Hansard, 2005-05-16

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 (2005) Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam 24 Apr 25 Apr 04 May 10 May 17 May 25 May Mr Hawazi Daipi 25 Apr 28 Apr 17 May 22 May Mr Lim Hng Kiang 25 Apr 28 Apr 06 May 10 May Dr Loo Choon Yong 26 Apr 27 Apr Mr Wee Siew Kim 27 Apr 28 Apr Prof. S Jayakumar 01 May 05 May 20 May 23 May 02 Jun 10 Jun Mr David T E Lim 02 May 08 May 15 May 17 May 17 May 20 May Mr Wong Kan Seng 02 May 08 May 20 May 30 May Miss Penny Low 03 May 08 May Encik Yatiman Yusof 03 May 05 May 10 May 11 May 20 May 23 May Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen 04 May 10 May Dr Tan Cheng Bock 04 May 08 May 23 May 27 May Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 05 May 07 May 17 May 29 May Mr Chew Heng Ching 05 May 05 May 30 May 05 Jun Dr Warren Lee 05 May 10 May Column: 567Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed 05 May 09 May 14 May 23 May Mr Lawrence Leow Chin Hin 07 May 17 May 18 May 20 May Dr Teo Ho Pin 07 May 11 May 19 May 24 May Mdm Halimah Yacob 08 May 10 May 18 May 20 May 29 May 19 Jun Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon 08 May 11 May Mr Inderjit Singh 09 May 11 May Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan 10 May 12 May 18 May 20 May 23 May 28 May Mdm Cynthia Phua 10 May 12 May Mr Mah Bow Tan 10 May 12 May Mr Chan Soo Sen 11 May 21 May Mr Gan Kim Yong 11 May 12 May 14 May 25 May Dr Lee Boon Yang 11 May 13 May Mr Teo Yock Ngee 12 May 14 May 20 May 24 May 04 Jun 11 Jun 28 Jun 02 Jul Mr Charles Chong 13 May 16 May 18 May 29 May Mr Heng Chee How 13 May 17 May Dr Wang Kai Yuen 13 May 16 May Mr Goh Chok Tong 14 May 22 May Mr Lee Kuan Yew 14 May 17 May 21 May 31 May Dr Balaji Sadasivan 15 May 22 May Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 16 May 21 May Mr Loh Meng See 17 May 21 May Mr Tan Soo Khoon 17 May 02 Jun Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 18 May 21 May Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 18 May 20 May Dr Lily Neo 19 May 20 May Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 20 May 24 May Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee 22 May 23 May Mr Lim Swee Say 22 May 27 May 05 Jun 10 Jun 20 Jun 25 Jun Column: 568Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 23 May 28 May Mr Lee Hsien Loong 23 May 28 May Dr Ong Chit Chung 24 May 24 May 26 May 26 May Mr Yeo Cheow Tong 24 May 25 May 01 Jun 23 Jun Mr Othman Haron Eusofe 15 Jun 23 Jun Mr Ang Mong Seng 24 Jun 27 Jun

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed

Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

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

29th April,2005 (1) Nurses And Midwives (Amendment) Bill (2) Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Co-ordinating Minister for Security and Defence if he

will update the House on (i) the progress of the National Security Coordination Secretariat; (ii) the status of the national security strategic framework; and (iii) the security situation in Singapore today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Member for Tampines GRC, Ms Irene Ng, for raising a number of questions relating to Singapore's national security.

Sir, as my answer is rather long, I will, with your permission, deliver it as a Ministerial Statement after Question Time in order to allow time for the other Questions listed on the Order Paper to be answered.

Yes.

The following Question stood in the name of Dr Wang Kai Yuen -

2. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to give an update on the considerations leading to the recent agreement between Malaysia and Singapore on the land reclamation around Pulau Tekong.

Question No. 2, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members would recall that Malaysia initiated international arbitration against Singapore on 4th July 2003, because of our land reclamation works, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

. Malaysia then applied for provisional measures to the International Tribunal for the Law of Sea (ITLOS) on 5th September 2003. On 8th October 2003, ITLOS rejected Malaysia's request. Instead, it ordered the two Governments to appoint a group of independent experts to carry out a joint study of Singapore's land reclamation works, to be completed within a year.

In the months that followed the ITLOS Order, the land reclamation issue comprised two parallel processes. On one track, Singapore and Malaysia jointly implemented the Order by appointing a group of four experts to carry out the joint study. On the other track, Singapore and Malaysia were parties to the arbitration case. Since the second track depended on the outcome of the first track, the arbitration was suspended by mutual agreement pending the completion of the joint study.

The Settlement Agreement that was signed on 26th April 2005 represents a full and definitive resolution of both processes. Malaysia has agreed to terminate its arbitration case against Singapore. Both parties are in the process of applying to the Tribunal for a final Award based on the terms of the Agreement signed.

Road to settlement

There were several considerations that brought about this positive outcome. But before I go into them, I would like to recapitulate the key facts of the case:

The joint study prescribed by ITLOS was carried out by an independent group of experts which comprised four professors of coastal engineering - two appointed by each side. The GOE was assisted by an independent consultant - DHI Water & Environment - jointly appointed by Malaysia and Singapore.

Malaysia had claimed that Singapore's reclamation was "causing and has the potential to cause serious and irreversible damage to the marine environment". The Group of Experts' task was to determine what adverse impacts had or would occur.

The GOE submitted its Report to both Governments on 5th November 2004. We have made the Report available on the MFA and MND websites.

It is important to understand that the Group of Experts had carefully studied all of Malaysia's allegations of harm. The experts were professional and thorough in their scrutiny of the possible impacts from our reclamation works.

At the end of the study, the Group of Experts unanimously found "no major impacts" arising from our reclamation works. All four experts concurred on this very significant finding.

The Group of Experts found that, from a total of 57 impacts arising from our reclamation works, 40 were classified as "slight", meaning that while they could be detected in mathematical models, they are unlikely to be detectable in the field. The remaining 17 of these impacts were classified in the "minor" to "moderate" range. The Group of Experts made seven recommendations to alleviate the identified impacts. All their recommendations were accepted by Malaysia and Singapore, and formed the basis for bilateral negotiations to find a resolution. After three rounds of negotiations, Malaysia and Singapore signed a full and final settlement of the case on 26th April 2005.

Considerations for settlement

The considerations that led to the settlement are these:

The main factor is that the expert study, which both countries had commissioned, had reached the unanimous conclusion that Singapore's reclamation works would cause no major impact to Malaysia. The minor and moderate impacts identified by the experts could be mitigated and both sides were prepared to implement these expert recommendations. Therefore, there was no necessity to pursue the matter further.

There had also been a shift in attitudes on both sides. This dispute arose in an earlier phase when bilateral relations were less amicable.

The subsequent improvement in bilateral relations over the course of the joint study, and the emphasis both sides placed on increasing win-win bilateral cooperation gave impetus to the resolution of the reclamation issue.

As far as Singapore was concerned, we had no difficulty accepting the recommendations in order to settle the dispute. The key recommendation, which was a change to the reclamation profile at the south-eastern part of Pulau Tekong, concerned the detailed design of an area where we had yet to finalise the detailed design. As for the amounts of money to be paid for remedial works and compensation, we took into account the fact that they were very small compared with what both sides would have to incur if they were to go through with the full arbitration process.

These factors collectively enabled both sides to settle the case in the spirit of goodwill and mutual benefit.

Conclusion

Looking back, I would like to highlight two hallmarks of the joint study and

settlement negotiations. One, the involvement of an objective third party - ITLOS, the Group of Experts and the Arbitral Tribunal - which made possible an impartial and objective assessment of the facts of the case and the merits of the competing arguments. Two, the warmth and civility between the officials, experts and staff involved in this issue at all levels which contributed towards a happy ending.

As I have said at the signing ceremony, the manner in which this dispute has been settled gives us confidence that we can resolve our other bilateral disputes in a similar way. We have demonstrated in this case, and in the Pedra Branca case, that where there is an impasse, rather than let our bilateral relations be held hostage to a particular dispute, we are prepared to have the matter referred to third party adjudication or arbitration. As good neighbours, we can overcome such disputes on the basis of objectivity, mutual benefit and mutual respect.

3. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) if his Ministry will be looking into ways to ensure that the maximum number of jobs created from the two Integrated Resorts will go to Singaporeans and permanent residents as is reported to be the case for the Hong Kong Disneyland project; and (b) if so, what will be the possible approaches that his Ministry will be adopting to encourage this outcome.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the two Integrated Resorts (IRs) are in full operation, they will have significant economic spillover to the rest of the economy. Based on the Request for

Concept (RFC) proposals and studies on projects of similar scale abroad, MTI expects that about 10,000 jobs would be created within the two IRs. Most of these jobs would be in the non-gaming areas such as food and beverage, retail, and accommodation.

MTI expects that the IRs will also create 25,000 jobs in the rest of the economy, mostly in services industries such as hotels, retail, food and beverage, entertainment, travel and transportation. As the vast majority of the jobs in the services sectors are done by locals, we expect that this will continue for the jobs created and supported by the IRs.

We will seek to maximise for Singaporeans every job opportunity that comes with the IRs. MOM and the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) will work with MTI and the Singapore Tourism Board, the training institutions as well as the successful developers of the two IRs, to train and equip Singaporeans with the skills required for occupations within the IRs. WDA has already been training Singaporeans for jobs in the tourism related services sectors, such as retail, hotels and restaurants. But this effort will need to be extended to equip Singaporeans with a stronger "software" for service excellence.

Therefore, in tandem with preparing our workers to take up jobs in the IRs, an inter-Ministry team involving MOM/WDA, MTI and relevant agencies, will also look at the broader issue of improving Singapore's service culture in order to enhance the competitiveness of our services industries and our attractiveness as a tourist destination.

The Member alluded to Hong Kong Disneyland. As with Hong Kong Disneyland, there will be skills gaps in our local workforce for which the IRs would need to augment with foreigners who have the specific skills. In such cases,

the IRs, like all other companies in the services sectors, would have to comply with the prevailing foreign worker employment policies and quotas.

Under our current foreign worker employment policies, for every 100 jobs within the service sector (excluding foreign domestic workers), 89 are performed by locals. In other words, the foreign worker dependency is only about 10%. Therefore, if we can enhance our attractions and increase the number of tourists, we can expect that the overwhelming majority of jobs will go to Singaporeans.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister three supplementary questions. In relation to the 10,000 direct and 25,000 indirect jobs, I am pleased to note that the Minister has said that an inter-Ministry committee will be set up to look at service standards. I would like to ask the Minister if, in considering the upgrading of service standards, the Ministry would dedicate some funds to such programmes to improve the service quality gap in view of the fact that the World Economic Forum's service ranking has ranked Singapore 21st, which means that it has dropped by 10 positions from the last ranking.

I would also like to ask the Minister if the Ministry would liaise with the successful tenderer to find out the type of workers that are needed in order to develop training programmes that will better prepare Singaporeans for the jobs.

My final question is whether the Ministry will also be discussing or is already in discussion with the ITEs, SHATEC, polytechnics and universities on the relevant courses that they can offer, so that these courses will be effective and

relevant in the training of the needed workers because some polytechnics, I note, have already started courses.

Sir, the short answer to all three questions is yes. Let me briefly elaborate on what the Member has asked.

We thank her for her comments and fundamentally we agree that, taken at a broad level, we can upgrade our service culture. I said that we lack the service DNA but, as a scientist and a biologist, I would tell you that we can do many experiments to incorporate the DNA that we need. That is what we need to do. We will have to ramp up our attention to this broader aspect. In other words, while the building of IRs and other tourist attractions that we will need to focus on in the coming years will be the necessary condition, it may be insufficient if we do not follow it up with helping tourists leave Singapore with a positive impression of the Singapore experience.

Yes, we will have to engage, as the Member has said, our training providers at the ITEs, polytechnics and the various service providers in the many areas of tourism hospitality. This is the focus of the inter-Ministry team involving staff members to look into these issues.

We will also identify skill gaps and specific occupations. But on that point, let me just reiterate what the Secretary-General of NTUC and Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, Mr Lim Boon Heng, had nicely recounted. If you think about it, NTUC actually runs an IR already. It has Downtown East and it has many social clubs which are supported really in part by the jackpot room. The staff within the gaming component is less than 10% of all the other staff that the jobs provide, in other words, the rides and social amenities. So a similar concept will apply

to IRs, in other words, the many jobs that it will bring will be in food and beverage, entertainment and tourist industries, and these are the areas that we can ramp up. So, yes, we will pay special attention to these areas in preparation for the integrated resorts.

4. Ms Indranee Rajah asked the Minister for Transport whether there is any justification for transport companies to consider raising transport fares at this time.

5. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Transport (a) if he will provide an update on the considerations made when deciding on public transportation fare hikes; and (b) whether there are guidelines to ensure affordability of public transportation, particularly with lower-income earners.

Sir, may I take Question Nos. 4 and 5 together?

Yes.

Thank you, Sir. Ms Indranee Rajah asked whether there is any justification for transport companies to consider raising transport fares at this point in time. This is a matter that is now being considered by the Public Transport Council (PTC). As Members are aware, PTC is an independent body comprising representatives from different sectors of society.

In assessing the fare review applications, the PTC will have to balance the need for fares to remain affordable while ensuring that the operators can continue to remain viable. I would like to assure Members that the PTC will scrutinise the applications very carefully before coming to a decision.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked for an update on the considerations made when

considering fare increases. Sir, the PTC will be adopting the recommendations made by the GPC-led Committee on the Fare Review Mechanism, which was adopted by the Government earlier this year. The Committee recommended that fare adjustments for each year be capped by the new fare adjustment formula, which is Price Index minus 0.3%. This formula allows the public transport operators to offset increases in their operating costs. It also ensures that commuter interests are protected by allowing them to share in the productivity gains achieved by the public transport operators.

Notwithstanding the formula, the public transport operators are required to explain in detail the rationale for their applications and to support them with cost justifications. The PTC will then scrutinise the reported cost increases to determine if they are truly justifiable. Any fare increase is subject to a cap determined by the formula, which works out to 2.4% this year. This means that even if the operators' costs have increased by more than 2.4%, the maximum increase that they will receive will only be 2.4%. In making its decision, the PTC will also take into consideration other factors, such as the prevailing economic conditions, affordability and the financial performance of the public transport operators. Only after examining all these factors will the PTC decide on whether to grant an increase and the quantum of the increase.

With regard to Mdm Ho's question on the guidelines on affordability, I would like to inform her that the new mechanism requires the PTC to take into account the affordability of public transport to the average public transport user. Affordability will be monitored using the percentage of household income spent on public transport by a typical family. This figure will be tracked on an annual basis using fare and wage movements, and validated

against the Household Expenditure Survey conducted by the Department of Statistics once every five years.

While this will ensure that public transport will remain affordable to the vast majority of the population, I agree with Mdm Ho that any increase, no matter how small, will still affect the needy and the low-income earners. In fact, they face some difficulty coping with any increase in the cost of living. This would include not just transport costs, but also basic necessities like food, housing and utilities. But we cannot hold back fare increases that are justified, just as we cannot hold back increases in food or utilities prices if the global price of fuel and food goes up. The Government will continue to help this group through the many financial assistance schemes provided by MCYS, the CDCs, the VWOs, as well as the newly established ComCare Fund.

Sir, the PTC is still assessing the PTOs' applications and will take all relevant factors into consideration before coming to a decision. As this is a tedious process involving careful scrutiny of the operators' applications and justifications, the PTC will take at least four weeks to complete its review and is expected to announce its decision in June.

Sir, in the event that there should be a fare hike and there has been talk that consideration will be given to low-income earners in the form of a concession to help them, I would like to ask the Minister whether there would be some checks made to ensure that the concession given will be offset equally against the increase in the fare hike.

Sir, we have mechanisms in place to help the needy. Those who are facing financial problems can always appeal to the CDCs for

financial assistance. And we also had the Tansport Fund to which the transport operators contributed. I am sure, as they have indicated, they will be making further contributions to the Transport Fund, which can be used to provide additional support to the needy.

): Sir, I think we would accept that there is no timing which is a good timing for raising transport fares. However, our public transport companies appear to have made unfortunate timing and elevated it to an art form, because they have announced their application at a time when they also announced quite large profits. I think the question the public has in mind is: where our transport companies are doing well, can they not use some of these profits to subsidise their operating cost? And is that something that the Public Transport Council will bear in mind?

Sir, I do not think any public company is in the business of subsidising consumers. But what they are required to do is to make sure that measures are in place to ensure that they are efficient, they are providing a good level of services and that the fares that they are charging are reasonable. In fact, the fares in Singapore have been very reasonable. For example, the fares over the past 17 years have gone up by no more than 30-odd per cent, whereas labour costs have gone up by more than 130%. So I think the transport operators have been making all kinds of efforts to ensure that they are efficient and to continue to do so.

Having said that, PTC will definitely be looking at the profitability of the operators, because that is part of the condition that is included in the Report set out by the Fare Review Committee earlier this year. So they will have to look at the Return on Total Assets, and to make sure that that return is not excessive.

Sir, I am glad that the Minister has remembered that in 2002 when the House debated on the question of public transport fare increases, we came to the conclusion that PTC should always be mindful that in considering future price increases, it should take into consideration the affordability of commuters as well as the viability of the transport operators. Can I ask the Minister whether the viability of the transport operators is under threat if they do not get the price increase that they are asking for this time, taking into consideration the fact that the transport operators have in fact been having bigger and bigger profits every year after the last price increase in 2002?

Secondly, one of the reasons which the transport operators have given recently for their request for price increase is that the price of oil has been going up. In view of the fact that the world price of oil has come down since last week - it is now about US$48 per barrel, coming down from its peak - is this argument valid any more?

Sir, as to whether the profits are excessive or whether the companies will be non-viable, that is something which the PTC will look into, and I am in no position to answer.

In terms of the price of fuel, one should not look at the price of fuel last week compared to this week. One should look at the price of fuel at the time of the last increase, which was in 2002, when I think the price of fuel was probably in the region of US$20. Today, the price of fuel, as Mr Tan Soo Khoon has mentioned, is slightly below US$50.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister how the funds which the transport companies contribute to the Public Transport Fund will be disbursed. Would the Minister be able to tell us whether the grassroots

organisations will be able to tap on those funds?

Sir, if I recall, the last time they contributed, it was partly given to the CDCs to distribute. So I am sure they will follow the same procedure. The grassroots organisations can appeal through the CCCs to the CDCs or directly to the CDCs.

6. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry has any plans to review the ElderShield Scheme to make it a more effective disability insurance scheme.

7. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) how many Singaporeans are covered under the ElderShield scheme; (b) how many have benefited from this scheme since its inception; (c) why does it take three months to process a claim for payment under the scheme; and (d) what is the rationale for making an insured person pay for the fees of the doctor certifying the insured's eligibility for payment under the scheme.

Sir, with your permission, I will take Question Nos. 6 and 7 together.

Yes.

Sir, ElderShield was launched in June 2002, three years ago. Currently, there are more than 700,000 policyholders. So far, 1,200 policyholders have benefited from ElderShield.

Processing of claims takes about three months. This is referred to as the deferment period, a standard feature practised by the industry, to help sieve out claims which may be due to a short-term injury.

ElderShield requires claimants to pay for the medical assessment. This is another common industry feature to cut out frivolous claims. As it is important to have objective criteria to ensure fairness and consistency in the claims process, ElderShield claimants need an independent assessment from a doctor who is trained to assess disabilities.

Mdm Halimah asked if I would be reviewing the ElderShield scheme. I remember Mr Gan Kim Yong asked me a similar question a year ago. The current ElderShield scheme comes with a binding five-year contract with the two insurers. The contract will end in 2007. Once the implementation of the MediShield reforms is well underway, I will start to review the ElderShield scheme.

Sir, may I ask the Minister how does he address the issue of the poor elderly who cannot afford the premiums of the ElderShield due to their age group, and yet are the ones who are most in need of ElderShield payout should the need arise? Are there avenues to help this group? Does our present system tilt towards the heavy demand on nursing homes for the dependent elderly should there be a review to ensure better use of resources and avoid unnecessary institutional care?

Sir, I think my predecessor, Minister Lim Hng Kiang, took care of that. When he introduced ElderShield, he also introduced IDAPE, which is precisely to look after Singaporeans who are excluded from ElderShield because they have pre-existing disabilities or because of lack of financial means or being outside of the age group.

As to the general question about how do we take care of the poor and the

elderly in nursing homes or in the acute hospitals, all the Health Ministers before me, and myself and future

Ministers, address this problem by making sure that we have proper safety nets in place. And I have on previous occasions elaborated on that. There are multiple layers to those safety nets, and provided everyone plays their part, nobody needs to worry that they will be excluded, whether it is from acute care or nursing care, if they are poor.

Sir, the number of 1,200 out of 700,000 policyholders only benefiting from ElderShield seems to indicate a very small number. Is there any particular reason why the number is so small? Is there some way in which this policy, before it is ultimately reviewed in the year 2007, can be made more effective from now up to the period of review?

The Minister explained that three months is the standard policy in the insurance industry for processing of claims and it is also a standard policy that the claimant has to pay for the fee for certification by the doctor. That may be so for the private sector insurance industry. But for a national scheme or public scheme, used by those who cannot afford the private scheme, the rules should be made more flexible. Therefore, can the three months' processing time be reduced? Also, can the insurance company or the plan absorb the certification fee by the doctor?

Sir, honestly, I have no idea yet whether 1,200 out of 700,000 by year two is small. In due course, when I have gone into the details of this scheme, and particularly after taken into account experience overseas, I will be able to make a better judgement by then. The problem is this. This is a long-term disability insurance scheme and it started off by taking in only people

without pre-existing disabilities. So the number of successful claims will build up. Once you are disabled, you add to the number cumulatively. Those who were already disabled at the time of the launch of the scheme were automatically excluded. So I am not surprised that the numbers will be small at the initial stage. But whether this is actuarially too small or too big, I will be able to make a better judgement after I have gone into the details of the review.

As to the question on the three months' claim process and also the assessment fee, as I said, these are fairly standard industry procedures. I have looked at other similar insurance plans overseas - Japan, US, UK - they set an even longer claim period, some as long as six months. So I thought three months seem reasonable, but we will certainly take the comments into account when we review this. As to whether the fee is affordable, it is only $25, which I think ought to be fairly affordable for most claimants, if not all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that, if a person - I am just talking about ElderShield - is unable to perform the three activities of daily living of washing/dressing, feeding, toileting, and has problems of mobility and transferring even with the aid of special equipment and always requiring the physical assistance of another person throughout the entire activity, it would be unlikely for him to get better with time, and, in fact, he would be likely to get worse. Therefore, is it not inhumane to withdraw the ElderShield payout after five years irrespectively, and is the $300 per month too meagre an amount for survival for such a person?

Sir, I have read from the Hansard a similar debate in this House between Dr Neo and my predecessor precisely on these two points. I

suppose I could rehash, repeat or re-broadcast Minister Lim Hng Kiang's reply. But let me take a second look at it again. It is clearly on my workplan for next year - the review of ElderShield. I took my time on this because partly I felt that the MediShield reform is much more urgent. And, really, I am already losing sleep over MediShield, and I cannot afford to lose further sleep over ElderShield. It is something that I will study carefully next year.

I remember Minister Lim Hng Kiang's reply to both questions, which is, not in so many words, that "there is no free lunch". If you want better payouts, the premiums will be larger. If you want less premiums, then the payouts will have to be shrunk. Anyway, let us take a look, now that we have two-and-a-half years of claim data and another 12 months, three-and-a-half years of claim data, we can better judge whether the policy has been over-priced, in which case it will be a nice problem, as it is a matter of extending the benefits or reducing the premium. If the review were to come to a conclusion that the premiums are not enough, we will have a bigger problem. But I think I will rather keep my options open at this stage.

8. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health what is the Ministry's policy on private clinics publicising their fees to the public considering that the Ministry is now encouraging public sector hospitals to be more transparent by publicising their fees as part of the overall policy to contain healthcare costs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry encourages all healthcare institutions to be transparent with their charges. This will enable their patients to have a better idea of what to expect.

However, merely publishing the fee schedule is often of little practical use to patients. To be meaningful, information on charges has to be properly compiled, tabulated and suitably organised by disease conditions.

9. Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen asked the Minister for Home Affairs if the Government is aware of Singaporeans who go overseas to engage in sex with minors and, if so, how many cases have come to the attention of the authorities.

Sir, based on information provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), there have been three cases of Singaporeans arrested overseas for sexual offences involving persons under 16 years of age between the period 1994 and April this year. MFA is notified when Singaporeans arrested overseas for such offences seek assistance from our overseas missions, or when the foreign law enforcement agencies inform our overseas missions of such cases. However, not all overseas cases of child-sex offences by Singaporeans may have been brought to the attention of our overseas missions by the local authorities.

Sir, I just like to make a reference to a quote by an article in Today on 27th April: "Singaporean sex tourists are reported to make up the largest number of sex tourists visiting Indonesia's Riau Islands, where many of those they sexually exploit are under the age of 18." So may I just ask the Senior Minister of State: does the Government intend to do anything to help tackle this problem that is plaguing the region, and how does the Government

propose to stop Singaporeans from destroying the lives of young children overseas?

Sir, people on the ground may know of more of such cases. I think Ms Olsen's question was specifically on how the numbers of cases have come to our attention through the authorities. So these numbers are cases that have come to the notice of Government through our embassies overseas. There could be more Singaporeans going overseas for sex, including some with minors.

I had taken this question in the House before, last year, as to whether more could be done. My response then was that, first of all, for those who organise sex tours overseas with minors, they are committing an offence because they would be abetting an offence. Here, in Singapore, the act takes place, even though the actual act of having sex is overseas, but the preparation is done here. So they are liable. But from Police's information, there have been no such organisers of sex tours with minors.

Sir, the question really is what more can be done. We are aware, of course, that there have been countries overseas that have implemented laws with extra-territorial application. I think this probably is what Ms Olsen is referring to. The answer we gave last year was that we would continue to monitor how these laws work out in these countries that have enacted them. Because our understanding is that whilst we can have these laws in place, it is very difficult to implement them principally because there will be legal and very serious practical problems of gathering evidence and putting up a strong case in court. But like I had said last year, it is something that we have on our monitor. We will continue to monitor the situation, especially on how these laws work out in these countries and make reviews along the way.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether Singapore should take a clear stand in terms of a clear message to Singaporean men that it is totally not acceptable for them to be going overseas to exploit young women, if not through law, then perhaps through a campaign. I know we have an aversion to campaigns now. But, perhaps, with all this publicity, it would be useful for us to stress the message as it would also help us to maintain Singapore's image and reputation as a society that is wholesome.

I think more can be done to highlight this problem, but it need not only be done by the Government. So I think that this is where welfare groups outside of Government can highlight this problem. In Singapore, of course, you know that we take a very tough stand against those who have sex with minors. This matter has been raised in public and international fora, which is the need for home countries to do more. That is why recently at a conference, this has been highlighted, and the ASEAN Secretary-General said that home countries are doing more in terms of publicity, public education and poverty eradication. I think he also suggested putting up notices at entry points to some of these countries to remind visitors that it is an offence to have sex with minors.

In Singapore, on the law side, let us continue to review our laws and monitor the situation. Because, as you know, in Singapore, when we have laws, the question of enforceability is a key point. We do not want to have laws which are difficult to enforce. At the same time, more can be done to highlight this problem, I suppose, even in terms of peer pressure not to do it, that can also work on the ground.

Sir, I understand the constraints, like it is hard

to gather evidence and all that. But in the same way that Singapore has extra judicial powers over Singaporeans consuming drugs overseas, then is it possible for the Government to do the same for an offence where victims are actually innocent children?

Sir, the two situations are not really on all fours. Because for these Singaporeans who are caught consuming drugs overseas, the evidence is that when they enter Singapore, they are tested positive for drugs. In terms of evidence, it is already there. While I see the point that Ms Olsen makes, really those offences, where there is extra-territorial jurisdiction, are very serious offences like corruption or terrorism. So we have gone beyond the domestic jurisdiction principle for these very serious offences. Like I have said, it is not a never, never answer, because it is an evolving situation.

Sir, is the Minister saying therefore that sex with minors overseas is not that serious? I believe that other legislation elsewhere, for example, the Securities and Futures Act (SFA) has extra-territorial reach which also involves getting evidence overseas for prosecution in Singapore. The Senior Minister of State has actually said that it takes some time to monitor and examine the performance of this extra-territorial legislation. I just like to know how long the Ministry intends to take or how much time does it take to continue with this monitoring before it comes up with any concrete action in this regard.

From my experience, we know, for example, the Australians have these laws in place for about 10 years now, and they have only about 10 prosecutions. But we will see the difficulties that they encounter and how they overcome these difficulties. And as we learn, for example, the

experience of the Australians and the Americans, we will then be on firmer ground to consider whether such a law can work in Singapore.

Sir, as what our Backbencher Mr Sin has said, how long does the Government want to monitor and monitor? Until it actually puts a public statement saying that it does not condone such practices of its citizens, do we not want to have a public statement saying that we do not condone such action by instituting a law against it?

So far as the Government is concerned, the statement is very clear that, having sex with minors, including statutory rape, the laws in Singapore - the Penal Code, the Children and Young Persons Act, the Women's Charter - are very, very strict. That is very clear. Here, it is not a question of whether the Government makes a stand. Our stand on sex with minors in Singapore is very clear. The question is whether we should have such a law which would be difficult to enforce and whether discouraging such an act should be put just before the Government, or should other agencies do more. Here, it is a perfect case for other agencies to also send a signal because the perpetrators are possibly amongst us. I think this is an evolving picture because the countries in the region are also putting more attention to it. For example, the plight of these young victims overseas will be highlighted and, hopefully, this will also help create the psychological barrier or disincentive for Singaporeans to carry on doing this.

Sir, because this act of having sex with minors is so frowned upon in Singapore, and it has also been said in the papers that Singapore is well placed to do

something about the problem and, by enacting a law, would it not then show that we really are not condoning such an act and by making a statement saying that we do not want our citizens who are going overseas to do something like that?

Sir, to answer Ms Oslen, this is a situation that requires concerted action by everybody, and whatever steps that are taken or laws that are enacted should be effective laws. For example, if a law is enacted and a country acts where this takes place and if the law enforcement officers seriously enforce those laws and secure convictions that are publicised, as have been done in some cases, I think that would be a strong disincentive. On our part, let us continue to monitor whether having extra-territorial laws in Singapore would be effective.

One last question, Mr Steve Chia.

Sir, the Government has never been afraid of instituting tough laws, or laws that are very difficult to be implemented in the past. So I felt a certain hestitation of the Government in instituting a law that has extra-territorial jurisdiction. It seems that it is not very keen in putting up this law to send a statement out to the international community that sex with minors is not okay in Singapore. It seems that the Government does not care if he is out of the country. It is projecting that kind of image.

What is your question, Mr Steve Chia?

My question is, as I explained earlier, why is there this hesitation of the Government to institute this law?

We enforce tough laws. Many of the

domestic laws are tough laws, but they are enforced. I think we should not mix the two. Here, we are talking about laws that have extra-territorial jurisdiction and the difficulties in enforcing these laws because they require the cooperation of other agencies, for example, to gather evidence, and, in the first place, you have to detect what is happening. When you go and gather evidence, there will be problems working with the agencies there and you may have problem in securing a conviction back home because of the rules of evidence that require standards of proof and other considerations. I think Mr Chia should not mix up the two. This is a very narrow situation of whether we should have more laws with extra-territorial jurisdiction. As the Government, we have been very careful in enacting such laws.

10. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts how can the Government protect young children from falling prey to offers for sex as was reported in the Straits Times article "Teen sex for sale" on 25th April 2005, of girls below 16 years of age offering their services.

11. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts if Internet laws can be strengthened to impose stiffer penalties on those who openly solicit for sex on the Internet from under-aged youths.

12. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts how can the Infocomm Development Authority police Internet chat rooms to pick out those who use it as a platform to abuse young children.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 10, 11

and 12 together because they cover essentially the same area?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I share the Members' concerns about sex predators abusing the Internet to victimise the young. To protect our young, we have in place a three-pronged approach based on enforcement of our laws against such crimes, public education and concerted industry self-regulation to help make our online environment safe for users.

First, on legal enforcement. Sir, there were eight reported cases of Internet-related sex offences involving victims under the age of 16 in 2004. The Police takes a serious view of every such offence. Where offences have been committed, they will investigate them thoroughly, apprehend the offenders and prosecute them.

Sir, as the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs has just said a moment ago, we have tough laws against sex predators who prey on the young. For example, an offence of statutory rape under the Penal Code, involving a woman under 14 years of age, carries a mandatory minimum imprisonment term of eight years and a maximum of 20 years, with not less than 12 strokes of the cane. It is also an offence for any man to engage in sexual intercourse with a woman below 16 years of age, whether or not there was consent, except by way of marriage. The offender is liable for imprisonment of up to five years and a maximum fine of $10,000.

Sir, additionally, the Children and Young Persons Act makes it an offence for any person to commit or abet the commission of or procure or attempt to procure the commission by any person of any obscene or indecent act with any child or young person under 16 years of age. If convicted, the offender is liable for imprisonment of up to two years or a

maximum fine of $5,000, or to both and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, imprisonment of up to four years or a maximum fine of $10,000, or to both.

Next, on industry regulation. The Government recognises that legal enforcement alone is not enough. Therefore, through the Media Development Authority (MDA) and the National Internet Advisory Council (NIAC), the Government has been working actively with industry groups, such as the Singapore Infocomm Technology Federation (SiTF) and the local Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to develop programmes to promote greater industry regulation. One result is that the Internet Service Providers now offer to subscribers Family Access Networks (FANs). These are networks that filter out undesirable websites on behalf of the subscribers. I strongly advise parents with young children to subscribe to such services so as to be able to ensure that their children do not gain access to undesirable websites.

In February this year, a group of players in the IT and Internet industry launched the Internet Industry

Association of Singapore (IIAS). Part of its mandate is to help and counsel children exposed to inappropriate material online and work with other community groups to explore ways to protect young users from online predators.

Next, on public education. Parents, schools and the community also have an important role to play. They must instil the correct values in our young and promote safe practices online. To this end, the Cyber Wellness Task Force, set up by the National Internet Advisory Council, has embarked on public education programmes with strategic partners, such as the Ministry of Education, National Institute of Education,

National Youth Council and National Library Board. In July this year, the National Institute of Education will launch the Group Endeavours in Service Learning Project whereby trainee teachers can mentor teenagers online.

MDA has also supported complementary public education efforts on Internet safety. It has provided funds to support the educational programmes of Parents Advisory Group for the Internet (PAGi) and Touch Community Services. Together, the two groups have reached out to over 140,000 parents and youths.

Mr Speaker, however, the nature of the Internet, with a large number of websites and chatrooms, often hosting anonymous and transient exchanges, makes it impossible to completely insulate our young from encountering sex predators and other undesirable influences. Short of shutting down our connection to the Internet, we cannot completely insulate our young and youth from its dangers. But we can and have taken practical measures to try and equip our Internet users, particularly the young, with the know-how and the judgement to handle what they encounter in cyberspace. The Government, industry and community will continue to work together to provide a safer online environment for our young.

Sir, can the Minister inform the House whether they have a profile of these chatroom abusers, their typical tactics and also the pattern that they operate so that we could advise our educators, that is, our teachers, principals as well as parents, on how to deal with them? The second question is whether the Minister will work with the Ministry of Education to form a special squad, basically to protect our young children who are using the chatrooms. In fact, I went in just as a simple messenger, although it requires the person who owns this account to access

it. But if any of the experienced man could have just penetrated any of the students' accounts, he could access any of the private chatrooms straightaway.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mdm Cynthia Phua for her suggestion about studying the profile of chatroom abusers. This is certainly an area that the Cyber Wellness Task Force, which has been set up under the National Internet Advisory Council, will look into. We will certainly work closely with the Ministry of Education, as I said a moment ago, in introducing programmes, such as Group Endeavours in Service Learning Project, a mentorship programme, to ensure that our students and our young are well-equipped to handle the dangers that lurk in cyberspace. We will work closely with all parties, the Education Ministry, the community and any other organisation that has an interest in this area.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether there were any cases that were prosecuted because of solicitation on the Internet, that means, the deed was not performed but there was a clear evidence of solicitation. The Minister said that there were actually such laws for acts of procurement. I would also like to ask the Minister if the industry is required to undertake surveillance of the website and to shut down the website where there is solicitation of sex with minors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not aware of any specific prosecution in the case of procurement online or through various other avenues or forums. If such cases are brought to the Police's attention, I believe the Police would also act against anyone who attempts to procure sex with minors through an online avenue. In terms of industry vigilance to seek out such chatrooms and other forums which may be abused by the sex predators, this is an ongoing and

continuous exercise. They will be on the look out for such chatrooms and forums which may lend itself to abuse by sex predators and they will advise parents, particularly through their family access network subscribers, to ensure that these are the sites that will be blocked off or access denied for families with young children.

Would the Minister consider having deterrent penalties for those who are using the Internet as a means of procuring sexual services, especially with minors, because it seems that it is so easy to get involved in chatrooms, and so easy to proposition youngsters, and so on?

Would the Minister consider enhancing penalties for this type of solicitation?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the SMS for Home Affairs has said and as I have said earlier on, the present penalties are already very severe and strict, and our enforcement of the law is very rigorous. By the same token, we do review our penalties regularly. If we deem there is a need to enhance the deterrent effect of our existing penalties, let me assure hon. Members that the Government will not shy away from taking such a step.

Sir, the Minister mentioned that sex with girls below the age of 16 is an offence, regardless of consent. Unfortunately, that does not apply with regard to sex with young boys below the age of 16 or younger. So, is there some way where the Ministry can work with other relevant Ministries, such as the Ministry of Home Affairs, to ensure that we have a much more comprehensive law to protect young people, regardless of their gender, against sex exploitation and abuse?

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I suggest that the hon. Member

direct this question towards the appropriate Ministry?

Sir, can the Minister also clarify if the prevalence of the 1900 chatlines is also causing more harm to our children and youths in our society, especially considering that there are many sexual predators prowling these chatlines too soliciting for sex with the youths and minors? Should this service also not actually be closed down or at least come under closer police supervision too?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we will consider looking at the chatlines as a possible venue or means by which sex predators can commit their crimes or contact the young people. In terms of our cyber wellness and Parents Advisory Group on the Internet, we will also look at some of these other peripherals - although not directly Internet but related - type of services where abusers may lurk and where they may commit their crimes or acts of procurement.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry could consider working with MHA to see how to more effectively enforce the laws relating to audacious solicitation of sex with minors on the Internet.

Mr Speaker, Sir, certainly my Ministry, IDA and MDA will all be interested in working closely with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Police. Conceivably, one could mount sting operations to ensure that those who use such fora to do so, whether it is chatline or chatrooms, may well face the full force of the law.

Last question, Mdm Phua.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to re-emphasise what Dr Amy Khor has said. As reported in the papers, it is already stated that, in the website itself, it is open solicitation. It is very explicit in the offers. Yet, in the cases that we have, we do not even have a case offender that is being prosecuted. So, I really would like the Ministry to have a squad to look at these cases and protect our young children from the "innocent" chatrooms.

That was not a question. Your next Question, Mdm Cynthia Phua.

13. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Education what is being done in schools to educate the children on sex education, in view of the number of young children who are exposed to the sex fiends that scour the Internet chatrooms.

Sir, all schools have sexuality education for their pupils. The sexuality education programme of MOE aims to equip pupils to make responsible decisions on sexuality matters, based on sound values.

The programme addresses the subject of human sexuality from a holistic perspective, including the emotional, intellectual, social and ethical aspects of sexuality, in addition to the physical. Sexuality education is incorporated into curricular subjects, such as Health Education, Science, and Civics and Moral Education.

In the co-curricular programme, schools make use of the multimedia series entitled "The Growing Years". Separate packages at the Upper Primary, Lower Secondary, Upper Secondary and Post-

Secondary levels have been produced to meet the needs of pupils at their various stages of maturity.

The topic of Internet relay chats, its dangers and how to protect oneself from these dangers, is taught at all levels from the Upper Primary through to the Post-Secondary level. Strategies on how to protect oneself from sexual danger from various sources, including the Internet, are also covered in the Upper Primary package.

Effective collaboration between schools, parents and the community is essential, if we are to succeed in protecting our young children from sexual danger. While schools can warn the young about the dangers of the Internet and teach them self-protective strategies, parents need to guide and monitor their children on the use of the Internet. Above all, they have to develop strong family bonds to meet the emotional needs of their children.

14. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Education (a) if he will provide an update on how funds are allocated to schools to develop programmes to assist students with learning disabilities, eg, dyslexia; and (b) what kinds of assistance are extended to students with such learning disabilities during examinations since they all sit for common examinations together with normal students.

Sir, MOE provides block budgets to schools. Schools have the autonomy to use the funds to develop programmes based on the needs of their students.

Schools which have students with learning disabilities, such as dyslexia and

autism, receive additional support. Their students are able to get specialised assistance at the learning centres that are set up collaboratively between MOE and voluntary organisations, such as the Dyslexia Association of Singapore (DAS) and the Autism Resource Centre (ARC). MOE provides funding to these organisations to develop programmes to assist such students.

From next year, MOE will provide additional support for students with learning disabilities through the deployment of Special Needs Officers in all primary schools and some secondary schools. More broadly, MOE aims to increase the level of awareness of special learning needs in our schools over the next five years, and to equip more teachers with the basic skills necessary to support students with learning disabilities.

Students with learning disabilities may request for special accommodations in national examinations, such as the PSLE, GCE 'N', 'O' and 'A' levels. The specific accommodation that is provided depends on the disability of the pupil. The range of accommodations includes the provision of extra time for written papers, exemption from oral examinations, modified text-type or enlarged print on examination papers, and separate testing rooms. Applications to the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) can be made through schools. The cases are reviewed by a panel of Educational Psychologists to determine the type of assistance to be given to each student, depending on the nature and severity of the disability.

I would like to ask whether, from the MOE's experience, there is a difference in how the funds are allocated to Government schools and independent schools.

Sir, we leave it to the school to determine the amount of

fund they want to allocate to students of the different needs.

Sir, may I ask, that being the case, how do we ensure that sufficient funds are allocated for such needs in the schools?

Sir, funds are made available for students with learning disabilities. MOE provides annual grants to the Dyslexia Association of Singapore as well as to the Autism Resource Centre.

15. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Education (a) who will ultimately decide on whether the NTU or NUS will be given the present Bukit Timah campus, if at all; (b) what will be the criteria used to make this decision; (c) how long will this allocation be for; and (d) whether his Ministry will be prepared to let this campus be "absorbed" into the Botanic Gardens to enhance the latter's size.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Khor has asked who ultimately decides on whether NTU or NUS would be given the present Bukit Timah Campus. The Government decides on who gets to use the Bukit Timah Campus site. NUS and NTU have expressed their interest to use the site for educational purposes. The Government's decision would be based on how the site would be used, the considerations put forward by the universities, and how the public interest would be best served. The Government will announce its decision by the middle of this year.

URA has re-zoned part of the Bukit Timah Campus as an extended site for the

Singapore Botanic Gardens in the Masterplan 2003. The remaining portion of the Bukit Timah Campus site which is not re-zoned for Park use, is zoned for Educational and Institution use. The typical tenure of leases for educational use is 30 years. The Government will release more details once it makes its decision known.

16. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) if the Presidential election will be held this year and, if so, has the nomination date been selected; and (b) will there be any publicity to encourage more qualified Singaporeans to present themselves for nomination so that the Presidential election will not be another walkover event like the previous one.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution requires a Presidential election to be held this year, any time from June to August. Election will start with the issue of the writ by the Prime Minister. The nomination date will be specified in the writ. The Prime Minister has not yet decided on the date for the writ to be issued.

Under the Presidential Elections Act, any person who wants to stand for election to the office of the President must apply to the Presidential Elections Committee for a certificate of eligibility. They must do so from 31st May 2005, ie, three months before the expiration of the term of the incumbent President, but not later than three days after the issue of the writ. I am sure the media will give wide publicity when the Presidential Elections Committee starts inviting those interested to apply for the certificate of eligibility

later this month. The Government does not determine how many persons will apply for the certificate of eligibility. It is up to qualified Singaporeans to come forward to present themselves as candidates.

17. Ms Indranee Rajah asked the Senior Minister how Singapore intends to develop the commodity pricing, trading and risk management industry with the Commodity Derivatives Trading (CDT) Scheme.

Sir, the Commodity Derivatives Trader (CDT) Scheme aims to support an expanded role for Singapore as a commodity derivatives trading hub. The opportunities in this business are growing globally. In fact, they are growing very rapidly. To give Members a feel, the amount of over-the-counter (OTC) commodity derivatives contracts as at June last year reached US$1.27 billion, up 22% on a year earlier. The number of exchange-traded commodity derivative contracts reached 736 million globally last year, up 16% on the previous year.

Singapore is the Asia Pacific centre for the price setting and trading of oil and rubber products. The CDT scheme aims to leverage on these existing strengths to develop Singapore further as a hub for trading, pricing and risk management for oil as well as other commodity products. By offering a concessionary tax rate of 5% on profits derived from trading commodity derivatives, the scheme seeks to grow a critical mass of market makers that focus on derivatives trading, in other words, paper trading. This will serve to increase the level of both physical and paper trading out of Singapore. The idea is basically to increase liquidity, and to thereby strengthen Singapore's role as a pricing hub.

Besides liquidity in the current products, the aim is to also encourage a broader range of commodity derivative products to be offered. In this respect, the CDT scheme supports both the OTC and exchange-traded commodity derivatives, including such things as commodity-based Exchange-Traded Funds and index futures.

Risk management is another aspect of the market that the CDT scheme will help stimulate. The development of a liquid commodities market with a wide range of hedging instruments and products will help support risk management activities here.

18. Dr Warren Lee asked the Minister for National Development given the increased interest in our walking trails within the reservoirs and national parks (a) whether there are sufficient staff to enforce NParks regulations, such as no cycling, no poaching of animals, fish, birds and plants, given the tremendous popularity of the Tree Top walk in the MacRitchie/Pierce catchment reserve; (b) whether it will be possible to install close circuit television cameras at the entry and exit points of the major trails, such as the MacRitchie reservoir trails, to deter cyclists from cycling and causing disturbance to joggers and walkers in these areas; and (c) whether existing penalties for such anti-social behaviour are sufficient deterrence and whether they are enforced.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member is right that there is increased interest in our walking trails, reservoirs and nature reserves. For example, the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve

attracted about 400,000 visitors last year. The Tree-Top Walk has received about 20,000 visitors per month since it was opened in November last year.

Sir, with the increased usage, the job of protecting our natural heritage

has become even more challenging. However, the solution does not lie in NParks deploying more staff to carry out the enforcement functions. The public needs to play its part too. In this regard, I am happy to say that many individuals and organisations are already helping NParks to monitor the health of the habitats. They conduct guided walks and educational talks, and patrol the areas. Visitors can also help by alerting NParks if they spot any defects or witness any unauthorised activities in the nature reserves. More importantly, visitors should do their part to safeguard our heritage for others' enjoyment by keeping the areas clean and tranquil.

Dr Lee asked whether it would be possible to install closed circuit television cameras (CCTVs) at the major trails to deter improper uses of the facilities. CCTVs are more useful in confined areas where the monitoring staff can respond instantly to incidents. As the nature reserves are vast open areas, CCTVs may not be as effective. In any case, it will not be possible for us to monitor people's activities all the time. Ultimately, visitors, cyclists included, should exercise personal responsibility and common courtesy. For example, they should observe trail etiquette by keeping to designated paths.

Dr Lee asked whether existing penalties for anti-social behaviour are sufficient deterrence and whether they are enforced. Sir, under the existing National Parks Regulations, enforcement action may be taken against persons for cycling on unauthorised tracks, fishing illegally and so on in the nature reserves.

Offenders may be fined up to $5,000 upon conviction. In 2004, a total of 148 people were fined for various offences committed in the reserves.

I would like to ask the Minister, in considering giving access of nature parks and other facilities to the public, whether the Ministry also looks into the issue of safety of access. For instance, it was recently reported that the access to the Tree-Top Walk via the Singapore Island Country Club is dangerous because there is no walkway for the public to access the Tree-Top Walk.

Sir, the location of the Tree-Top Walk is such that it is in the middle of the nature reserve. The Member is correct that there is no direct access to the Tree-Top Walk, in the sense that you do not see a big road or path going direct to the Tree-Top Walk. The question is whether the current situation will put the safety of the public at risk. My own assessment is that I do not think so. If Members were to go to the Tree-Top Walk, they will realise that the way to get to the Tree-Top Walk is to walk along a road path right next to the New Course of the Singapore Island Country Club.

On a typical day, maybe 100-150 players will use the road. In other words, the number of cars using that road is very limited. Also, as golfers do not tee-off any time of the day, you can expect about 50-100 cars or so using that road mainly from 7 o'clock to 9 o'clock in the morning.

Sir, I have been to the Tree-Top Walk myself. I can assure the Member that the speed limit on the Island Country Club Road is actually 20-25 kph. It is also full of humps. So even if the golfers were impatient and wanted to speed, it is not possible for them to speed because of the

many humps on the road. Hence, from my personal observation, the speed on that road is being observed at 20-25 kph. From time to time, I play golf there and I have noticed that all have to drive very slowly there.

I want to assure the Member that while this concern for safety is a valid one, I do not think members of the public are being exposed to unnecessary risks. Of course, the question is whether there is any other alternative. One alternative will be for us to cut down the trees and build a road directly to the Tree-Top Walk. If we were to do that, then we will be destroying nature. Whether golfers or members of the public, we will just have to learn to co-exist so that we can enjoy nature without risking each other. But more importantly, without risking nature.

Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he is also aware that in the nature reserves, particularly around the MacRitchie Reservoir trails, there are cyclists who are cycling when they are not authorised to cycle, as stated on the big signs out there? Because these trails are very heavily used by walkers and joggers, especially those people who are on their way to and from the Tree-Top Walk, these cyclists pose a danger, as they believe they are only doing trail cycling, and by their nature, sometimes, they go quite fast without due regard for pedestrains. But in the first place, they are not supposed to be there. My understanding is that there are very few NParks staff available. That is why the suggestion to use CCTVs. In that kind of context, Sir, it is a very enclosed area and not a wide open space. Perhaps, we should still give it a thought.

Sir, Dr Warren Lee is correct that cyclists are not allowed to use the hiking trail because that would pose a danger and inconvenience to the

hikers. What NParks has done is to work very closely with the Singapore Amateur Cycling Association and the various cycling groups. In fact, according to the assessment of NParks, the situation has improved. Over the last few months, the Singapore Amateur Cycling Association and the various cycling groups have come together to promote greater awareness among their members by encouraging them not to go on to the hiking trail. Those who want to do cycling should use the biking trail.

Sir, we do have biking trails along the perimeters of the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. We are extending these biking trails so that hopefully, over time, there will be more biking trails for the bikers. The bottomline is that the bikers should not go on the hiking trail and the hikers should not go on the biking trail. As long as they keep away from each other, things will be all right. Last year, of the about 150 offences, none of them were due to illegal cycling in our nature reserves. In other words, the cyclists indeed have been cooperating.

19. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) whether the Ministry has conducted studies and surveys of issues and problems involving men and masculinities with respect to different age groups, income levels, ethnic origins, etc; and (b) whether the Ministry will initiate and set up programmes and services to provide help, counselling services and crisis assistance to the men faced with problems, parallel to the various programmes and services that have been set up to help women in need.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry has been conducting studies and surveys on issues affecting individuals and families in their various significant life stages. Gender comparisons, taking into account different age groups, ethnicity, etc, has been a standard feature of the analysis and recommendations. Most counselling services, crisis assistance and other family support services provided by Family Service Centres (FSCs), voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), etc, are non-gender specific. They target individuals and families who need assistance.

Most social workers take a systematic orientation of helping individuals and families. For example, in helping families deal with domestic violence issues, help is provided to both men and women. Notwithstanding this, we recognise that the men do face certain gender specific issues pertaining to their roles as husbands, fathers and as the main breadwinner.

MCYS has therefore worked with the VWOs to develop programmes to address such needs. For example, in response to observations that there has been an increase in male clientele at FSC and VWO-run services, we are now encouraging and supporting more male specific initiatives with VWOs and community partners who provide developmental, preventive as well as remedial programmes for men to help them address some of their concerns.

MCYS has also been supporting and working with VWOs, like the Centre for Fathering, Young Women Muslim Association, Jurong Family Service Centre and the Association for Devoted and Active Family Men (ADAFM) to run programmes for men. The Centre for Fathering runs programmes, like father-

child bonding camps and talks for single men; PPIS-Jurong Family Service Centre and ADAFM conduct regular workshops and support groups for men.

Recently, MCYS provided support for "dear dad" and seminars supporting men involving in preparing and parenting and "dear child" photographic exhibition focusing on men and children jointly organised by the Swedish Institute.

MYCS will continue to monitor the needs in our community and work with the VWOs and people sector to introduce new programmes where necessary for both men and women.

Sir, I was visiting the MCYS website and I saw a whole list of services to women in need. I would like to propose that the Ministry put up similar services to men in need.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we can consider that.

20. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) how many helplines and hotlines do the Ministry and its affiliated Community Development Councils and voluntary welfare organisations have to help those who are in need; (b) how well are these helplines and hotlines publicised so that a person in need can easily know which number to call when a crisis arises; (c) whether these helplines and hotlines are manned by professionally trained counsellors; (d) what is the typical waiting time before a caller can get through to speak to a counsellor; and (e) what is the percentage of callers in the last three years who have received help after calling these hotlines and helplines.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry has an enquiry line that the public can call for information and enquiries for matters relating to my Ministry's work.

However, for better accessibility, most community and social services are now provided by voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs). Members of the public who need help for social services can call the National Family Service Centre (FSC) hotline at 1800-CallFSC. This hotline would connect the caller to the nearest FSC which is a first-stop centre to support families. The FSC will provide the relevant information and advice, including setting up a face-to-face appointment, if necessary, or linking the person with the right agency for assistance.

Community Development Councils (CDCs) also have enquiry lines that are primarily intended to provide information and referral or to arrange for meetings and consultation in person. NCSS funds the Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) crisis hotline 1800-2214444 which addresses the needs of people in crisis. It operates 24 hours a day to counsel anyone in distress, who is suicidal or who just needs someone to talk to. Other VWOs also provide hotlines to meet needs or fill gaps that they have identified.

There are about 30 other hotlines and helplines run by VWOs that the public can call to get information or assistance on social and related services. These hotlines range from those that provide crisis counselling to those that provide referral services. Special helplines include the Teenager Pregnancy helpline, for example, 1800-Mum-to-be and the SAGE helpline for senior citizens.

The media has been supportive in publicising these helplines. SOS, the national Family Service Centre helpline and Care Corner hotline numbers are usually featured as numbers to call

whenever the media cover issues where such help is required. Some hotlines are also listed in FYI page of the Straits Times every day. The various helpline operators carry out publicity campaigns to promote their helplines. For example, SOS organises an annual suicide prevention campaign to promote their number to the community. Helplines such as the National Family Service Centre helpline, SAGE helpline for senior citizens and mum-to-be helpline also publicise through launched events, pamphlets, cards, broadcast, print media, posters, SMRT train stations and through items of souvenirs.

Persons manning crisis hotlines such as the SOS line are trained in crisis intervention and phone counselling. Those that provide information and referral services are trained for such roles but do not need training in counselling.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22, Written Answers to Questions Nos. 24, 25 and 27 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 21-23, 26, 28 and 29 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

* Cols.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to make this Ministerial Statement.

Sir, on 20th July last year, I announced to Members of Parliament the Strategic Framework for Singapore's

National Security. Some 10 months have passed. It is timely for me to report to Parliament the progress that we have made in implementing the Strategic Framework and what further tasks need to be undertaken to keep Singapore safe from terrorism.

Organisation

Sir, the most important recommendation of the Strategic Framework was to set up a new Coordinating Structure in the centre of Government. This has been achieved. The National Security Coordination Secretariat (NSCS) has been established in the Prime Minister's Office.

The Secretariat's two component arms, the National Security Coordination Centre and the Joint Counter Terrorism Centre, have also been established. The staffing of key posts in the Secretariat and these two Centres has been completed.

Sir, Mr Peter Ho has been appointed Permanent Secretary for National Security and Intelligence Coordination to oversee the National Security Coordination Secretariat. Colonel Soh Poh Theen is the Director for the National Security Coordination Centre and Mr Yeong Gah Hou is the Director for the Joint Counter Terrorism Centre.

To ensure effective strategic planning, policy development and intelligence coordination across Government, Mr Peter Ho chairs the National Security Coordinating Committee and the Intelligence Coordinating Committee.

As Coordinating Minister for Security and Defence, I chair the Ministerial level Security Policy Review Committee, which sets the strategic policy direction for national security issues in Singapore. All three committees - the two PS-level

committees and the Ministerial Committee - have met on a regular basis.

Key pillars of the Strategic Framework

Sir, the Strategic Framework for Singapore's National Security is built on two pillars.

First, Strength through Coordination. We have adopted a "Whole of Government" approach in the fight against terror aimed at achieving greater coordination among our Government agencies and Ministries. Since the threat of transnational terrorism cuts across departmental divides, no single agency alone can tackle this problem.

We have forged tighter linkages among the various Government agencies to achieve greater effectiveness. Coordination gives us the strength to deal with the threat of transnational terrorism in a way that no single agency can tackle alone.

The second pillar is Reach through Cooperation. Since transnational terrorism respects no territorial boundaries, we have worked with our overseas partners to extend our security network to better pre-empt any threats and to protect Singapore.

Let me explain a little bit about how these two pillars have been implemented. First, Strength through Coordination. Sir, stronger collaboration across Ministries and agencies in Singapore is key, and a system that links the critical nodes and coordinates their efforts has proven to be effective.

Already, there are some visible results. A number of task forces have conducted comprehensive reviews and helped plug capability gaps in areas as diverse as maritime security, aviation security, land transport security, critical infrastructure protection and building up defences

against Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Explosives (CBRE) threats.

Let me briefly summarise some of the work that has been done in these areas.

In the area of maritime security, for example, a licensing scheme for regional ferry operators has been put in place since 1st January 2005 to regulate the movement and enhance security on board these regional ferries.

We have also started deploying Sea Marshals on board selected vessels since March 2005.

For aviation security, an in-line baggage screening system has been set up at Changi Airport to systematically examine every piece of luggage that is checked in.

In the area of public transport security, security guards have been deployed, CCTV systems are being upgraded and police patrols have been initiated to keep our MRT system secure.

In the area of critical infrastructure protection, among other things, we have reviewed the security of our energy grid and info-communications infrastructure. We have identified key energy facilities that should be further hardened and we have launched an Info-Comm Security Masterplan that will comprehensively raise Singapore's cyber security standards over the next three years. And in building up our defences against CBRE threats, vehicles transporting hazardous material have been fitted with transponders to monitor and control their movement.

The key message of achieving Strength through Coordination has been reinforced in a number of concrete ways. To help build bridges across our various Ministries and agencies, NSCS organised an inaugural National Security Course in

February this year. The course was well attended by senior officers from across the different Ministries and agencies involved in the work of national security. The course helped to forge a common vision of Singapore's national security, enhanced understanding of each other's professional expertise and established a bond amongst senior security practitioners.

Sir, in all our efforts, we have kept a close watch on the prevailing threat situation and taken a risk mitigation approach (ie, balancing the necessary security measures against the economic costs incurred) to ensure that resources are prudently used. We have also been careful not to over-regulate or be too restrictive in the implementation of security measures, as we understand the impact this would have on business efficiency and on the lives of Singaporeans.

Reach through cooperation

Sir, transnational terrorism respects no national borders, and Singapore must therefore look beyond coordination amongst Government agencies to achieve greater reach through cooperation with like-minded states and with international organisations.

In pushing the agenda for greater security, Singapore has been a strong advocate of regional and international cooperation. We realise that the centre of gravity to the threat of terrorism lies outside Singapore. Cooperation in the war on terror must therefore extend beyond the borders of Singapore, principally in the sharing of intelligence and pooling of resources. Given the interconnectedness of countries today, cooperation is a fundamental pre-requisite in areas such as maritime security, aviation security, cyber security and border control, and in building up defences against CBRE threats.

Significant progress has been achieved in several areas. I would mention just one area, maritime security, to illustrate what has been achieved. In maritime security, Singapore has been working closely with Indonesia, Malaysia and other key stakeholders as well as with the International Maritime Organisation to safeguard the Malacca and the Singapore Straits, which are critical international waterways. All three littoral states commenced coordinated patrols of the Straits in July 2004.

Closer home, the Maritime and Port Authority worked closely with the shipping community and with owners of port facilities to successfully implement the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, which seeks to enhance the general security of merchant vessels and port facilities. Singapore vessels and ports were fully compliant with the code before the July 2004 deadline.

At the regional level, Singapore has been chosen to host an Information Sharing Centre under a regional agreement to combat piracy. This will help reinforce Singapore's position as an important node in regional cooperative efforts to enhance maritime security.

Singapore has also worked closely with the US to implement several maritime security programmes such as the Container Security Initiative, the Radiation Detection Initiative and the Proliferation Security Initiative.

Collectively, these programmes seek to prevent the illegal transfer and movement of dangerous material, and the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Singapore also encourages academic discussions and forums to enable think-

tanks, academic institutions and key stakeholders to exchange views and take a more pro-active approach to a range of national security issues including maritime policies. For instance, our Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies has hosted and organised seminars with many terrorism experts from various international and renowned centres of excellence on national security. All these enable us to be connected and relevant to the leading edge thinking on security issues in the international community.

Further tasks

Sir, although we have raised the baseline for security in all areas, more remains to be done. In addition to coping with existing known threats, we should pay attention to potential events that could cause great disruption to Singapore, events such as a biological terrorist attack, a radiological incident or a cyber attack.

Our recent experience with SARS and the tsunami disaster has demonstrated forcefully that strategic surprises or wild cards can have a devastating impact. We are therefore developing a Risk Assessment and Horizon Scanning capability to help us anticipate and deal with shocks to our system. Over the past year, we have embarked on detailed studies to draw up a conceptual model and an operational framework to implement this capability.

On this note, Sir, I should stress that we would need to be inventive, as ready solutions do not exist for many of the problems linked to transnational terrorism. We would need to spend some resources on research and development work to discover imaginative solutions to intractable problems.

Singapore has the potential to take the lead in several areas. For example, our maritime security agencies will be

introducing a scheme shortly that would require all small craft operating within Singapore's territorial waters to carry a transponder. This low-cost device would help the security agencies keep track of the maritime traffic in our waters and be better able to discern threats.

Singapore is also interested in initiating a pilot project that would look into securing the entire supply chain involving Government agencies, port authorities, shipping lines and major suppliers from different countries. This will not be an easy task but like the other research and development projects we are

undertaking, we must put in the necessary effort and resources. If we are successful, we will be breaking new ground and we would be in a unique position to share new capabilities with other countries. In any case, our determination and resourcefulness will serve as yet another strong deterrent to terrorists.

Need for continued vigilance

Sir, I have highlighted the key security initiatives we have implemented since the Strategic Framework came into force in July 2004 and some of the projects we will undertake over the next year or two. I am confident we are taking the right steps and moving in the right direction in the fight against terrorism. But we need to be vigilant and sensitive to changes in the external environment and to their impact on the internal dynamics in Singapore.

Singapore remains a prime target for terrorists. Singapore strongly supports the US-led campaign against terror. We have taken robust steps to stamp out the Jemaah Islamiyah in Singapore. And we are a secular state that has successfully enabled different religious groups to co-exist and prosper.

The reality of the threat to Singapore is driven home by the continued persistence of the Al Qaeda movement worldwide and of the Jemaah Islamiyah network in the region. Dangerously, the Jemaah Islamiyah has continued to evolve and forge alliances with other groups in Indonesia and the Philippines. The secessionist problem in southern Thailand could also draw in terrorist organisations. Importantly, the resources and facilities available to recruit and train successive generations of terrorists have not been eliminated or destroyed.

The reality of the threat is also manifested in the arrests that we continue to make in Singapore. Just last month, Jahpar Osman, a Singaporean and a Jemaah Islamiyah member trained in bomb making and weapons handling, was detained under the Internal Security Act. Osman had been a member of the Jemaah Islamiyah since the mid-1990s and had undergone military training in Mindanao in the southern Philippines. He was also involved in plans to carry out terrorist attacks against Singapore.

Sir, I have used these illustrations to make the point that the terrorist threat will be with us for some time to come. Singaporeans should not feel that the threat no longer exists. The terrorist threat is real and terrorists always seek the right opportunity, especially when our guard is lowered, to strike.

Importance of national resilience

In addition to spending considerable effort in implementing a total approach that emphasises coordination, cooperation and physical security measures, we should not lose our focus on strengthening national resilience. The key target of transnational terrorism is our social fabric which binds our society together. Terrorists aim to attack the hearts and minds of our citizens to split our society apart. We must counter this threat.

Over the past year, I have therefore been engaged in a series of programmes to reach out to various sectors of Singapore society to stress to them the importance of their role in helping to keep Singapore safe. I met with Government officials in August 2004, with grassroots leaders in October 2004, with young Singaporeans in November 2004, and with the business community in January this year.

The Muslim community in Singapore have, in particular, provided critical support to the Government's overall efforts. The arrests of Jemaah Islamiyah members in Singapore initially put the Muslim community in the spotlight. Fears over a racial or religious backlash did not materialise. Instead, the Muslim community came together to deal with the issue resolutely and participated actively in the Inter-Racial Confidence Circles to reach out to the other communities and help them understand the situation.

I have been very encouraged by the response of the Muslim community in Singapore. As part of the series of dialogue sessions I have had with the various sectors of society, I met with the Muslim community last month. At that session, MUIS (the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore) presented a broad outline of its vision for the Singapore Muslim community and MUIS' plans to develop a unique Singapore Muslim Identity characterised by a progressive, adaptive and inclusive practice of Islamic religious life. This reinforces our vision for all religious groups to co-exist and prosper within a secular Singapore.

Sir, the key message I want to stress today is that since September 11, 2001, transnational terrorism has changed the world around us. The world has become more volatile and dangerous. It is

reassuring that a recent survey by the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts reported that most Singaporeans are confident that the Government is able to manage the terrorist threat. However, only about half of those surveyed know what to do if, in spite of all the measures we have taken, terrorists succeed in launching a strike against Singapore. This is worrying. In today's uncertain world, Singaporeans must make "security consciousness" a part of our way of life. If "security consciousness" does not become second nature to Singaporeans, we will, as a people, react badly, possibly disastrously, when terrorists succeed in launching a strike in Singapore despite all the preparations and precautions the Government has put in place.

To safeguard Singapore, Singaporeans have to be joint partners with the Government to defend our country and protect our way of life. The Government has implemented many systems and measures under the Strategic Framework to safeguard Singapore. But we cannot ensure our security if Singaporeans do not share in the task of protecting our society. Everyone - Members of Parliament, Government officials, the business sector, the media, the general public - has a role to play in being more proactive to look out for potential threats and work with the Government to react quickly and effectively in the aftermath of a terrorist incident if such an incident should take place in Singapore.

Conclusion

Sir, let me conclude my statement by commending the efforts and thanking the officers of our security and intelligence agencies including the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Singapore Police Force, the Internal Security Department, the Singapore Civil Defence Force, Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, the Ministry of Defence, the Singapore Armed Forces,

and the Security and Intelligence Division for performing their duties admirably, maintaining high standards of operational readiness, and being vigilant to developments and potential threats in the region and within our society.

I would also like to convey my appreciation to the Members of this House. Through the difficult times we have experienced in recent years, Members have helped convey the messages and explain the Government's position on issues such as terrorism to the people. Members have also provided valuable feedback and have helped the Government make adjustments to policies. You understand the fine balance the Government needs to achieve between projecting deterrence and raising alarm among Singaporeans.

Finally, Sir, I urge all Singaporeans to continue to be vigilant. The danger posed by terrorism is a long-term threat that we have to learn to live with for many years to come. With the cooperation and support of Singaporeans, we will succeed in containing this threat and keep Singapore and Singaporeans safe and secure for many years to come.

I will be happy to take Members' questions. Much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for a very detailed reply which contained very farsighted ideas. It will help make Singaporeans feel that much more secure.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister two questions. The key words I heard from his speech are "coordination and cooperation". Can I ask the Minister to tell us whether we have been successful in also engaging Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand in our efforts to contain transnational terrorism, as we will not be

safe no matter how much we try to insulate ourselves or detain the JI dissidents or no matter how we patrol our maritime waters? Can I also ask the Minister to please give us a sense of whether he is satisfied with the cooperation so far?

My second question relates to the survey. Can I ask the Minister whether the survey has also taken into account differences in terms of the perceptions and attitudes of men and women, along gender lines, and in terms of, for instance, whether men are more aware of the practical steps to take in the event of a terrorist attack compared to women, and on the various questions asked? Because if the women, not having gone through National Service, might not share the same kind of security consciousness, perhaps more should be done in terms of courses or programmes to inculcate a more rugged mentality among our women.

Sir, I thank Ms Irene Ng for her questions. First, regarding cooperation with Indonesia and Thailand, this is progressing. Indonesia particularly, of course, is a country nearest to us. We also know that although we have dismantled the Jemaah Islamiyah network in Singapore, several of its operatives have fled from Singapore and are probably hiding in the region, possibly in Indonesia. Members will also know or hear about the bomb blasts which had taken place in Indonesia, in Bali, at the Marriott Hotel and outside the Australian Embassy. So the threat is there. The Indonesian authorities, as expressed by President Yudhoyono, are determined to stamp out terrorism. We work with them. We exchange intelligence. We cooperate together. On occasions, this cooperation has enabled us to arrest members of the Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia and bring them back. Cooperation could be improved, and this is an on-going area.

On maritime security, Indonesia and Malaysia are now working with Singapore to have coordinated patrols to secure the Straits of Malacca. The Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister has also said that we should look into the possibility of joint patrols. This is an area which we should look into.

Cooperation is never easy. We will have to work at it, always taking into account that, for example, in securing the Straits of Malacca, we have to be conscious that any measures or patrols which we are undertaking do not infringe on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the littoral states. So we have to work out all of these rules and regulations and continue to keep a high alert to fight against terror which threatens everyone, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines.

With regard to Thailand, we exchange intelligence, and we work together. The secessionist problem in southern Thailand worries us. Where, for example, we need to work with them on having air marshals on planes between Singapore and Thailand, we have done so. But we could work better. We continue to press this issue. I think the Thai government is now much more conscious about the possibility of terrorism.

The danger is that the incidents arising from the secession in southern Thailand could lead beyond the three southern Thai provinces of Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani into other population centres, including holiday resorts like Phuket, and the capital, Bangkok. Then it would be a very serious situation. But it is an area which we will work with them.

On the survey results and whether there is a difference in attitude or consciousness between men and women on the need for security, Sir, the answer is "yes". In general, men are much more

conscious about the need for security, and the reason is a very simple one. All our young men have gone through National Service. In these two years of National Service, they are brought upfront directly face to face with the issue on how to defend Singapore and protect our society. The two or 2 1/2 years of National Service imprints an indelible mark on all our men in Singapore. They know that Singapore is vulnerable. They know that no one can protect Singapore except ourselves. If we do not rise up to the occasion and take on the responsibility, make the necessary preparations, provide the necessary resources to protect and defend Singapore, no one else will do it.

For the women, yes, we have courses in schools, universities, polytechnics and ITE; we have community functions where we try and impress on them the need for National Security. I do not think they are indifferent. But it is one thing to have gone through National Service and to have actually served under fire and it is another thing to be told about the dangers that face Singapore. So I think this is an area which we need to have further work because we need to impress on all Singaporeans - men and women, adults, children - of the need to defend our country. This is something which, in the last analysis, is our choice. We either defend and protect our country or we would be attacked. It is up to us. I am confident that Singaporeans would rise to the occasion and would do what is necessary to keep Singapore safe and secure, not only for the next few years, but for many generations to come.

Mr Sepaker, Sir, I am sure we all want to thank DPM for doing a good job of coordinating National Security. In this regard, I wish to ask DPM, in view of the recent survey, what more could be done to increase individual Singaporean's preparedness and ability to respond and react to any terrorist attack.

I thank the hon. Member for his very kind words regarding my service as Coordinating Minister for Security and Defence.

I think we can do a lot in order to increase Singapore's awareness of the need for National Security and of the threats which face Singapore. This can be done at our schools, for example. That is why I met with the teachers and students from junior colleges last year to impress on them that this is not a problem for their parents. This is a problem which they will face when they grow up, to be prepared. It is not going to go away, and it is a threat which all of us, adults and children, would have to be prepared to live with for many years. We can also do so at community functions, and it is where Members of Parliament can play a major role in organising their grassroots leaders, participating in events which bring home to Singaporeans the need to be aware of the threats and how they can help in order to mitigate these threats and, very important, that one day, when there is a terrorist attack in Singapore, that would be the real test. Can we respond as a people quickly, efficiently, effectively and get over it? Then we will succeed.

Sir, a terrorist attack in Singapore does not mean the end of the world. That is something which we have to bear in mind. If there is an attack, we will get over it, Singapore will go on. Life does not end. So long as we have that confidence, no threat can destroy Singapore. But we must make preparations. That is what NSCS, together with all our security agencies, has been doing all of these years. Also, organisations, like SCDF and the Police, will be organising events in constituencies in order to bring home to Singaporeans the need for them to take part in ensuring our National Security and what they can do. The Ministry of Home Affairs has, for example, started this campaign to have

"Be Ready" bags which contain a radio, torchlight and some basic medical aids. I think this is a very good move. We should make those "Be Ready" bags available to every household in Singapore. It is a visible sign of the need to protect ourselves, not by the Government, but by every Singaporean family. I hope that when the Ministry of Home Affairs, SCDF, Police and SAF launch these campaigns, Members will participate fully and, in that way, we will always be sure that Singaporeans will remain vigilant and that, as I said, if something does happen, we will not panic. But we will be able to handle the incident in a way which does credit to Singapore as we have done with SARS. The test of our people comes not in good times when everything is going on well. The test of our people comes in difficult times when you are faced with a challenge. Do you fold up and give up? Do you rise up to the occasion, face the challenge squarely, overcome it and then move on? And we must move on. Otherwise, there is no Singapore.

Sir, two clarifications. I would like to ask DPM what is the assessment of the current security situation in the region and Singapore and what is the assessment in the next two or three years down the road. Second clarification: with the rising awareness of terrorism in the region and also the security measures taken by various governments, including Singapore as well as Indonesia and Thailand, how real is the threat to Singaporeans, in terms of terrorism?

Sir, my answer to Mr Low's question is a very simple one. The threat is real. Singapore is a prime target for terrorists. I do not think that we should be complacent or we should hide the fact. If we do not keep up our guard, if we let our guard down, the terrorists will strike, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not this year or next

year, but they will strike one of these days. And I do not see this situation improving over the next two or three years. This is a long-term threat. You are faced with an enemy which is fighting you on illogical grounds, who are prepared to go on, use extreme tactics and methods which cause catastrophic damage, kill many people in order to get the outcome which they want. They will not be deterred by a few arrests. A new generation of terrorists is being nurtured, groomed and indoctrinated all the time. And the threat will be with us for many years. So whether it is this year or two or three years down the road, the threat will be there. With the cooperation of the countries around us, I think we can manage to contain this threat. But we must work at it.

Fortunately, I think that with all the incidents that had happened, more countries, both in the region and around the world, are now conscious of the need to contain the threat of transnational terrorism. Singapore is playing its part. We work with the region to manage this threat. But for the time being, I cannot say that there is a point, whether this year, next year or a few years after that, when we can say that the threat is over. That is the reality.

I read some assessments in the US and some other commentators who said that, with the arrest of the No. 3 in the Al Qaeda organisation, and with the US engagement in the global security situation, there were some assessments that the security threat has somewhat lessened. What is DPM's view on that and how does that relate to Singapore? I am not saying that the threat is not real. But my question is: if it is real, how real is it and to what degree should we be ready for it?

Sir, with the arrests that had taken place, both in the US and around the world in various countries, including Singapore and Malaysia, there is no doubt that a considerable part of the leadership of the Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah has been disrupted. So the chain of command is not as tight as it was before. But that does not mean that the threat has lessened. But what has happened now, in fact, is that it could have evolved into an even more dangerous version. Without the tight control from the top now, the Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah are splintering into a number of groups, each of which has its own agenda and each of which may carry out bombings and killings on an indiscriminate basis because there is no one to control them. Is this more dangerous than before? That is a matter of debate. Both are dangerous. But the threat is as real today as it was previously.

As to whether the threat is real or not, as I said, and I cannot say it more often, if you let down your guard and assume that the worst is over, you do so at your own peril. I do not think that is a wise thing to do. You must be on your guard all the time. A country, like Singapore, which is an international hub, financial hub, tourism hub, air hub, shipping hub, runs on confidence - confidence of international investors, businessmen, travellers and confidence of our own people that Singapore is a secure place, that parents can send their children to school, knowing that their children will come back safely in the afternoon. If we cannot provide that security, then there is no Singapore. If you look at Iraq, there is no security. And the fundamental responsibility of every government is to make sure that its people are safe and can live their lives safely. This is what the Government is going to do. Whether you are in the ruling party or in the Opposition,

this is your responsibility to Singapore. You have a choice. You can either say that it is all over, you do not need any of these difficult measures unless an incident happens. Or better do everything that you can to prevent an incident happening in Singapore and prepare ourselves so that if one should happen, there is no panic. But we will be able to take it in our stride. That is the way for Singapore, not only to survive, but to progress and prosper.

I wish to clarify that I am not saying that the Government should not be responsible for security. I am not questioning whether there is a need to safeguard ourselves, in terms of having security measures. My question is: to what extent we should have them and whether or not we should over-emphasise and dwell over that issue of security and to what extent would it also make us less confident and affect the confidence of the investors in the future?

Sir, we cannot over-emphasise the threat which faces Singapore and all countries in the world today. Transnational terrorism is a most immediate and significant threat to all civilised societies today.

Yes, we know all the measures which we have taken are difficult. But they are necessary. And, in fact, rather than panicking Singaporeans and foreigners, they are a key asset of Singapore. Many companies now base their operations in Singapore because their executives feel that Singapore is safe, that their operations and their plants will not be bombed, that their managers and expatriates can live in Singapore safely, send their children to schools in Singapore and not worry about having a bomb.

So, I do not think that you can over-exaggerate the importance of having these security issues. It is not a burden

on Singapore. It is an asset for Singapore today.

"to amend the Copyright Act (Chapter 63 of the 1999 Revised Edition)",

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

"to amend the Town Councils Act (Chapter 329A of the 2000 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 2001 Revised Edition) and the Housing and Development Act (Chapter 129 of the 2004 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 2001 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Manpower (Dr Ng Eng Hen); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.48 pm until 4.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.10 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, as its title implies, this Bill collates a number of amendments, mainly technical in nature, to several Acts. Let me highlight the key ones.

Amendments due to implementation of Digital Transcription System (clauses 2, 3 and 11)

First, we have some amendments to remove statutory requirements for evidence and proceedings to be recorded in writing. This will pave the way for the digital audio recording of evidence, which has several advantages. One key advantage is that the trial judge will need no longer record the evidence in longhand. This will free him up to concentrate on the evidence as given by the witness, and allows him to make his own brief notes at key points of the case. Trials can then move at a swifter pace, possibly resulting in savings in time and costs to the parties and witnesses. Secondly, if there is a dispute as to what the witness had said previously, the digital audio recording can be played back immediately to verify what the witness had said.

To effect this innovation, clause 11 amends the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to delete reference to a shorthand transcript as "shorthand" will no longer be used in court. With the proposed

implementation of a Digital Transcription System later this year, all open court proceedings in the Supreme Court will be digitally recorded.

In a similar vein, clauses 2 and 3 amend the provisions in the Bankruptcy Act and the Companies Act which require the court to reduce evidence to writing to reflect a manner of recording evidence which is technologically neutral to facilitate the use of new technologies. This will accommodate the Digital Transcription System. Currently, both statutes require the court to reduce the evidence to writing, read it over to the person examined, and require that person to sign the evidence.

Amendments due to operation of Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2005 (clauses 6 and 10)

Sir, the next set of amendments is necessitated by the advent of a new corporate vehicle, the limited liability partnership (LLP), introduced by the Limited Liability Partnerships Act earlier this year. LLPs are corporate entities that can

acquire and hold property. Under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act, an existing company can convert into a LLP. Upon conversion, all movable and immovable properties vested in the company will automatically be transferred to and vest in the LLP.

The LLP was not in existence when the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act and the Residential Property Act were enacted. As such, there are no references to LLPs in both Acts, whilst companies operate as housing developers under the Housing Developers Act and hold residential properties under the Residential Property Act. Therefore, consequential amendments are necessary to allow LLPs to acquire and hold residential property in Singapore under the Residential Property Act and to be housing developers under the Housing Developers Act. These amendments introduce provisions that mirror existing ones that apply to companies.

Sir, these amendments do not, in substance, impact the existing framework of these two Acts. For example, under the Residential Property Act, where a company converts to a LLP, any approvals previously granted under the Residential Property Act to the company to hold and acquire residential property will continue to be valid as if it were granted to the new LLP. These amendments make clear that there is no need for a fresh application, and help companies that wish to convert to LLPs.

Repeal of the Government Hospitals Act (clause 4)

Sir, the Government Hospitals Act was introduced in 1960 to empower the Minister to prescribe fees and make disbursements in respect of Government hospitals. With the restructuring of the last two Government hospitals in 2000, the Act is obsolete and is no longer relevant. Clause 4, therefore, repeals the Government Hospitals Act.

Amendments to the Police Force Act 2004 (clause 9)

Sir, clause 9 amends the Police Force Act 2004 to allow Internal Security Department (ISD) officers who are performing investigation duties, to be designated by the Minister as Intelligence Officers.

Clause 9 also amends the same Act to allow Intelligence Officers to exercise the full powers of police officers. Currently, ISD officers who do investigation work are conferred only police

powers of

investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Internal Security Act and seven other statutes which are prescribed by the Minister and gazetted. This arrangement arose as a result of the conversion of Senior Police Officers working in ISD, to the Intelligence Service in 2001. This made it necessary to specially vest police powers in such officers, who had previously exercised them as Senior Police Officers working in ISD.

Sir, after operating this arrangement for a few years now, it is felt that it is necessary to extend the designated police powers beyond these statutes. Given the nature of security investigations, and the need for confidentiality as well as timely action, operational effectiveness will be hampered if ISD officers are unable to investigate offences falling outside these statutes and have to refer them to other law enforcement agencies.

Miscellaneous amendments

Finally, Sir, I would like to take the House briefly through the remaining key provisions of the Bill which are to facilitate better administration of the Acts in question.

Amendments to the Government Proceedings Act (clause 5)

First, clause 5 makes technical amendments to the Government Proceedings Act to clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, that the Magistrate's Court has jurisdiction, in accordance with the Subordinate Courts Act to hear civil proceedings by and against the Government.

Amendment to the Medicines Act (clause 7)

Next, clause 7 makes a technical amendment to section 20(5) of the Medicines Act to apply the penalty provided in that provision to an offence

under section 20(3A) of the Act. The offence under section 20(3A) was inserted in the Medicines Act in 2004.

Amendments to the Planning Act (clause 8)

Lastly, clause 8 amends the Planning Act to allow CISCO officers to continue to be authorised to carry out specific enforcement functions such as site inspections and execution of works for enforcement. The clause also amends the same Act to allow the competent authority or authorised persons to bring along assistants and workmen with them when they enter premises.

Sir, this amendment is necessitated by the corporatisation of the Commercial and Industrial Security Corporation (CISCO) which will take effect very soon. Currently, the Planning Act only empowers the competent authority to authorise public officers or officers from statutory boards to perform the functions I had earlier mentioned. These amendments will therefore make it possible for CISCO officers to continue performing their current enforcement functions under the Planning Act, notwithstanding CISCO's corporatisation.

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. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Introduction

Sir, after the General Election (GE) in 2001, the Prime Minister set up a Review Committee to study how the election processes can be streamlined and simplified and how the conduct of elections can be improved, for both candidates and voters. The Review Committee was chaired by the Permanent Secretary (Prime Minister's Office), Mr Eddie Teo and comprised senior officials who were involved in the conduct of past General Elections.

The Committee made a number of recommendations, many of which have been adopted. Members may recall reading about the public officers undergoing election training. This is one of the Review Committee's recommendations which was implemented by the Elections Department as it did not require a legislative change. The amendments contained in this Bill, and in the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill that will be read a Second time after this, are introduced to implement those recommendations that require legislative changes. A number of the amendments to the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill also apply to the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill. The reasons or rationale for the amendments under these two Bills are the same. I will not repeat them afterwards when I speak on the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill.

Sir, there are three main groups of amendments in this Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill. Firstly, there are the amendments which focus on nomination processes. These are meant to reduce the present complexity in

nomination procedures but still ensure responsible candidature to stand for parliamentary elections. The Bill tries to improve accessibility to standing for election to Parliament by reducing or mitigating the existing risk of aspiring candidates failing to be nominated on account of technicalities and errors. We are also taking the opportunity to clarify certain provisions to ensure greater certainty in operation. The second group of amendments relates to post-election processes, namely, post-election reporting of election expenditure. The third and last group of amendments consists of miscellaneous amendments ranging from abolishing obsolete fees connected with voter registration to conferring powers of composition on the Returning Officer or officials in the Elections Department.

I will cover each one of them in turn.

Nomination procedures

Sir, the purpose of any parliamentary elections is to enable the electorate to cast votes to select representatives to Parliament from the various candidates who come forward. However, the best and most suitable individual cannot be elected if he or she does not successfully complete the nomination process. The process by which a person is nominated is therefore as important as the final act of casting a vote. While our nomination process must continue to ensure that only responsible and serious candidates can gain access, the process can afford to be simplified to reduce the risk of aspiring individuals failing to be nominated due to formal errors or non-compliance with procedures. Deserving candidates should not be disqualified from standing because of minor technicalities. Our nomination proceedings today centre heavily on four sets of documents: the nomination paper, a Statutory Declaration as to qualifications, a political

donations certificate and the relevant Certificate for a Group Representation Constituency (GRC). These documents have to be submitted to the Returning Officer, in a certain manner following certain formalities and within the prescribed time. Nominees or candidates with incomplete or incorrect documents may find their nomination rejected or objected to successfully by their opponents.

In practice, the most common errors in nomination papers are wrong or incorrect register serial numbers of the proposer, seconder or the assentors. To reduce the risk of such errors invalidating nominations, the Government has decided to remove the requirement for register serial numbers in the nomination paper. The nominee and his proposer, seconder and assentors may be identified in the nomination paper by their NRIC numbers. You can see this change in clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill as they amend sections 27 and 27B respectively. The form of the nomination paper will be revised after this Bill is enacted. The new form will also have space for up to eight assentors, instead of the six. The nominees can therefore help themselves by obtaining a higher number of signatories just in case some of them are invalidated on account of errors. This will allow the nominees a margin of error of up to four, ie, an increase of two. However, these changes do not do away with the current legal requirement that every nominee must secure constituent support for his nomination. The proposer, seconder and assentors must all still be electors registered in the constituency for which the nominee is seeking election. To facilitate the checking of the electoral status of these signatories in nomination papers filed by their opponents, the Returning Officer will make available personal computer (PC) facilities loaded with the database of the registers of electors at every Nomination Centre for their use.

Next, clauses 5 and 6 amend sections 27 and 27B by merging the nomination paper with the statutory declaration as to qualifications to stand for election. This will reduce the number of papers to be filed with the Returning Officer on nomination day.

Sir, the manner in which nomination papers are to be delivered to the Returning Officer is also changed. Clause 7 amends section 29 to require nominees to be present at the Nomination Centre in person and accompanied by their proposer, seconder and at least four of their assentors. Besides facilitating corrections of any particulars in the nomination paper, this requirement will also prevent any insertion of particulars or forging of signatures of any registered elector in nomination papers without the elector's knowledge. As our present law already requires nominations to be made by the nominees in person, and accompanied by their proposer and seconder, it should not be difficult for the nominees to comply with the additional requirement of having their assentors to be present during nomination.

Currently, there is little room under the law for some minor errors in nomination papers. Defects in a nomination paper that are potentially rectifiable can be overlooked since they will not invalidate the nomination. Hence, inaccurate names or misnomers, inaccurate descriptions of persons, or inaccurate descriptions of places can be overlooked where despite these inaccuracies or mistakes, the person or place is still identifiable. That is the position under section 103 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. However, blanks and errors in numbers are fatal errors. That is, these cannot be rectified and a nomination paper with any such defect has to be rejected or may be successfully objected to.

Two amendments are made to enlarge the scope for corrections to be made. Clause 8 introduces a new section 29A to allow a candidate or nominee to correct his nomination papers before 12 noon on the day of nomination. This facility does not, however, allow the candidate or nominee to substitute another person as candidate or nominee or as proposer, seconder or assentor. In addition to the facility to correct errors, the list of non-fatal errors in section 103 is expanded by clause 15 to provide that a nomination paper may still be accepted, and an objection may be disallowed, notwithstanding any error in numbers or any omission in the nomination paper in relation to the description or any particulars of the candidate or his proposer, seconder or any of his assentors, provided that the place or person can still be identified from the information contained in the nomination paper.

Sir, these changes to allow candidates and nominees to correct their nomination papers prior to final determination if defects are discovered will help the aspiring candidate. However, the responsibility for filling in and verifying the accuracy of their papers remains with the nominees and their supporters. They have to ensure that their papers are in order. The Returning Officer still cannot overlook serious mistakes in nomination papers.

Next, Sir, clause 13 amends section 33 to make the nomination process more efficient. Presently, nomination proceedings last from 11.00 am to 12.30 pm.

Papers must be delivered to the Returning Officer no later than 12 noon. Withdrawals must also be filed before 12 noon. Objections may be lodged at any time from 11.00 am to 12.30 pm. If the recommendation that objections to any nomination for a constituency can only be lodged by persons authorised to be

present at a Nomination Centre and seeking nomination for that same constituency, there will be no basis to prolong proceedings for the additional 30 minutes in instances where only one candidate or group of candidates in a GRC is nominated for a constituency. Thus, if at the close of nominations at 12 noon, only one candidate or group stands nominated for that constituency, the Returning Officer or his delegate may, under the amended section 33, proceed to declare that sole candidate or group duly elected as Members of Parliament.

Sir, in 2001, the law was amended to invalidate multiple nominations. However, it does not deal with the situation of multiple nominations of the same person in the same constituency. This can happen in the present environment where alliances have been formed between political parties. For example, we now have the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) making up of the Singapore People's Party (SPP), the National Solidarity Party (NSP) and the PKMS, etc. An individual belonging to a political party, say, the SPP, may contest in a GRC concurrently as a member of the group from SPP and as a member of the group representing SDA. Who knows, there may be other alliances in future. Multiple nominations of this sort are therefore not hypothetical. To make it clear that this is not allowed, clause 12 amends section 32A to invalidate multiple nominations involving the same person in the same constituency. If, at the close of nomination for an election, a person is nominated to be a candidate in more than one constituency, or a person is nominated to be a candidate in the same constituency more than once, all his nominations will be void.

Finally, Sir, I now come to the amendments which seek to clarify certain provisions in the interests of certainty during nomination proceedings. First,

owing to the shortage of suitable premises, we have always had a single school serving as the Nomination Centre for more than one constituency during a general election. Invariably, candidates of one constituency find objections being filed by candidates of a different constituency as they are all within the same Nomination Centre. Under section 29(4) of the Act, it is clear that only the candidate for a constituency and his/her proposer, seconder, assentors and one other person, if any, appointed, are entitled to examine the nomination papers of the opponent candidate for that same constituency. They have no entitlement to inspect the nomination papers of candidates of other constituencies even if the Nomination Centre is the same. Logically then, only those persons allowed to examine a nomination paper are entitled to lodge an objection to that nomination paper. To avoid further confusion in proceedings on nomination day, clause 9 amends section 30 of the Act to make it clear that only candidates or groups of candidates contesting in a constituency, and their proposers, seconders, assentors and the one other person appointed by each candidate, and that only persons authorised to be present at the Nomination Centre can lodge objections.

Clause 10 repeals and re-enacts section 31 regarding persons entitled to be present at nomination proceedings. The provision now sets out a list of such persons.

Finally, I turn to withdrawal of candidature. Today, a candidate who wishes to withdraw his candidature must do so before 12 noon by a written notice signed by him or her. The law does not require the withdrawal to be done in person, although that has been insisted upon in practice. However, this is good practice. It is vital that the Returning Officer be satisfied that a withdrawal is genuine before he acts on it. For this

reason, clause 11 amends section 32(1) to make it clear that withdrawal of candidature must be done in person. While technology allows for facsimile transmissions of notices of withdrawal, we consider this unacceptable, even if there is a dedicated line to receive such signed withdrawals. We do not wish to encourage deliberate multiple nominations and last-minute withdrawals by candidates and parties, as this can only confuse matters. The electorate deserves the assurance that persons who present themselves for election to Parliament do so in a serious and responsible manner.

Returns respecting elections expenses

Let me now move on to explain the changes to post-election reporting of election expenditure.

Currently, the returns must contain details of election expenses incurred by the candidate and "all moneys, securities and other valuable considerations received by or promised to the election agent from or by any €¦ person for the purpose of expenses incurred or to be incurred on account or in respect of the management of the election €¦ whether it is received as contribution, loan deposit or otherwise", regardless of their origins.

Sir, promises are not something that will certainly be fulfilled. Now that we have a clear definition of "donation" in the Political Donations Act (PDA), we should do away with the impractical requirement for promises to be disclosed in the returns respecting election expenses and adopt a consistent language in our election law. Clause 14 amends section 74(1)(e) to dispense with the requirement to disclose promises made to candidates or their election agents as regards election expenses. Candidates and their election agents will in future need to disclose all

donations as defined by the Political Donations Act that have been accepted by the candidate or his election agent.

Next, under the Parliamentary Elections Act, the election agents are required to file with the Returning Officer a return on election expenses with their statutory declaration, together with another statutory declaration from their candidates, within 31 days after the election results are published.

Under the Political Donations Act, the election agents, together with the candidates, must also file a post-election donation report and declaration with the Registrar of Political Donations within 31 days after the election results are published. The Political Donations Act forms only require an ordinary declaration from the candidates and their election agents.

It is administratively inconvenient for candidates and their election agents to make a statutory declaration each to accompany the returns with regard to election expenses. This is because the statutory declaration must be made before a Commissioner for Oaths or Justice of the Peace, and any statutory declaration has to be re-sworn or re-affirmed if the form, which is the subject of the declaration, has to be corrected in any way.

As the Political Donations Act forms do not require a statutory declaration and will be filed with the same Government agency, ie, the Elections Department, there is no strong reason to insist on the returns to be accompanied by a statutory declaration. In any event, the punishment for making a false statutory declaration is the same as that for making a false ordinary declaration. Therefore, abolishing the need for a statutory declaration to accompany the returns with respect to election expenses will be consistent with

the requirement for an ordinary declaration under the Political Donations Act forms. Clause 14 amends section 74(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act to this effect.

Obsolete stamp fees

Let me now deal with the last group of miscellaneous amendments. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill concern provisions on objections and appeals as to the inclusion of a name in a register of electors. Following the amendments to the Stamp Duties Act that do away with adhesive stamps, the requirement in the Parliamentary Elections Act for an objection or appeal to bear a stamp of $1 is rendered obsolete. Clause 3 amends section 11 of the Act by abolishing the payment of a stamp fee of $1 for filing an objection. Clause 4 amends section 12 for the same reason by abolishing the payment of a stamp fee of $5 to the Revising Officer for an appeal against any decision of the Registration Officer.

Composition of offences

Let me now turn to the issue on composition of offences. The Returning Officer currently faces a constraint in dealing with technical breaches of the provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act pertaining to offences such as the illegal display of posters. Offenders are either let off with a light warning or prosecuted. In the latter instance, criminal proceedings are taken only after the election and hence fail to deter repeated breaches during the election period.

Clause 16 inserts a new section 109 to allow the Returning Officer or an authorised officer of the Elections Department to compound appropriate offences. Composition of an offence is a procedure by which an agency that administers a

written law gives a person who is reasonably suspected of committing an offence under that law (the alleged offender) the chance to avoid prosecution and conviction in court by paying a sum of money to the agency. This is done by many Government agencies. On payment of the sum of money by the alleged offender, the agency will not take or will discontinue any criminal proceedings against the alleged offender in respect of the offence and the alleged offender is taken not to have been convicted of the offence. The offences will be those the Minister prescribes by regulations to be compoundable. For example, what we have in mind are offences such as displaying an election poster/banner without affixing to it an official stamp issued by the Returning Officer, damaging authorised posters/banners displayed by other candidates or using a loudspeaker on polling day. The composition sum will be half the amount of the maximum fine that is prescribed for the offence, or a sum not exceeding $500, whichever is lower. Composition will definitely not be a means for the Elections Department to generate revenue. The Elections Department will be drawing up internal mechanisms so that there will be clear and consistent criteria as to when composition can be offered, and in every case that meets these criteria, composition will be offered.

In connection with the amendments on nomination proceedings and post-election reporting of election expenditure, clause 17 amends the First Schedule by deleting Form 10 and Form 21.

The proposals will help candidates standing for elections because they simplify the processes and will cut red tape.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Sir, the amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218) are supposed to simplify nomination procedures. As one who has taken part in seven general elections

and one By-Election, I can say that not all the amendments meet this aim, especially the one under clause 7 where section 29 of the principal Act is amended to require all the six signatories in support of the candidate to be present at the nomination centre on nomination day between the hours of 11.00 am and 12 noon.

In the past 40 years, in all the 11 General Elections, the proposer, the seconder and the four assentors were never required to be present personally at the nomination centre on nomination day. That practice was time-tested and proven to be efficient. Why is there a sudden need to change? I think this new requirement is purely political. It has nothing to do with the simplification of nomination procedures. In fact, it is just the opposite. It puts more difficulties in the way of the Opposition parties and their candidates, especially their new candidates.

The membership of Opposition parties does not cover the whole of Singapore. When an Opposition party wishes to file a candidate or candidates in a constituency where there are no party members there, the party will have to look for non-party members to sign the nomination form. Those people roped in to sign the nomination paper may be total strangers to the party. Especially for a new or unknown candidate, he usually finds it difficult to persuade six strangers to sign his nomination form. Because in Singapore, even up till today, the element of fear still exists. People are afraid to be seen to be helping the Opposition. In past elections, people who wanted to help the Opposition had only to put down their names and sign the election form. That

act needed plenty of courage. Now, with the amendment, these Singaporeans have not only to append their names and sign the nomination form, but they are also called upon to attend personally at the nomination centre. That is really asking too much of those volunteers. Why do the proposers, seconders and assentors need to attend personally at the nomination centre? Is there evidence of any fraud?

Over the last 40 years, I have not heard of reported cases of dishonest practice as far as the nomination forms are concerned. These days, one can make various applications to the authorities through the Internet. The application to take part in an election should also be one of such applications. Instead, the Government is seen to turn the clock backwards, completely ignorant of the advancement of technology, and opting for outdated practice by forcing applicants to attend personally at the nomination centre. Why make things so difficult, especially for the Opposition parties?

The other difficulty of making six people attend personally at the nomination centre on nomination day is that nomination day, unlike polling day, is not a declared public holiday. In these days of high unemployment, workers find it difficult to get leave from their employers. Worst of all, the date of the nomination day for election is a closely guarded secret, and workers who wish to help in the election process are not able to ask for leave in advance. There are also sudden illnesses. The proposer or seconder may suddenly fall sick on nomination day and be hospitalised. Their absence will constitute a fatal omission on the part of the candidate under the new section 29, and his nomination shall be declared null and void. If the Government is really sincere in wanting to simplify the election procedures, then it should not have this amendment.

I would like now to speak on the amendments to section 27, in particular section 27(2)(d), where a person to be nominated as an election candidate must make a statutory declaration that he is qualified to be elected. Since the purpose of this Bill is to simplify election procedures, why not just require the candidate to make an ordinary declaration? In that way, the candidate need not take the trouble to appear before a Commissioner for Oaths or a Justice of the Peace, which may prove quite time-consuming and inconvenient. In any event, if a candidate is disqualified under the provisions of the Constitution, I do not think that he would dare declare under an ordinary declaration that he is fit to contest an election. He knows that should he subsequently be found out, he shall forthwith be debarred from taking part in future parliamentary elections. And should he win the election, his seat in Parliament shall be declared null and void. His name shall also be tarnished and his credibility shall be lost forever. Further, he shall also suffer criminal charges for making a false declaration. I do not think that any person in his right mind would ever commit an election offence, as the price is too high. I think that section 27(2)(d) and section 27B(2)(d) which cover GRCs in the amendment should be deleted. Candidates should only be required to make an ordinary declaration, not a statutory one.

The other comment I would like to make is on new section 29A which states that the Returning Officer is given the discretion to correct errors and omissions on a nomination form. This amendment appears sensible, for in the past a candidate can be disqualified if he makes a small clerical or typographical error on his nomination form. That law seems unreasonable, but it existed. The present law under the new section definitely makes more sense, although I hasten to say that this amendment benefits the

ruling Party more than the Opposition. The ruling Party always takes part in election in every constituency, be it a single constituency or a GRC. By its sheer number, the possibility of the ruling Party making a mistake is greater than that of the Opposition. Also, I think the Opposition at this point in time can afford to have one of its GRCs disqualified, but the ruling Party certainly cannot afford to have even one GRC disqualified due to an error or omission under the current law. If that happens, it can cause a domino effect, with the possible final result of the loss of the PAP at the polls. Yes, I do think that the new section 29A has great advantages for the ruling Party.

Before I sit down, Sir, I would like the Minister to make certain clarifications in regard to the words "the one other person", as mentioned in new sections 30(1A)(c) and 31(c). I would like to ask the Minister the following questions:

What is the purpose for the candidate to appoint the "other person"?

What are the criteria for appointing the "other person"?

Whether any person, including a foreigner, can be appointed as the "other person"?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to participate in this debate.

Sir, every time the Parliamentary Elections Bill comes up for reading, the media and everyone politically interested will start speculating that the General Election is round the corner. I will then receive lots of calls from the journalists or the public asking when is the likely date for the upcoming General Election. It is as if the media and the public assume that I have privileged information as to the date of the election. Alas, this is not the case. I can only speculate, like everyone else, as to what is the likely date, month

or year that our Prime Minister sets forth or sees as the most favourable date to his party's advantage.

Sir, if the date of the Presidential elections can be fixed as a full five-year term - so as to give clarity and certainty for its citizens - why then is our Government so reluctant to fix the date of any GE, at least way in advance? Is it because the incumbent Government wants to "bao jia", ie, to have its cake and eat it too? I hope this message helps to remind our Government that if they genuinely want to have a more genuine "open and inclusive" society, then it should learn to play fairly with its worthy opponents. Respect is earned, not demanded. To be respected as a fair and equitable Government, having the people's trust and mandate, the governing party needs to earn it in a fair fight with its contenders and competitors. So, I hope the Government will make it mandatory in the Parliamentary Elections Bill to have at least four months' notice before a General Election is being called.

Next, I like to talk about the election deposit. Election deposit of $500 was fixed for each candidate for 24 years from 1948 till 1972. Since then, it has escalated to our current $12,000. Sir, this $12,000 deposit is peanuts for an elected incumbent MP - which is just one month of his MP's allowance, but it is a big hefty sum for any non-incumbent candidate to fork out for his interest to stand as an election candidate. After forking out this large amount of $12,000 as a deposit, there is not much cash left for the candidate to run an effective electoral campaign for the purpose of the election.

Unless it is the governing party's hidden agenda to limit the number and ability of its competitors to run an

effective campaign, I hope the Government will amend this Bill to reduce the size of the election deposit to half or less than half a month of an MP's allowance, instead of a full month as is the current practice. This act will immediately help to inspire more citizens who want to serve the country (through a non-governing party, ie, a non-PAP party) to consider taking up the duty of being a competitor to an incumbent PAP MP, so as to better serve the interest of the people in that constituency.

Third, I like to talk about giving more citizens the chance to exercise their voting rights as a citizen in an election. Sir, it is a fact that the Opposition in Singapore is very weak, and almost to the point of non-existent. I know, Sir, because I am from the Opposition. Unless it is the governing party's desire to wipe out its able competitors, and only allowing for a semblance to exist - for its public showcase - I think the Government can do a lot by introducing back more single-member constituencies and smaller-sized GRCs.

In the 1997 and 2001 General Elections, nine out of nine single-member constituencies were contested, making it a 100% contest. But this is not the case for the GRCs. By crowding itself in super-sized GRCs, the Government is giving the public an impression that its Ministers and MPs are afraid of a genuine contest. They hide behind the size in numbers, knowing full well that their position and strength are secured by the weakness of the Opposition to contest in any kind of large GRC.

Again, if the Prime Minister's word of a more "open and inclusive" society is to be believed, then he will do well to heed the public's aspiration - to give them more chances to cast their votes in a General Election. By making 50% of the 84 parliamentary seats

back to single

constituencies, the Government will effectively and immediately give 50% of the population the chance to express their wishes in an election.

Sir, please do not allow the Government or its Ministers to blame the Opposition, to blame us for our failure to field candidates to fight the elections. Until the Opposition in Singapore is given a genuine opportunity to establish itself as a viable, credible alternative political institution, all this blame-laying is just an excuse for the governing party to retain its power and control - at the expense of a genuine democracy.

Fourth, again, to be a genuine open democracy with free and fair competition, the Government needs to put this Parliamentary Elections Act under the jurisdiction of an Independent Elections Commission. I have talked much about it previously. I do not want to belabour it. But I just want the Government to seriously consider it again for the greater benefit of our society.

Lastly, Sir, I refer to clause 7 of the amendment to section 29. Like Mr Chiam before me, I read with concern that the Bill is amended such that the candidate must submit his nomination papers "accompanied by his proposer, seconder and at least four assentors" in person at the nomination centre. Sir, this amendment will greatly inconvenience the non-incumbent candidate's proposer, seconder and his four assentors. Already, it is tough for non-governing parties to find candidates to contest in an election. For those people who are interested to contest as an Opposition candidate, it is even tougher still for them as somebody new to politics to find residents living in that constituency willing to put their names down as proposer, seconder and assentors for the Opposition candidates that are challenging the PAP incumbent. Sir, there is great fear in putting one's name down for anything not PAP - talk

about putting one's name to support a challenger to the PAP!

Now, the Government wants to make it even tougher for the non-PAP candidates by requiring that the proposer, seconder and assentors must be physically present on nomindation day at the nomination centre between 11.00 am and 12.00 noon. It is akin to asking these concerned citizens to be physically identified by the PAP and its grassroots activities in that constituency for target practice. There are only a few garang and brave souls willing to do that. And chances are that a non-incumbent new candidate asked by the Opposition will not know who they are or where they are from.

Sir, why is the PAP Government doing this? Either it is out of ignorance, which I do not think so, or they know full well the power of creating fear in their opponents or those who wish to have opponents. If it is out of ignorance, I do hope that this amendment will be immediately amended to make it non-mandatory. But if it is out of genuine intention to create fear among concerned citizens wanting to support their constituencies for a genuine electoral contest, then I will say it bluntly that this action is most despicable of the governing party. I really hope that they will reflect on this and remove this amended clause. Allow the proposer, seconder and assentors the option to sign the nomination paper in the privacy of their homes and no need to take urgent leave from work on the nomination day to be physically present at the nomination centre, if they so choose. Leave the proposer, seconder and the assentors this important option.

Sir, to conclude, as Minister Wong Kan Seng said previously in this House and I quote, "It is not the duty of the Government to grow the Opposition," I would like to take this opportunity to

reiterate and remind the Government that it is also not the duty of the Government nor in its interest to wipe out the non-governing parties too. For Singapore to come out stronger in the next lap of our journey, the governing and non-governing parties must all work together for the interest of Singapore in a fair and democratic manner. Go beyond party politics and focus on the concerns of a fair and democratic society.

Sir, overall, the proposed amendments in all the other sections are good, and I support them. But I have to reject the amendments to this Bill because of the proposed clause 7 affecting section 29(2). It is my and every Singaporean's hope that every Minister and MP will not just walk into Parliament without a political contest and retire from political service as a virgin Minister too, without any experience of a political contest.

Sir, generally speaking, I am of the view that the amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act are positive. I think they are an improvement to the Act and also to the election system. However, I do share some concerns and one of which was mentioned by Mr Chiam and Mr Steve Chia on clause 7 of the Bill. But I am not as pessimistic as what Mr Steve Chia thinks. There are enough courageous Singaporean voters who will be prepared to go to the nomination centre with the Opposition candidates, though I understand there might be some hesitation, which is a fact. If the voters in a particular constituency are so fearful of going to the nomination centre with the Opposition candidates, then forget about it. We do not contest. They cannot vote. They cannot exercise their rights of voting. Because in a parliamentary democracy system of voting, exercising your right is not the sole business of the

Opposition party. The voters also play a part. So I would expect them to do their part. If they are not even prepared to go with us to the nomination centre, then they do not get to vote. I am sorry.

Sir, my concern is why do you need to inconvenience the people of going to the nomination centre. Why is there such a need? As others have mentioned, nomination day is not a holiday. So people may have to specially take leave. Why is there a need for you to inconvenience people? Is there any other way in which you could verify the identity of the proposer, seconder and assentors, without having them present themselves at the nomination centre? For instance, you may request for their identity cards to be presented to the Returning Officer by the candidate.

Sir, the next comment I have is on clause 8 on the new section 29A. What is good is that it gives the opportunity for any error on the nomination paper to be corrected before the 12.00 noon deadline as long as you do not change the candidate, the proposer, seconder or assentors. But the section is worded to give discretion to the Returning Officer to decide whether to give the candidate a chance to correct any error. Sir, in the interest of political participation, I would like to suggest that it should be worded in such a way that the Returning Officer must allow the candidate a chance to correct any error so long as it is done by the 12.00 noon deadline. This will clarify the situation for all concerned and take away any pressure on the Returning Officer having to decide and exercise the discretion.

Lastly, Sir, I have a clarification on clause 10 of the Bill, that is, the re-enactment of section 31, in which it says that, "any other person with the written permission of the Returning Officer to be present at those proceedings" at the

nomination centre. I would like to know what does it mean by "any other person with the written permission". This person, I presume, is not there to assist because new section 31(d) says that the Returning Officer and such other persons authorised by the Returning Officer assist him in such proceedings. So if this other person is not going to assist him, why is he there for? Who are these people likely to be allowed in the nomination centre?

Sir, I just want to have a point of clarification in my speech. I mentioned wrongly that the election deposit is $12,000. I just want to correct it as $13,000.

I thank the Members for their comments and their questions on the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill. I note in particular that there is this question which requires the appearance of the proposer, seconder and assentors at the nomination centre. I am also very cheered that Mr Low has taken such a sensible and mature approach with regard to the voters having to play a part and not afraid to turn up at the nomination centre and that he does not see that requiring the proposer, seconder and assentors to be present is an obstacle. He is quite optimistic that there will be enough Singaporeans who feel that they want to participate in this process and support the Opposition, and they will turn up together with the candidate.

There are reasons why this particular amendment is put in. Of course, the current law does not require the proposer, seconder and assentors to turn up. The present law allows the proposer and seconder to be present at the nomination centre. In practice, the PAP candidates always brought along their proposers and seconders. There is no secret about this. They would then know what the nomination process was about. I did not

know that some Opposition did not bring along their proposers and seconders, and they would have difficulty bringing along assentors if it is required by the law. But the reason why this was put in is that we want to ensure that there is no fraud in that the candidate will just put somebody's name by copying the name of an elector, his serial no. and forging his signature on the form. It is just a hypothetical situation. I do not have evidence of this. But I am told of a story by a colleague that in one of the elections, and I would not name which particular constituency, when one of the PAP's supporters turned up together with the candidate at the nomination centre, he saw his name on the Opposition candidate's list as an assentor. He was surprised because he did not sign it. So there could be instances where the candidate could not find enough people within the constituency he was contesting to support him because he did not know the ground. He just filled up the form, looked up the register, filled up the names and forged the signatures. So, in order to ensure that there are indeed electors within the constituency that will support the candidate, this requirement is put in to make sure that the candidate comes with the proposer, seconder and assentors.

Right now, the forms only have space for up to six assentors, although the law requires a minimum of four. The forms would be revised to allow spaces for eight assentors and it should not be difficult to find six persons - the proposer, seconder and four assentors - to turn up. After all, at every election, during nomination at the nomination centre, we will see hordes of supporters of candidates, both the PAP and the Opposition, turning up at the nomination centre. Indeed, the people who want an Opposition would turn up and support him. There is no reason why these supporters would be made a target practice, as Mr Steve Chia said.

I think Mr Steve Chia has a wild sense of imagination to dream of this. Let me

assure him that that is not the case. But if there are indeed difficulties in finding assentors to support him, Mr Chia could let me know. I will try to persuade my colleague in the PAP in that constituency where Mr Chia will be contesting to find supporters for him so that they will be present. So, I do not see an obstacle in this here.

Regarding the other comment that supposing a mistake is made and something needs to be corrected and there is no Commissioner for Oaths to help the candidate to affirm the declaration and the whole process would be made difficult and, as a result, the candidate cannot contest, let me assure the Member that, this time round, the Elections Department would be very approachable and helpful. They would make available enough forms so that, if indeed a candidate needs to fill up a fresh set of forms with names from among his supporters who are present and who could be their proposer and seconder, the forms and a Commissioner for Oaths would be made available. So, in the case of Aljunied where the Workers' Party had candidates wanting to contest in the 2001 elections and, unfortunately, the forms were filled without the name of the constituency, the forms were rejected. This time round, I think it would be possible to correct an error like that, if it is done before 12 noon.

So, the Opposition can see that the Government is not making it difficult for them in the election process. It is indeed trying to make it as simple as possible, eg, simplifying forms and making available forms as well as the Commissioner for Oaths and computers with registers of electors, so that the candidates can access and check whether indeed the person who is an assentor, proposer or seconder, or even a candidate of the Opposition is indeed a registered voter.

Mr Chiam asked about the "one other person". What is this "one other person"? Actually, the "one other person" is the one other person who can help the candidate. We have a "one other person" who came along with us - I am telling Mr Chiam a bit of our election preparedness secrets - and that "one other person" is a lawyer. So, in the event we have difficulty understanding some rules, then that "one other person", who is legally-qualified, can browse through the Parliamentary Elections Act and the regulations and help explain to us what they mean. So, there are no difficult criteria to satisfy. So long as that person can understand the Parliamentary Elections Act, that person can be the "one other person".

Can he be a foreigner? I think he needs to fill in the name of the "one other person", and I believe he ought to be a Singaporean because we want Singaporeans to be involved in our political process and not foreigners.

Mr Chia raised other questions too, eg, election deposit. Is the $13,000 too much? Indeed, there were people who turned up and some lost their deposits. But that is not because the election deposit is too much. It is because they just could not get the support of the voters. Election is a serious business. It should not just be one where one can go and tikam-tikam and put $2 and hopefully win. No such thing. Election is serious business and, therefore, the election deposit, being one-eighth of the total parliamentary allowance paid in the year before the election, is not a big sum of money, whether it is to the PAP candidates or to the others. And I am sure that they can find enough people who will support them and loan them the money because, if they get one-eighth of the votes, they will get their money back. So, it should not be difficult in raising that sum of money.

On why does the Government not fix the date of the elections, or at least provide the period for an election to be held and give enough notice, I have explained this before, most recently during the Committee of Supply in March, where I said that this is something we have had for so long, that it works well, and that it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to decide on when to have an election. That is no reason why four months' notice should be given.

For the Presidental election, that was a practice we put in, and it is in the law that an election should be held within three months before the end of the President's term. Our President's term ends on 1st September. That was when Mr Nathan assumed his presidency. So an election will be held three months before that date.

Next, the size of a GRC is another perennial complaint of Mr Chia. I think that again should not be a difficult issue because, so long as he can find enough people to contest, he should be able to get the voters to support him, if he has worked the ground hard enough.

On setting up an independent Elections Commission, again, I have dealt with this in March, so I will not belabour the point.

Mr Chia made one interesting point, ie, it is not in Singapore's interest to wipe out the Opposition parties. We never said we will wipe out the Opposition parties. In fact, we encourage more people to come forward, whether to join the PAP or the Opposition, but, eventually, it is the people who will decide who they want. For so many years now, the people have confidence in the PAP and, therefore, they re-elected the PAP to Government term after term. If the Opposition has difficulty attracting people to stand for election, I

think they should do some soul-searching and see how they can reach out further.

Mr Low raised one other point, ie, regarding the correction of errors, in clause 8 to amend section 29. As I have said, the Returning Officer will give as much time as possible, up to 12 noon, to the candidate to correct the errors. And if there is indeed error spotted and the form cannot be accepted, I think it will be pointed out to him so that he can then make the necessary correction. But it is not the job of the Returning Officer or his election officials to correct errors for the candidate. The filling up of the form and filling it correctly are the responsibility of the candidates concerned.

On clause 10 regarding the "one other person", I have explained that already.

Sir, I refer to the new section 29(a) which says that the Returning Officer "may"; it is not "must". So the Returning Officer will decide whether or not he will allow you to correct a mistake. Is that what it means? My question is why "may"? Why not "must"?

Sir, that is a drafting language. If he looks at our other laws, I think that is the language being used, that "may" means we let the person do so. It is not just at the discretion of the Returning Officer.

Sir, a further clarification with regard to "one other person". If I am not mistaken, the Minister just now mentioned that the "one other person" should not be a foreigner, and that the Returning Officer would not allow it. But under the new amendment to the Act, it says here that the "one other person" is appointed not by the Returning Officer, but by the candidate.

Yes.

So, appointed by the candidate, approved by the Returning Officer. Is that the situation?

Sir, I said the "one other person", as we practise it, is normally the person who goes into the nomination centre and who will be able to give advice to the candidate. In all the past instances, we have got a legally-qualified person, because that person will then explain to the PAP candidate what was the issue, if the Returning Officer or his official says, "The following things have not been complied with", and then there will be some discussions, and that is the job of our "one other person". As I have said, election is for Singaporeans and, therefore, we would have Singaporeans rather than foreigners.

Sir, the issue is not whether the "one other person" be a qualified lawyer or not. I know that is the PAP's practice, ie, get a lawyer there, and normally a well-known lawyer at that.

How can you say that?

But what I am concerned is, under the principal Act and under the amendment, there is nothing to say that the "one other person" cannot be a foreigner. Can the Minister please point out where does it say that the "one other person" shall not be a foreigner?

Sir, as I said, while it may not be in the Bill - subject to verification - we would rather not have the foreigner in the nomination centre.

Sir, I am not referring to the same "one other person" that Mr Chiam was referring to. I am referring to clause 10, section 31(e), on page 6. Because under the new section 31, it says these are the people who will be allowed into the nomination centre.

That already included "one other person" appointed by the candidate. But besides that, paragraph (e) says "any other person with the written permission of the Returning Officer to be present at those proceedings".

Sir, I think we have to look at the title and read new section 31 of clause 10. It is talking about the people who are entitled to be present, and these include election officials as well who are entitled to be present, and it is up to the Returning Officer to decide who are these persons. As far as the candidates are concerned, they should only concern themselves with the candidates, their proposers, seconders and assentors and one other person. The rest of the people are not the business of the candidate.

Sir, I understand that. But what I am interested to know is who else will be allowed to be present at the nomination centre, since these any other persons are not persons, looking at it, to assist the Returning Officer in the proceedings. So, who are these people that are intended to be appointed?

Sir, that "one other person", as I said, is the one that the Returning Officer will allow, and it is up to the Returning Officer to decide who will be this "any other person".

It can be anyone?

It can be anyone.

Sir, a point of clarification concerning clause 7. If the only concern of the Government is fraud, then I believe we have sufficient checks in our laws to deal with cases of fraud and for that particular candidate to be dealt with according to the law. Why does the Government need to make it so difficult or

troublesome for the candidates to get the proposer, seconder and assentors to be physically present, that they have to take leave and waste earning their income for that whole process? Could we not have other checks in place to deal with it, if the only concern is fraud, which I do not think it is?

Sir, I think there is no other more straightforward way than requiring these people to be present on nomination day at the nomination centre itself. Anything else done is done after the fact, after the nomination paper is accepted. And, as I said, if a candidate is serious, he should not find difficulty in getting people to support him, if he is indeed a serious candidate.

Sir, if the concern of the Government in enacting clause 7 is because there is a possibility of forging signatures, what about, as I have suggested, producing the identity card of the persons for verification?

Sir, it is the same. Identity cards can be given for a myriad of other purposes.

Forging identity cards!

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

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

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Introduction

Sir, as our presidential elections are run on similar lines as that for parliamentary elections, this Bill proposes amendments to the Presidential Elections Act similar to that in the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill 2005, which we have just passed. In summary, the amendments in this Bill are as follows:

To simplify nomination procedures by reducing the number of papers filed and the amount of particulars to be filled up in nomination papers;

To reduce the risk of aspiring individuals failing to be nominated due to formal errors or non-compliance with procedures by allowing nominees and candidates to amend nomination papers to rectify non-fatal errors before the close of nominations, and by including blanks and errors in number in nomination papers as non-fatal errors;

To require the nomination papers to be delivered by the nominee accompanied by his proposer, seconder and at least four assentors;

To streamline certain processes in the interests of efficiency and certainty of operations, such as allowing withdrawal of candidature only by giving notice in person, and to allow early declaration of results;

To simplify the process of filing returns respecting election expenses, thereby the filing requirement under the Act and the Political Donations Act (Chapter 236) can be streamlined; and

To allow for the composition of offences under the Act.

Amendments to the Presidential Elections Act

As I explained when moving the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill for Second Reading earlier, the changes in this Bill seek to improve accessibility to standing for election to the Office of the President by reducing or mitigating the existing risk of aspiring candidates failing to be nominated on account of technicalities and errors. Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill set out the changes to the presidential election nomination proceedings. However, we make no corresponding amendments on multiple candidature since that is purely hypothetical in a presidential election.

Finally, clause 8 makes corresponding amendments to the post-election reporting of election expenditure in section 56 of the Presidential Elections Act while clause 10 introduces similar powers to the Returning Officer and authorised officers in the Elections Department to offer composition of compoundable offences under the Presidential Elections Act or its regulations.

Sir, I beg to move.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair]

5.33 pm

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

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

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Introduction

Sir, in summing up the debate on the President's Address in January this year, PM spoke about Singapore being a land of opportunity, as a nation where everyone belongs, where each person has a role to play, and where all can live with dignity. In particular, he noted that, as a land of opportunity, we should provide, for those who have committed mistakes, a second chance to make good.

Sir, this Bill is a step in that direction: to provide a second chance for ex-offenders who have paid their dues to society and have shown the resolve and ability to stay away from crime. We are amending the Registration of Criminals Act or "RCA" to allow the record of a conviction kept in the Register of Criminals for a less serious crime to be considered as spent if the person stays clean for a specified period. The purpose is to help such deserving ex-offenders put their past behind them. Indeed, together with the Home Detention scheme which MHA introduced five years ago and which we recently enhanced, these are two key platforms to help offenders and ex-offenders reintegrate into society.

Under the RCA, Police keeps records in the Register of Criminals of persons convicted of any crime specified in the First and Second Schedules of the Act. Particulars such as the photograph, finger impressions, and conviction records are recorded. It is a record for life. The Register of Criminals is very useful in Police investigations, especially in the identification of suspects. The courts also

make use of these criminal records when sentencing repeat offenders.

Giving ex-offenders a second chance

While society must be protected from recalcitrant offenders who persist in committing crimes, there are ex-offenders who have genuinely turned over a new leaf. Many of these people were convicted of minor crimes many years ago and have since demonstrated that they can stay away from trouble. They therefore deserve to be given a second chance.

One such ex-offender that we know of is a university graduate in her late twenties who was convicted in court and fined $1,000 for theft several years ago. Since then, this lady has turned over a new leaf and stayed away from crime. However, many employers were reluctant to employ her. There were a few occasions when she managed to get a job but each time, the constant fear and sense of insecurity caused her to resign after a few weeks.

With the assistance of the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises or "SCORE", this lady graduate managed to find an employer willing to give her a second chance. This has greatly improved her morale and self-worth. There are many other similar examples of ex-offenders who have turned over a new leaf, but continue to encounter difficulties in their search for gainful employment.

MHA recognises that there is a need to facilitate the reintegration of ex-offenders into our society. To this end, SCORE already plays a key role in providing inmates with opportunities to pick up useful skills, to enhance their chances of landing a job when released from prison. The "Yellow Ribbon" project, jointly organised by member agencies of the Community Action for the Rehabilitation of Ex-offenders or "CARE" Network, aims to remove the social

stigma faced by those who have been convicted of crimes. We are gratified by the strong support from the public for this project. While these initiatives have greatly benefited ex-offenders, more can be done to help those who have since stayed on the right side of the law. There are also other initiatives like the Community Tele Movies, Toilet-Kitchen, Coming Home and other projects mounted by CARE Network.

In reviewing the RCA, MHA studied the two options of either expunging the record or rendering it spent. Expunging a record means erasing the record completely, to the extent that the ex-offender is deemed to have never been convicted of that offence. In contrast, when a person's record becomes spent, he is deemed to have no record of that conviction, but it does not remove the fact of conviction.

Sir, as we are making a start in this area, we have decided to do so on a more cautious note, by providing for criminal records to become spent. In the light of experience gained, we can consider expunging criminal records in the future.

Rendering criminal records as spent

Sir, let me now highlight the main features of the Bill. First of all, the new section 7B provides that a record in the Register of Criminals of a person convicted of a minor crime will automatically be marked as spent, if he satisfies a five year crime-free period. For offenders who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the crime-free period would be determined from the date of the person's release from custody.

Once a person's record of a conviction is marked as spent, the new section 7E deems him to have no record of that conviction in the Register of Criminals. If asked whether he has a "criminal record", the person can lawfully answer "no". He does not have to disclose its existence in

most circumstances, especially when applying for a job. The ex-offender can treat such questions as not relating to his spent criminal record. Therefore, if he decides not to disclose a spent criminal record, he cannot be denied employment or subsequently dismissed on the grounds that he failed to disclose it.

However, as I have said earlier, these amendments do not completely delete a person's criminal record. Hence, a record that becomes spent does not remove the fact of the conviction. So, an ex-offender whose record is marked as spent must still disclose his conviction if specifically asked about a "previous conviction", for example, if the question asked is if he has ever been convicted by a court of law. The record will also be surfaced in investigations authorised by law and in connection with court proceedings.

Disqualified ex-offenders

All this, of course, cannot be at the expense of public safety and security. My Ministry has given much thought to the profile of persons who pose the lowest risk to society and should therefore be allowed to have their criminal records rendered spent. Trying to define a minor crime by the maximum sentence allowable could result in anomalies. So, we decided that the actual sentence meted out would be a more realistic criterion. Hence, the new section 7C provides that to qualify for a record to be spent, the ex-offender must not have been sentenced to an imprisonment term exceeding three months or to a fine exceeding $2,000. The majority of those eligible to have their records spent will be those who have committed minor offences, such as shop theft and gaming in a common gaming house. Persons convicted of serious offences listed in the new Third Schedule,

such as culpable homicide, sexual offences and drug trafficking, are disqualified from having their records spent under the Bill.

Sir, the Bill also disqualifies an ex-offender who has more than one record in the Register of Criminals from having his criminal record marked as spent. In addition, an ex-offender is allowed to have only one of his criminal records in the Register of Criminals marked as spent in his lifetime. Thus, an ex-offender is given only one second chance.