilty of negligently harbouring an immigration offender will not face mandatory imprisonment. This will, therefore, bridge the gap in the current Act where the prosecution either has to prosecute offenders for an offence that carries a mandatory imprisonment sentence, or let them off with a stern warning. Also, the courts will have some leeway not to have to send an offender to jail, if found guilty.

Clause 19 of the Bill amends section 57 of the Act by introducing a graduated dual-limb penalty structure for the harbouring offence. Those charged with

"reckless harbouring" must show that they have conducted any two of the three due diligence checks or furnish other evidence to support their claims that they did not recklessly harbour the immigration offender. If the court is satisfied that the accused had not acted with reckless disregard, or, if the prosecution decides at the outset that that is the proper charge to prefer in the first place, the offender would face a charge of "negligent harbouring" where the accused must then show that he has conducted all the three due diligence checks or provide other evidence to prove that he had not negligently harboured the immigration offender. In other words, if a landlord has conducted only two of the due diligence checks, he is liable to be found guilty of negligent harbouring, which does not carry a mandatory jail sentence. If a landlord conducts only one of the three due diligence checks, he may be charged under either the negligent or reckless limb, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Hence, Sir, MHA's call for landlords to carry out all three due diligence checks remains unchanged. To ensure that they would not be charged for harbouring an immigration offender, this is what they have to do. It is a commonsensical approach. But even if they fail to do all three checks, the prosecution will examine the circumstances of the case before determining the course of action to take. With the new amendment, it is now possible that some offenders may not face mandatory imprisonment, if found guilty.

Refinement to due diligence checks and provision for housing agents to do these checks

Let me set out once again the three due diligence checks that landlords should perform before they rent out their premises to foreign tenants. Firstly, they should inspect the original entry permit or

visit pass, which has been incorporated into the identification card for work permit holders. Secondly, they should ascertain that the holder of the passport is the person named in the pass or permit. And, finally, they should verify with the employer that the tenant's particulars tally with those in their records.

Since August 2000, ICA and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) have provided an on-line verification service to facilitate the public in checking the immigration status of their foreign tenants. Clause 19 of the Bill offers this alternative in the legislation to the third due diligence check of verifying the tenant's particulars with his employer. With the amendment, the third due diligence check will be satisfied if the validity of the pass of their foreign tenants is verified either by checking with the employer, ICA or MOM. This will make it easier for the third check to be conducted.

MHA has looked at another group of people who play a key role in the renting out of premises. They are the middlemen, such as housing agents and foreign labour agents, who, in return for monetary reward, assist landlords to rent out their premises to an immigration offender. Currently, only the landlord is required to exercise due diligence to check the immigration status of his foreign tenants. If caught harbouring immigration offenders, it is presumed that he knows that his foreign tenants were immigration offenders, unless he proves that he has done the three due diligence checks.

However, in some instances, the landlords depend on middlemen, such as housing agents, to secure their tenants. Not only do housing agents receive monetary benefits from these transactions, they can get away scot-free, as they are currently not required to verify the immigration status of the foreign tenants they introduce. This is not right.

Some landlords also rely on these trained professionals to ascertain the status of their tenants in Singapore. These housing agents are thus just as, if not more, culpable than the landlords.

Clause 21 of the Bill, therefore, introduces a new section 57B, such that anyone who assists the landlord in the renting of his premises to an immigration offender in return for any reward, is presumed to have assisted, encouraged or induced the landlord to provide shelter to the immigration offender. Such a middleman will need to also conduct the three due diligence checks when they help the landlords to rent out their premises to foreign tenants. Those convicted will be liable to mandatory imprisonment of six months to two years, as well as a fine not exceeding $6,000.

Sir, these due diligence checks are not new. They are clearly spelt out in our legislation and have been widely publicised. When this proposal

was first mooted, MHA consulted the Institute of Estate Agents and the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers. Representatives from these two bodies acknowledged the importance and need for housing agents to be responsible for ensuring that their foreign clients have legal status in Singapore before recommending them as prospective tenants to the landlords. They supported the proposal and indicated that they would assist in publicising the new requirements to their members.

Enhancing enforcement efforts

Sir, let me now touch on a group of amendments that will enhance ICA's enforcement powers against undesirable foreigners.

First, collection of biometric identifiers. Currently, the Act already allows ICA to collect finger impressions from any person who applies for a pass or permit, or any person suspected of having

committed certain immigration offences, as defined in the Act or Regulations. The objective of collecting finger impressions is to prevent undesirable foreigners from returning to Singapore using different passports which bear different names. Instead of just fingerprints, clause 19 will amend the Act to allow ICA to collect biometric identifiers of travellers and immigrants.

The type of identifiers ICA can collect will be specified in the Regulations. Given that the field of biometrics is evolving very rapidly, this will give ICA the flexibility to add other types of biometric identifiers should the need arise in future. For a start, the Regulations will specify the collection of photographs and finger impressions.

Second, enhanced penalty for using forged travel documents. Sir, last year, ICA officers arrested 586 people for using forged passports or other people's passports. In the first six months of this year, 303 people were arrested for this offence. MHA is concerned with this trend. In the current security climate, we must ensure that prohibited immigrants and syndicates are taken to task for using forged travel documents to enter or transit through Singapore.

To send a strong deterrent signal, we propose to enhance the penalty for this offence which is currently a fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both. Clause 12 of the Bill amends section 28 of the Act to expressly provide for the penalty of a fine of up to $6,000, or imprisonment of up to 24 months, or both, for such an offence. This increase is in line with the penalties for similar forgery or cheating offences dealt with under the Penal Code.

Third, conveying of immigration offenders out of Singapore. Currently, the

Act only provides for the offence of conveying of immigration offenders into Singapore but not those who attempt to convey them out of the country. Clause 19 rectifies this lacuna and equalises the penalty for the conveyance of immigration offenders into or out of Singapore.

Fourth, seizure of monies for repatriation purposes. Sir, last year, ICA repatriated more than 11,800 foreigners who had either entered Singapore illegally or violated the conditions set out in their immigration passes.

To enable swifter repatriation of these undesirable foreigners, clause 16 will empower the Controller to seize monies found in possession of any prohibited immigrant to cover any expenses incurred by the Government in connection with his or his dependants' detention, maintenance, medical treatment and removal from Singapore.

Fifth, requiring vehicles to stop for immigration clearance. Sir, sometimes, drivers of vehicles with immigration offenders hidden in them fail to stop for immigration checks and speed off from the checkpoints. To strengthen our enforcement against conveyance of immigration offenders, clause 7 of the Bill introduces a new section 18B to explicitly require all motor vehicle drivers to stop at the checkpoints for immigration checks when entering or leaving Singapore. Especially in today's security climate, it is critical that all vehicles do so.

Sixth, arming immigration officers. Clause 14 of the Bill will empower immigration officers to be armed under the Immigration Act. However, only selected ICA officers, such as those involved in enforcement actions against immigration offenders, will be issued with firearms due to the high operational risk of their job. Let me assure the House that public safety is our top priority - the immigration officers will have to undergo

proper training before they are allowed to carry firearms.

Other amendments

Sir, at the same time, MHA will also be making other administrative and technical amendments to the Immigration Act to allow for better administration of the Act. These amendments will streamline current practices such as regularising the stay in Singapore of children born to foreign parents and of ex-citizens; clarify existing provisions such as the imposition of conditions on entry permit holders; achieve operational efficiency such as the requirement for crew members arriving in Singapore to furnish security bonds; and streamline provisions of the Immigration Act with other legislation such as providing for the Public Prosecutor to apply before the court confiscates a vehicle or vessel used in the commission of an offence.

Sir, in conclusion, these amendments will enable us to more effectively tackle the immigration offender problem and to facilitate immigration officers in carrying out their duties.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to speak. I generally support this Bill. Many of the amendments are indeed very welcomed. Before I continue, Sir, may I declare my interest as a lawyer. In the course of my work, I do deal with immigration offences.

New sections 10 and 11A reflect Singapore's recognition that globalisation changes our attitudes towards citizenship. We still do not accept dual citizenship - that has not changed. But these provisions facilitate ex-Singaporeans a more convenient access back to Singapore than previously allowed. We

recognise that those who emigrate nowadays and decide to give up our citizenship do not always do so in utter disagreement with our norms and values. More so now than before, the pressures and opportunities arising from globalisation are more important reasons. And this amendment is a significant gesture, more in tune with the times.

However, Sir, I feel that the 24-hour grace period given to ex-Singaporeans upon cessation of citizenship either to leave or to apply for a permit to stay is quite short. Cessation of citizenship could be made on the eve of a public holiday which gives the applicant literally only a few hours to get his paperwork done, otherwise, his extended stay will not be in the house but maybe in jail. Not all people are Internet-savvy and have immediate access to the relevant authorities. Perhaps, a 72-hour grace period is more reasonable. A longer grace period also reflects our current mood that we are not in a hurry to ask people to leave even if they no longer wish to be Singaporeans. Alternatively, I would urge the immigration authorities to enforce this provision with a human touch. So long as security is not compromised, some leniency is not out of place.

Sir, new section 18B makes it a duty for every driver coming into Singapore to stop his vehicle for inspection at authorised places. There is a need to educate the public further on this. Presently, large signboards giving clear instructions and located at strategic points do help. In addition, perhaps it is useful to distribute pamphlets at relevant points along the immigration passageway. Such information is to avoid misunderstanding and unnecessary alarm both to the public and to the enforcement officers.

Sir, recently, a relative of mine drove back from Malaysia to Singapore together

with members of his family. He had his wife and four young daughters with him. He had cleared the immigration customs and even the security. After which, he entered into a lane to get out of the immigration checkpoint. But half of the lane was barricaded. He was not sure where to go. He played safe and stopped behind the barricade, which actually was not what he was supposed to do, he was supposed to go through. But because he parked the car at a place where he was not supposed to park, suddenly, about six Gurkha officers surrounded the car and there came along immigration officers as well. Can you imagine the "excitement" - if I may use a positive word - that happened in the car and outside. This is just to illustrate the point that instructional points and directions are necessary in order to avoid alarm.

Some amendments to section 57 are welcomed. It is important that landlords must know their duties. New section 57(7D) clarifies the minimum that landlords must do and I urge the Ministry, in conjunction with the HDB, to educate the public further on the duties of landlords on the three checks. I call it the PP, VAP and the V. The PP is to inspect the pass and permit, VAP is to check it against the passport and the V is to check for validity - something simple like this for landlords to remember.

Sir, the creation of a minor offence with no mandatory imprisonment term or minimum fine is a welcomed move. The court could exercise flexibility to mete out symbolic punishments in truly deserving cases, instead of being bound to send offenders to jail whatever their circumstances. In this regard, I sincerely hope that the courts do not fetter this flexibility with its own internal tariffs. I understand the need for consistency. I appreciate the need for lower courts to be bound by decisions of higher courts and to accord

deference to its own previous decisions. These legal maxims must be strictly applied to principles of law. When it comes to sentencing, I think it is not doing justice to legislative intent if, in the name of consistency, the court, in effect, imposes its own mandatory minimum.

Next, Sir, I am also concerned that the new section 57(7C) does not state that in doing the three checks, it is sufficient. It states that a defendant, who is charged, shall not be deemed to have exercised due diligence, unless he has discharged the three checks. To prove due diligence, he must prove that he has done the three checks. But the question is: if he has done the three checks, is that enough? It seems not so. Looking at the new section 57(1)(v), under this section, he may still be liable for the new minor offence. This seems to place a heavy burden on potential landlords. They are told what to do and yet, they do not know whether what they do is enough. I would suggest that once the defendant has proven the three checks, the burden of proof shifts back to the prosecution to show lack of due diligence. This would make the duty of the landlord more certain.

I have a similar view as regards the intermediate offence, where the defendant proves two out of three checks. While I welcome the concept of this intermediate offence, I thought that the shifting of proof back to the prosecution mechanism would establish greater certainty.

Sir, I also welcome the new section 57B. The main practical effect of this is that housing agents can be liable if the landlords commit the offence of giving shelter to immigration offenders. It is only fair that as people who are in the business, and who are likely to have much more knowledge than landlords about the ramifications of procuring tenants, they should share the responsibility. Sir, with the inclusion of this new responsibility, I wonder whether bona fide checks done by agents or attorneys are sufficient to

absolve landlords from having to personally conduct similar checks. Perhaps, where there are statements made under oath by agents or attorneys to the effect that two checks have been made in compliance with section 57(d) - there are three checks - if such statements are made, should these be regarded as sufficient to absolve landlords from their duty to check further? This, I suggest, makes more sense and is better for business efficacy.

While I support the amendments, Sir, I hope the Senior Minister of State could address the concerns raised.

Sir, I welcome the proposed amendments to the Immigration Act, particularly those relating to the introduction of the new offences of harbouring illegal immigrants negligently under the new section 57.

The existing law only provided for a minimum punishment of 6 months for intentional harbouring of illegal immigrants. I have come across many cases where the accused are very aged or illiterate who have been charged under the existing section 57 and sentenced to a minimum of 6 months' imprisonment. There was no alternative for the investigator and the prosecution but to charge the accused under section 57, nor was there a lesser charge that could be preferred against the accused, depending on the severity of the offence or the other vulnerabilities/weaknesses of the accused. In short, the law previously provided a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem which required a flexible and varied approach on a case-by-case basis.

I am glad that the Ministry of Home Affairs has understood the draconian impact of the law and had exercised prosecutorial discretion to let off some offenders, whose case fell on the borderline, with a severe warning. But there are many others who have been

sent to prison regardless of the mitigating and sympathetic circumstances of each case.

That the law was draconian was felt by many in the law enforcement, prosecution and even judicial circles. I am happy that the MHA has come to recognise that there must be room for discretion to be exercised by the police, the Attorney-General and the courts in preferring charges against the accused for illegal harbouring under the Immigration Act.

Sir, I have two primary concerns about the new provisions of negligent harbouring of illegal immigrants. The first concerns the prosecutorial discretion not to charge offenders where the accused is proved to have done at least one of the checks or was misled by the housing agent that he had done the checks. I hope that the police and the AG's Chambers would continue to exercise discretion and not prosecute where the facts do not warrant it. My fear is that with the new provisions of negligent harbouring, the police or the prosecution may coerce or induce the accused to plead guilty to a lesser charge even when they are innocent. They may charge the accused under the original limb of section 57(d)(i) but then offer the accused a reduced charge of negligent harbouring to secure an easy conviction. This may put some accused in a dilemma. If they fight the case, they may be convicted for a serious offence under section 57(d)(i) and get 6 months' imprisonment, and they have to worry that if they do appeal, their sentence may be enhanced on appeal. But if they do not fight the case, they are then induced to plead guilty to a charge of negligent harbouring. All they want is a fair trial where the police or the prosecution charge them for the offence which are borne by the facts. In such event, the accused should be offered the opportunity to have a fair trial to determine whether the accused was

negligent or innocent. I do hope MHA would monitor the cases under the new provisions so that "abuse" of the new provisions does not take place in order to secure easy convictions.

The second concern relates to the necessary checks to establish the degree of the offence and the charge that will be preferred. The three checks that are laid out in the Act are:

the landlord first checks the foreign tenants' original pass or permit;

the landlord checks that the particulars in the passport correspond with the particulars in the pass or permit; and

if the employer's name is in the pass or permit, the landlord has to check with the employer that the person's particulars correspond with the employer's record.

Sir, the weakness of the present system of verification is that many landlords are novices. They could not distinguish between a forged pass or permit against an original one. The quality of present day forged documents is very high. In fact, it is so good that even police officers could be duped on first sight. There are organised syndicates and smart labour agents who know how the present verification process takes place. The trick is that the names and particulars of a forged pass or permit would correspond to a real permit or pass holder, but the photograph usually would be different. There could be two passports, one original and another one forged. There could be two work permits, one original and another one forged. If a person merely looks at the forged work permit and the forged passport, the details would tally and the photographs would match because both are forged, and the checks would then be considered completed.

When one calls the employers with either the pass or the passport to check, the employer would confirm that the person named and the FIN number or the work permit number tallies, when in reality, they are actually forged documents.

Sir, there is one way to authenticate which would make it difficult to circumvent, and that is through photographic identification. If the landlord is able to check with MOM or ICA, the photograph on the pass or permit given by the foreigner against the original photograph submitted to MOM or ICA, that would go a long way to solving the problem of forged permits and passes. This would prevent many landlords, even employers, from being duped by illegal immigrants. I do hope that, on top of the present system of verification of just the names and particulars, we could also provide for a way whereby the photographs that are put on the passes or permits could be verified against the photographs or other documents that are with MOM or ICA.

Lastly, on the question of the impact on housing agents and labour agents. Sir, the new section 57B extends the presumption clause and due diligence requirements to middlemen who assist, encourage or induce landlords to provide shelter to immigration offenders. This new clause primarily targets housing agents and foreign labour agents. The punishment is very strict as it imposes a minimum sentence of 6 months' imprisonment in the event of conviction. I am encouraged that MHA has finally shifted the onus to housing agents and labour agents and made them accountable. Many landlords rely on these agents to do the necessary checks on these foreigners. In some instances, the housing or labour agents assure the landlords that they had done the necessary checks and misled the landlord to rent their premises. But, when an illegal immigrant is found on the premises of the

landlord, and the matter is investigated by the police, they would disclaim all responsibility and pinpoint the landlord as the person responsible. They get away scot-free. They charge professional fees, but they do not discharge their duty as all responsible agents should.

I am reassured by these latest amendments that all agents involved in the housing of illegal immigrants would be taken to task. I am confident that with these amendments landlords could expect greater professionalism and detailed checks by housing and labour agents before they place foreigners in the premises. I hope that all professional real estate companies would take necessary action to train their agents and have in place an immigrant verification process that could withstand police scrutiny.

One of the negative effects, the way the law is drafted at the moment, is that it covers any middlemen, and that also applies to lawyers. My concern is that there may be many middlemen who are not housing agents, labour agents or lawyers, who may be caught under the clause. So I would like to urge the Ministry of Home Affairs to publicise the new provisions actively through all professional bodies so that they are made aware of this law and they could educate their members not to fall foul of this new law.

On that note, Sir, I support the proposed amendments.

Sir, it may be refreshing to hear from a non-lawyer after so many and one more to follow. Sir, not too long ago, when we were confronted with the problem of killer litter, the law stipulated that anyone throwing things, whether it is litter or otherwise, when caught, would deserve a mandatory jail sentence. In relation to this episode, a case was related to me of a seamstress who had to carry a pile of

jeans that she had sewn, from her flat on the 4th floor to a van waiting below her flat, presumably to take delivery. In between the transfer, she rested a pile of jeans on the parapet to catch her breath. Apparently, due to exhaustion, she lost hold of her wares and the pile of jeans came tumbling down from the 4th floor. Although the information was given to me anecdotally, my source told me that she was subsequently charged and served a 2 weeks' mandatory jail sentence. As defined by the law then, things thrown from a flat are deemed to be killer litter and thus the need to charge. When it came before our courts, although our judges were sympathetic to the specific case of the seamstress, they had no choice and had little discretion, but to mete out the 2 weeks' mandatory jail sentence stipulated according to the law.

Sir, my parliamentary colleague, the hon. Mr Shanmugam, had spoken passionately in this House on the need to amend our immigration law. He had spoken then that the mandatory jailing of landlords, which puts them on par with grave crimes and serious criminals, represents an erosion of the principle that Parliament prescribes mandatory jail sentences only in severest cases. Sir, with this proposed amendment, the erosion of this principle has not been prevented. Unlike killer litter, negligent landlords do not put human lives at risk. But, like the killer litter episode mentioned earlier, once the law stipulates a mandatory jail sentence, it effectively takes away the discretionary powers of our public servants and, in particular, much of the discretionary powers of our courts.

However, with this amendment, the introduction in section 57 of a negligent harbouring limb, discretion is enabled. Our civil service is filled with some of our ablest and brightest. They must be entrusted with the powers of discretion to decide, especially when it comes to

prosecuting for the greater good of the nation. More importantly, if our judges are entrusted with the powers to mete out death sentences to deserving criminals, by extension, they must also be able to discern between harbourers of illegal immigrants, who deserve stiff sentences, and the unfortunate exceptions, who may not deserve a mandatory jail sentence.

I support the amendment in the Bill extending the catch to include the middlemen who assist, encourage or induce landlords under section 57B to provide shelter to immigration offenders. The property market in Singapore currently is tough all round, be it within the rental or sale segment of the market. Many real estate agents are finding the going tough and some may be tempted to put caution to the wind. A few desperate agents may stop at nothing to conclude a transaction and may inevitably put themselves or their clients, the landlords, at risk and thus cast a black mark on the industry.

Similarly, although the unemployment situation is on the mend, the sad fact of chronic unemployment hitting some 70,000-odd Singaporeans remains and, confronted with a tight situation of financial difficulties, I would not be surprised if house-owners become more lax when doing the necessary due diligence on would-be tenants. How many times have we encountered in our meet-the-people sessions of struggling residents with multi-faceted problems, including mounting arrears? Their problems are complex, compounded with a tough job market. The single mother, desperate for money, may be quite callous and not to do the necessary due diligence when confronted with the opportunity of renting her flat for some much needed cash. Or, for that matter, our single and/or elderly residents, receiving no support from their

friends or relatives, and needing to eke out a living on their own in spite of their old age, are still fit to work, they too have to compete with the tough employment situation, and having little or no education, could we blame them if they are less than cautious in applying the three required due checks to absolve them from penalty? With the provision in section 57, discretion could be applied if the courts and prosecutors are satisfied. Had this amendment been in effect last year, the mitigating factors might have saved a constituent of mine from imprisonment, like our hon. Member, Mr Ravindran, had mentioned earlier. This incident involved my resident. He employed a worker and checked his document that seemed to be in order. One day the police came, did a spot check and all was fine, seemingly. And, another day, a spot check by Immigration Officers found out the document was false. This resident of mine was in prison.

Sir, on another consideration, we know that the tenancy agreements are also stamped and registered with IRAS where both the details of the landlord and tenant are recorded. In our drive to consolidate and interconnect Government services, could the Government consider a system or process to inform landlords of any change in the status of the immigrant tenants by alert or notification, so that the landlord could take necessary steps to protect his interest and, in fact, avoid being penalised? So this closing of the loop, as it were, would make differentiating the recalcitrant, knowing and reckless harbourers stand out. It would take close cooperation between MOM, ICA and possibly IRAS in some cases, but surely this is a challenge that our civil service could face and overcome.

The inclusion in the amendment of the lower limb for harbouring is long overdue.

It would seem that the several scenarios I have mentioned and past cases that claim much publicity reveal that the

discretionary hand is crucial in the application of the law according to its intent. Although the amendment aims at giving the courts and prosecution more discretion, the provision for mandatory jail sentence may be made clearer and specifically applied to recalcitrant, reckless, knowing and intentional harbourers.

Last but not least, Sir, I speak in support of the amendment of section 38A of the Bill to arm our immigration officers. On a daily basis, our officers at the frontier of our borders risk life and limb in ensuring that the fabric of our society is not threatened with undesirable elements entering our shores. Given that Singapore has been singled out as a target for the extended arm of the Al Qaeda group in South East Asia, it is timely that we adequately arm our officers and that their lives too are not threatened. I call on our Ministry, in doing so, not to be half hearted about it but to not only appropriately but adequately arm and train our officers. Sir, it is needless to say that our immigration officers face challenges from unknown enemies with equally unknown weaponry.

Sir, I support this amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I wish to declare my interest on this Bill as a practising lawyer in criminal law.

Sir, I would like to comment on the following proposed amendments to the Immigration Act. Section 6(2) requires completion of embarkation forms except for Singaporeans. I suggest that it should include, besides a citizen of Singapore, a permanent resident of Singapore also unless he is already exempted by the Minister for Home Affairs under section 56 of the said Act.

It is noted that section 6(3)(e) is being amended to reduce the severity of punishment from a fine of $4,000 to

$2,000 and imprisonment of 12 months to 6 months. This is one occasion when Parliament is being more considerate in its punishment by reducing the same.

The new section 6A imposes on the non-citizen parents of a child born in Singapore to renew after 42 days of the birth of the child the special pass for the child to remain in Singapore. This appears to be harsh for parents or one of the parents who is working in Singapore, say, on an employment pass or a work permit.

Sub-section (5) imposes on the parents the burden of ensuring the child does not remain in Singapore. This, in reality, would result in the separation of the child from his or her parents. The strong arm of the law needs to temper this harsh imposition with compassion and humanity. It is therefore hoped that the Controller of Immigration would not be draconian or too strict in his approach to granting extension of time of the special pass.

Sir, the new section 11A imposes on persons who have ceased to be a citizen of Singapore to leave Singapore within 24 hours after he ceases to be a citizen of Singapore. Why such a harsh timeline? The Controller of Immigration should allow at least 14 days for the non-citizen to organise his life and make necessary arrangements for him to leave Singapore. These are the people who are going to migrate and it is important that they leave Singapore with fond memories or at least very little negative thoughts about our nation. Any harsh treatment of these people would not assist in them being good ambassadors of Singapore when they are abroad.

The punishment seems to be very harsh. Why should we want to send him to prison and, worse still, cane him for such an offence? The modern trend in punishment is to try and avoid any form of caning to be imposed by a court of

law. Caning may be contrary to the modern trend in human rights. Caning should not be a form of punishment in our modern world. The sentencing system should be less harsh and I submit that imprisonment as a form of punishment should suffice.

Next, new section 38A. Sir, would it be prudent to have only certain officers, say, above the rank of Sergeant to be provided with arms and ammunition? Alternatively, the Ministry must ensure that they are properly trained and disciplined in their use of arms and ammunition so that there is no scope for abuse.

On new section 47A, the creditors of the prohibited immigrant is now left with having to queue up and having a claim inferior to that of the Immigration Department. The creditor may make his claim within six years from the date of the seizure. He has no right to garnish, attach, sequestrate or levy against the prohibited immigrant's monies which are seized by the Immigration Department. It could be argued that this is unfair to a creditor whose rights are being overridden by the claims of the Immigration Department.

The amended section 49 empowers the court to order a forfeiture of the vehicle where an offence under the Immigration Act is proven. There may be innocent owners who might have given their consent to drivers who might commit offences without the owner's knowledge. It is hoped that in such cases the innocent owners' vehicles would not be forfeited. The power to order a forfeiture by the court should be exercised very cautiously and sparingly, lest it offends against the right of ownership of an innocent vehicle owner.

Sir, the new section 55(1)(ga) provides for the taking or recording of any

personal identifier which is currently defined in section 2 as amended. However, the new section 61A states that the Schedule may be amended, added to or varied by the Minister. This means that, besides any finger, thumb or palmar impressions, any photograph or other image of a person's face and shoulders, the Minister may go beyond, eg, taking of blood samples, DNA testing, etc. I hope there will be respect of one's privacy.

The amended section 57 is to be welcomed, as it now reduces the harshness of the previous law. The amendments give the prosecution and the court more discretion and flexibility. And this intention of Parliament must be exercised generously by the prosecution and the court, having regard to some unfortunate cases which were heard earlier in our courts where the courts had little discretion in the sentencing of convicted persons under the Immigration Act.

Sir, first, I thank all Members who have spoken, all of whom have supported the Bill.

Let me first address the key points with respect to the amended section 57 on harbouring. First, let me reiterate the point that the immigration offender situation in Singapore remains serious. The numbers have come down. Indeed we are heartened by that, but that is because everybody has chipped in. We have sent out a very clear message through legislation and publicity, and that the fact is everyone can do a part. As I have said in my main speech, the numbers have dropped. In the year 2000, we had 16,500. Last year, we had 11,800. But for the first six months of this year, the number crept up slightly to 6,300. Therefore, this is the context in which we move these amendments - that we must still remain resolute in our fight against

the immigration offender problem in Singapore.

Sir, some Members have spoken as to why we do not want to moderate our approach that we have taken where there is a presumption that operates against the landlord and then it is up to him to rebut the presumption. I think it makes a lot of sense to retain this framework. Firstly, because, as I have said, the problem is a serious one; therefore, we do not want to throw away the framework that has worked well for so long. Also because Singaporeans are familiar with this framework. I am sure Members will be mindful that what we have done is to have moderated this framework. Hence, whilst currently there is a presumption of knowledge, it is up to the landlord to rebut the presumption fully by doing all three checks. Under the amendments, we have nuanced the approach. And now there is no presumption of knowledge but there is a presumption of reckless harbouring and negligent harbouring. And when the foreign tenant who is an immigration offender is shown to be on the premises, it is up to the landlord to rebut the presumption in a way which makes a lot of sense. Because if you are a landlord who is going to let out your premises to a foreigner, the first thing you would want to do is to check his status. You would check his papers. In fact, we are helping these landlords to do this by stating very clearly in the Act what he should do - check his visit pass or work permit, check the particulars against the particulars in his passport and, for good measure, check with either the employer or since the year 2000, we have offered an alternative check of checking either with ICA or MOM.

Therefore, this is the context in which the framework works - the presumption that we introduced in 1984 and due diligence requirements, first, in 1993 requiring the landlord just to check the travel documents and then in 1998, we

amended that and made it watertight; we made it clearer; we spelt out the three checks very clearly. So there is no doubt as to what a landlord needs to do. I am sure Members will realise that over the past 5-7 years, there has been wide publicity on these due diligence checks. In fact, house-owners would have received booklets from the ICA. Originally, it was done in conjunction with IRAS. Now, separately, ICA will send them. And there are also pamphlets which are sent to house-owners. Posters are also put up in various places including Town Councils' notice boards and HDB's notice boards and, of course, through the public media, through Crime Watch, on the radio and indeed in the press reports that some of the Members have mentioned.

In response to any call to change the basic framework, I will say no. Let us stick to this framework but recognising that there can be some harshness in some cases and recognising that, like Mr Ravindran has said, there is very often a matrix of facts, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be the best approach. Now, we are introducing this lower limb approach, a graduated approach, where up there is the recalcitrant landlord or one who knowingly harbours an immigration offender for which the current punishment will apply and I think rightly so, because it is a serious offence. And to respond to Mr Arthur Fong and Mr Chandra Mohan, yes, we will retain the mandatory minimum offence which we have in Singapore but for which we will only invoke and use for the very serious offence. And I will say that if you harbour an immigration offender knowingly or you are recalcitrant, that is a serious offence. But below that, we will have two other categories of reckless harbouring and negligent harbouring.

On Mr Ravindran's point whether we should do more to help landlords discover the status of a tenant who submits forged documents, first, let me say that, really,

the task of landlords is not to discover the real status of the tenant. In the context of these checks, it is to ensure that they do not fall foul of the law

and, at the same time, help Singapore keep the immigration offender problem at bay. Because, if all landlords do the checks properly, then illegal immigrants and immigration offenders will find it very difficult to find a shelter over their heads. So, that is the first point. And, in fact, this point is also related to the point on housing agents where we have now extended it to not just housing agents but all middlemen. Mr Ravindran is right that all middlemen who are involved in the letting out of the premises can be liable. But the point is that the more people who are responsible, the more people will check, then the harder it is for immigration offenders to find accommodation in Singapore.

5.30 pm

Back to Mr Ravindran's point about photographs. I will ask ICA and MOM to take a look at that, although, from the statistics that I have, the number of landlords who were proffered forged documents is actually very low. In fact, a lot of those landlords who fell foul of the law either did not check or just carried out partial or cursory checks, sometimes checking just photocopied documents, which is not good enough. And that is the point that Mr Arthur Fong also talked about as regards his constituent. He may have been shown forged documents, but he did not go on to do the three checks. He may have looked at it and felt that it was genuine. But the point is, regardless of what he is proffered, do the three checks. I think that will help him when he is being investigated by the Police.

The other point, of course, is once you have photographs, it may also lead to

some landlords feeling that they have to do more. I think that is an important point to make. We are not overloading landlords to do more. The basic checks will remain the same. But if we put up photographs and these are helpful to some landlords, that will help them ease their mind. This is something which MOM and ICA will have to study because there are cost implications. You have to convert all your photographs into hard databases or put them online. And then we have to balance it to see whether, in terms of the framework that I mentioned just now, the whole purpose of the checks, will putting photographs indeed aid this process adequately enough to offset the cost incurred. That is a consideration we will have to make.

Mr Ravindran asked whether when we have this new approach, public prosecutors will therefore charge more rather than warn. He mentioned other cases when maybe, in the past, somebody had been warned, but now with this nuanced approach, more may be charged. Let me, first of all, say that the public prosecutor examines every case on its own facts. Every case is very carefully reviewed against the guidelines and, I think, Members will appreciate that because we have finetuned the guidelines over the years, currently only about 50% are charged. Therefore, there is some flexibility there, but not enough flexibility, because the current divide is really not satisfactory where, on the one hand, either you charge, and if you charge, the person found guilty goes to jail mandatorily, or you let him off with a stern warning. Therefore, based on what we are doing, really, the ends of justice will be better served if there is a continuum where, on the one hand, you could be a recalcitrant knowing harbourer; and on the other hand, the innocent, the very careful and diligent landlord who did the three proper checks and in between, as Mr Ravindran has said, there is a matrix of facts. So we will let the AGC

look at the facts which have occurred in a particular case and see how the ends of justice can be served by preferring a charge along this continuum. So, it is not for me to therefore constrain the public prosecutor's hand in deciding the case.

What I can say is that now, with this framework, we will have a more flexible model to work with. It is the same thing that I would say with regard to how the courts sentence. I think Mr Ahmad Khalis urges the courts not to, I suppose, be overly strict in terms of applying the tariff. As a lawyer, he knows that the courts have a tariff for a particular offence and then, depending on the facts of a particular case, the sentence will be meted out according to this tariff. I think, in Singapore, neither Parliament nor the Executive will interfere with how the judges run the courts. But what we are doing today, I am sure, will send a signal to all Singaporeans and also to the courts as to the approach that we are now taking with regard to this offence.

Will these amendments impact housing brokers and agents? I certainly hope so, and not only them but other people who may be involved in the renting out of premises, and in this regard publicity is important. I think Mr Ravindran has asked for more of that. As I mentioned in my speech, we already had dialogue sessions with the relevant agencies, SISV, and Institute of Estate Agents who, in fact, have said that they will help us publicise the checks to their members. I am sure that other professional groups can also do a part. And, really, I think the message that I want to make today is, we all do our part and not just leave it to the landlords. Everybody has a part to play in curbing illegal immigrants, some of whom are very safely ensconced in premises. If we all do a part henceforth, I think the numbers will further be reduced.

Let me now just touch on one or two other points which Members have raised.

Mr Chandra Mohan made this point about children born to foreign parents in Singapore and also the point about former citizens who surrendered their Singapore citizenship, which I think Mr Ahmad Khalis made, and asked whether now it is in one case overly strict, 42 days, and then in another case, 24 hours for them to submit papers for their passes.

Let me put this in perspective. Actually there is no substantive amendment to the policy. For example, for ex-citizens, they can continue to come to Singapore on social visit passes or continue to work here, if they qualify, on work passes. Like I said in my main speech, these are really administrative amendments to fill up a lacuna in the law which is this. Under the Immigration Act currently, a person who enters Singapore will need to have a pass, but a child who is born in Singapore and an ex-Singaporean who becomes a foreigner, because he has surrendered his Singapore citizenship, technically are in Singapore but do not enter Singapore. Because there is no physical entry, the Act currently does not apply to them. So, basically, what we are doing is we are plugging this loophole and putting it into a law this requirement for the parents to submit an application for a pass, and 42 days really is enough. Because, on the ground, what happens is that in a hospital when a child is born, the parents will know that there is a need for them to regularise the child's stay. So, after this Bill is passed, this will be made known to them. Basically, it will entail going to the foreign embassy to get the child's papers done and then going to ICA to regularise the stay. So, 42 days is a sufficient period; the same thing with 24 hours. Because, on the ground, what happens is that most ex-Singaporeans actually surrender their Singapore citizenship when they are overseas. Some come to Singapore to do it. But many who come in already have foreign passports. So when they come in, a "social visit

pass" is already stamped on their passports.

Sir, the numbers who retain their Singapore passports and come in with Singapore passports are actually very small. But for these people who go to ICA to surrender their Singapore citizenship, what this amendment will entail is that they will be told: "Please go and apply for the appropriate pass or permit." So, 24 hours is good enough for that. Because he would have come in on a Singapore passport but, once he surrenders his citizenship, he cannot use the Singapore passport which he had already surrendered. So, basically, he goes to another floor in the ICA building to submit an application for a pass to remain in Singapore. So it is not a problem.

On requiring vehicles to stop at immigration clearance, first of all, I am very grateful for Mr Khalis account. It shows that our security agencies are alert. I hope his relative did not receive too much of a shock, but it is a good sharing. Of course, I must apologise if there had been any confusion or a gap in terms of the signages at the Causeway. I am told that, in fact, many of us who use the Causeway will probably testify that our checkpoints, in fact, are already well organised, and people basically do know where to go. But no one is perfect. So we can see what more can be done in terms of signages or other signs.

On officers being armed, I must thank Mr Arthur Fong for his strong support for ICA officers to be armed. Indeed, he has hit the nail on the head, which is that ICA officers do an important job, but sometimes they are not fully appreciated. And, sometimes, their job can be risky, whether it is enforcement or whether it is at the border checkpoint, for example, or the sea-lanes and our coastal areas,

keeping out illegal offenders. But my assurance is that no officer who need not be armed will be armed. Every situation of an officer being armed will be carefully considered. He will be fully trained. There will be annual classification shoots for him to make sure he still has the skills and there will be protocols on how to use it right. I think we should not limit the rank. Mr Mohan asked, why only the rank of Serjeant and above? I think it depends on the role and function, his task and, most importantly, that he is trained, and therefore is accountable.

On the seizure of monies provision, actually this is not a very critical situation on the ground because basically we have taken this amendment from the Limitation Act which also allows within six years for a person to make a claim. In reality, the monies in the possession of these immigration offenders, many of whom are, for example, vice workers, whom we repatriate, and we do it quite quickly. Therefore, we find that, in fact, most of them are very happy to go home. So, whatever monies that are in their possession will be handed over and used to help pay for the cheapest airfare. So, really, the need to invoke this provision is very minimal. It is also quite unlikely that anybody will turn up later and say, "I have an association with this immigration offender who has my money." But we should provide for it because it is in the Limitation Act. Therefore, we put it in.

On the forfeiture of vehicles, a point that Mr Mohan made, let me assure him that every case will be considered on its own facts. In fact, the guidelines were tightened in 1996 so that the departments, when making a recommendation to the public prosecutor to forfeit the vehicle, must justify it, and the public prosecutor must be convinced. So AGC will act as a common point to determine that on the facts, it is reasonable and fair to forfeit the vehicle. Therefore, in the

case, for example, which he mentioned, if a person lends a vehicle to another person and there is no reason for him, having known that person and having carried out sufficient checks as to why he wants the vehicle, and he tells him a very plausible story to suspect that he would use it for some crime which makes the car liable to forfeiture, the public prosecutor will consider all these facts in deciding whether or not to forfeit.

As to the Schedule, just a short point. I am sure Mr Mohan will realise that we do need flexibility in the Schedule because it is a moving game, and technology changes all the time. So we add biometric identifiers as and when necessary. We leave it fluid because the Minister may have to make his amendments quickly to meet any security exigencies. So, currently, we will take the fingerprints and photographs and, in the future, maybe iris and other technology. These are the points that Members have made.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek a clarification as to whether the Minister would consider perhaps in the near future absolving landlords from further searches if their attorneys or their agents have done so.

It is an important point. Sir, we have always taken the approach that the landlords should be responsible for whom they admit into the premises.

It is also for their own safety because, after all, they are the landlords. They may have an intermediary dealing with the tenant. But I am sure they will want to know who they are dealing with. Therefore, even now, as we also make housing agents liable, we should not therefore absolve the landlords. Let us keep the primary responsibility with the landlords so that you have more people doing the checks. I think that is the basic point I make, whether it is a housing agent or somebody else, the more who are

responsible for checking, I think the greater the likelihood that any immigration offender will be found out. The point is, if the housing agent does carry out a careful check, that will already put off the immigration offender. That is the key point. So if a landlord engages a housing agent to rent out his premises, the key point really is that the housing agent must be responsible and because he is a professional, he does it as his business, he will know what to do. If he does it, he will be able to fob off the illegal offender. But, as a landlord, I think he should also take it upon himself to do the check, to satisfy himself that the housing agent has not been careless. So that is the position I think we should take, and we will see how the new situation works out.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

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

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Electronics Transactions Act (ETA) to ensure that the liabilities of Network Service Providers pertaining to copyright are limited by provisions in the Copyright Act.

The Copyright Act is being amended to ensure that Singapore's copyright laws remain relevant in the digital age and strengthen Singapore's position as an attractive location for copyright-based activities.

The proposed amendments to the Copyright Act provide that Network Service Providers will not be liable for infringement of copyright for the making available or storage of material provided they fulfill certain conditions, such as taking reasonable steps to remove such material upon receipt of formal notice.

The current ETA exempts a Network Service Provider from civil or criminal liability in respect of third-party material in the form of electronic records for which he merely provides access, if such liability is founded on infringement of any rights subsisting in or in relation to such material.

As such, the ETA provides a wider defence to a Network Service Provider than the Copyright Act for liabilities pertaining to copyright.

Section 10 of the ETA is being amended to address this inconsistency so that the defence available to a Network Service Provider under the ETA does not apply to any liability of the Network Service Provider under the Copyright Act in respect of €”

the infringement of copyright in any work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists; or

the unauthorised use of any performance, the protection period of which has not expired.

Consequently, the only defences that will be available to a Network Service Provider in respect of any such liability

will be the defences in the Copyright Act which wasintroduced under the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2004. This will obviate any inconsistency in Singapore's laws.

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. - [DrBalaji Sadasivan].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Broadcasting Act to strengthen the legal control measures against the trade and use of unauthorised decoders.

An unauthorised decoder is one which enables an encrypted programme to be viewed in decoded form, without authorisation from the broadcasting service provider. Such decoders are currently available for sale in Singapore and are being used to decode the broadcast signals of StarHub Cable Vision's cable television programmes without paying for the subscription.

The number of such cases is not significant at the moment, when compared to other countries. However, the enactment of this Bill is expected to provide further deterrence by criminalising

the acts of export, assembly, modification or distribution of unauthorised decoders. In addition, the Bill will criminalise the wilful receipt and further distribution of signals decoded without the authorisation of the lawful broadcasting service provider. Lawful broadcasting service providers and owners of copyright will also be able to bring a civil action against persons who have committed any of the abovementioned acts, if they have suffered any loss or damage.

To conclude, Sir, this Bill will allow for more effective control over the trade and use of unauthorised decoders in Singapore.

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. - [DrBalaji Sadasivan].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Objective of Bill

Sir, the Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Bill 2004 contains two amendments to the Act. First, it gives effect to Singapore's accession to the 1976 International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, which is known as LLMC 76. Second, the

Bill broadens the definition of "ships", so as to allow the registration of offshore vessels, such as mobile oilrigs under the Singapore Registry of Ships.

Rationale for Accession to LLMC 76

Sir, let me now provide the rationale for accession to LLMC 76. The LLMC 76 was adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (or IMO), to address the shortcomings of its precursor, the 1957 International Convention on the Limitation of Liability of Owners of Sea going Ships, otherwise known as Brussels 57. Singapore is currently a party to Brussels 57.

Like Brussels 57, LLMC 76 sets out the rules on the limitation of liability for maritime claims. Maritime claims include those for death, injury, loss or damage occurring on board or in connection with the operation of a ship.

Although the liability limits under the Brussels 57 have served us well, the industry has given us feedback that these limits are now too low to meet their needs. Owing to the nature of the Convention, claimants are now more inclined to take their cases to Court under Brussels 57, to challenge the shipowner's right to limit his liability. This creates great uncertainty for all parties concerned and almost always delays the payment of compensation.

Part VIII of the Merchant Shipping Act presently gives effect to the provisions of Brussels 57. Under the proposed amendments in clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, this would be replaced with a new Part VIII to give effect to LLMC 76. The benefits of acceding to LLMC 76 are as follows:

Firstly, it provides higher liability limits than the 1957 Brussels Convention, which are better able to meet the

industry's requirements in today's environment; and

Secondly, it protects the interests of shipowners, insurers and claimants by making it very difficult to break the shipowner's right to limit his liability, thereby creating more certainty for all parties concerned.

Sir, the accession to LLMC 76 will therefore address the shortcomings of the current Brussels 57 Convention. It will also align our standards with other maritime nations, such as Hong Kong, Japan and most EU states; and enhance Singapore's position as a global hub port

and international maritime centre. LLMC 76 will also make it more favourable for parties to use Singapore law in their shipping contracts. This should lead to greater use of the dispute resolution and judicial process in Singapore, and help develop our maritime legal and arbitration services.

Accession to LLMC 76 would also entail a consequential amendment to the Merchant Shipping (Civil Liability and Compensation for Oil Pollution) Act. Section 11 of that Act is relevant only because we continue to be party to the 1957 Brussels Convention. It should accordingly be deleted upon accession to LLMC 76. This is set out in the Notice of Amendments in respect of the Bill.

Amendment to the definition of "ship"

Sir, this Bill also seeks to broaden the definition of "ships" under the Merchant Shipping Act. Clauses 2(a) to 2(c) amend the definition of "ships" to include mobile oil rigs.

With increasing global demand for energy, we are seeing a corresponding

increase in oil and gas exploration and production activities. This has led to the growth of the offshore drilling and support facilities industry. Although Singapore does not possess such energy resources, we have, over the years, established ourselves as an offshore and marine hub, with capabilities in the building, repairs, conversions and management of offshore vessels.Singapore shipyards, such as Keppel Fels and Sembawang, are leaders in this sector. While these offshore structures are frequently constructed herein Singapore, they are currently registered in other countries, such as the UK, Norway and Australia. This is because our Registry of Ships does not allow for the registration of mobile oil rigs.

Allowing such vessels to be registered under the Singapore Flag will enable Singapore to benefit from the growth in the oil and gas sectors as a one-stop "build, register and operate" centre. This will help attract the ship owners and operators to base their activities in Singapore, and further enhance our efforts to develop maritime ancillary services such as ship financing, marine insurance, maritime legal and arbitration services.

Sir, let me conclude by saying that the proposals to accede to LLMC 76, and to allow the registration of mobile oil rigs under the Singapore Registry of Ships, will further strengthen our position as a global hub port and international maritime centre.

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. - [Mrs Lim Hwee Hua].