Hansard, 2005-10-18

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) Mr Davinder Singh 18 Oct 18 Oct Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 18 Oct 18 Oct Mr Tan Soo Khoon 18 Oct 18 Oct Mr Ang Mong Seng 27 Nov 01 Dec

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Manpower to provide an update on the various programmes that have been launched or are being planned to better secure the employability of older employees.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has introduced a number of programmes to help improve the employability of older workers. WDA currently provides job placement services, such as job preparation briefings and training, to job seekers through its Distributed CareerLink Centres. From January to August this year, the job centres have helped place more than 16,000 job seekers, of which more than half or around 54% are aged 40 and above.

In addition, WDA offers preferential training subsidies to encourage employers to send their older and less-skilled workers for training. It also provides various Place and Train programmes to help train the unemployed for the available jobs. From January to September this year, around 38% or 113,000 of the training places supported by the Skills Development Fund were taken up by workers aged 40 and above.

To improve the cost competitiveness of older workers, CPF contribution rates for workers aged above 50 are currently lower than that for workers aged 50 and below. From 1st January 2006, the CPF contribution rate for older workers aged 50 to 55 will be further reduced from 30% to 27%.

While we have made some progress in helping our older workers stay employed, the challenge of an ageing workforce will remain with us for some time. This is why the Government has set up a Tripartite Committee on Employability of Older Workers to examine the issue holistically and forge a tripartite consensus on how the employability and cost competitiveness of older workers can be enhanced. The Committee has identified five key thrusts.

First, to enhance the cost competitiveness of older workers, the Committee is studying employment practices and the wage and benefits structures. Together with our tripartite partners, we are pressing on with wage restructuring efforts to promote flexible and performance-based wage systems, and to move away from seniority-based wage structure which works against older workers.

Second, to expand job opportunities for older workers, the Committee, together with the Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WDA) and NTUC, will continue to expand the Job Re-Creation Programme (JRP) to identify jobs which can be re-designed to suit older workers. The Committee is also exploring providing assistance to encourage companies to hire older workers, such as financial assistance to help companies adapt their workplace and work processes to better cater to the needs of older workers. Examples of this effort include efforts by SBS Transit and SMRT to recruit older workers as bus drivers as well as initiatives to redesign and avail jobs such as customer service officers and taxi hirers to those aged 40 and above.

Third, to positively shape public perceptions about older workers, the Committee is actively working on outreach programmes to employers, workers and the general public to address misperceptions, encourage older workers to stay employed longer and promote enlightened HR practices amongst employers. For a start, in August this year, the Committee profiled best practices with regard to the employment of older workers in a ChannelNewsAsia programme called the "Winning Edge".

Fourth, to enhance the skills of older workers, WDA will continue to work with employers and unions to upgrade the skills of older workers and keep their skills relevant to industries' needs.

Finally, to effect and showcase concrete changes at the sectoral level, the Committee has set up eight sectoral workgroups to engage the industry on the older workers' employability. The workgroups have been tasked to identify best employment practices, expand job opportunities for older workers and pilot sector specific changes. The eight workgroups come from the public sector, banking, insurance, healthcare, hotels, transport and logistics, food industry and manufacturing sectors.

The Committee is expected to wrap up its work by the end of the year and more details will be announced then.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State three sets of supplementary questions. The first set actually pertains to the training invested on older employees. I would like to know, to date, what is the dollar spent per older employee and what is the drop-out rate amongst these older employees who were sent for training. What is the number of so-called untrainable older employees and what assistance programmes are there to help these untrainable older employees? How many older employees have actually shifted from the manufacturing sector to the service sector and how does the Ministry rate the effectiveness of training for these older employees to date?

The second set of questions pertains to the jobs for older employees. Of the newly created jobs, how many of such jobs have gone to these older employees? We know that the unemployment rate for the older employees has actually gone down from 5.4% in 2003 to 3.3% in 2004. What are these types of jobs that these older employees are engaged in?

The third set of questions pertains to the multi-generation workforce that will come about as a result of our promoting the employment of these older employees.

In what ways can the Ministry help to expedite and facilitate such co-existence in the workforce granted the fact that much has already been done by way of trying to promote the employment of the elderly employees?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for raising these questions. Firstly, I do not have the specific dollars spent on the older workers but I would like to share with Members some of the indicators of our effort in the training of older workers.

As part of our ongoing effort to help them secure new employment we have identified several new opportunities in very specific sectors. These include the child-care, transport, financial, retail, food and beverage and healthcare sectors. These are, as Members can see, not specifically the manufacturing sector. This also answers the Member's second question whether they have moved from the manufacturing sector.

With regard to the Member's last question on what we can do to help forge co-existence between the older and younger workers, I think this is a mindset change that will take some time to happen and this is one of the areas that the Tripartite Committee will be focusing on how to encourage the employers to reach out to older workers and to give opportunities for older workers to be employed. At the same time, we also want to encourage a mindset change among the older employees to be more adaptable and flexible. We also look at the work processes within the company and to make sure that these work processes are suitable and adaptable to the older workers. At times, we might have to make some changes to the work processes and we may even need to install equipment to allow the older workers to work in these companies. All these are the areas where the Tripartite

Committee will be looking at and they will make an announcement on the recommendations in time to come.

Can I remind Members that we have a lot of Questions to go through today. So, please be more parsimonious with your supplementary questions.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Sin Boon Ann -

2. To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law whether the Government will consider reviewing its criminal laws with a view towards differentiating between people of normal intelligence and people of low intelligence for the purposes of sentencing after a criminal conviction.

Question No. 2, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first reiterate that under our laws no one will be criminally culpable for his actions if his mental capacity is so limited that he did not understand the nature of the act, or what he was doing was wrong. This is an important principle under our legal system. Therefore, those who are charged for an offence are those who knew the nature of their actions and who could appreciate that it was wrong to do what they did.

Where appropriate, accused persons with low intelligence, before being charged and before trial, go through a psychological assessment during the investigation stage. Investigating officers

are mindful of their special needs, for example, in interviewing them. When investigations are completed, the Public Prosecutor will carefully consider the relevant facts before proceeding. The mental capacities of those with low intelligence are therefore considered well before the trial.

After the trial has ended and if there is a conviction, when it comes to sentencing, the Judge will consider all relevant factors in deciding on the appropriate sentence. The extent to which the factor of low intelligence will be taken into account will vary according to the circumstances of the individual case. As the Member knows, there are many relevant considerations which the Court will have to consider to be relevant in deciding the appropriate sentence in each case. For example, if an offender repeatedly commits an offence knowing full well that what he did is wrong and knowing the gravity of his conduct, the Judge may well decide that it is appropriate to give a deterrent sentence and may not give great weight to the mitigation argument based on the factor of low intelligence.

It is neither desirable nor practical to amend our laws to provide, for example, different scales of punishments for different levels of IQ scores, with low sentences for offenders with low intelligence and severe sentences for brilliant or smart offenders.

Ultimately, what constitutes the most appropriate sentence must depend on the facts of each case. In my view, Sir, it is best to leave that decision to the Judge instead of trying to legislate for the various combination of extenuating circumstances which may be applicable in different cases.

Sir, would it be possible, even before the person who is charged goes to court, for consideration

to be made at the pre-prosecution stage? The Minister mentioned that this happens during investigations. But is there any sort of guideline or reassurance, for example, that a person who is acknowledged by the community to be of low intelligence and who has gone to a special school all his life may not be charged or have the defence of diminished responsibility without having to go through the court process?

I think if the Member had listened to my answer, I did say that during the investigation stage and during the stage when the prosecutorial decision is made whether to charge or not to charge and, if to charge, what kind of offence to charge, these factors are taken into account. But I would not go so far to say that there is a blanket rule that in X situation, a person can expect, as a right or as an entitlement, that he will not be charged. I think all this must depend on a careful consideration of the facts of the case, the facts pertaining to that particular individual and probably taking into account the views of doctors or people trained in a particular area.

Sir, I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister can tell us whether or not there is at present a code or protocol which investigation officers can follow at investigation stage so as to enable them to be alert of the presence of low intelligence persons who are being suspected of criminal offences and how to deal with them and, if there is no such code or protocol, whether the Ministry is thinking of formulating such a code.

There is no code as such because when an offence is reported and has to be investigated and the authorities have identified the accused as the offender, then, as the Member knows, a set of procedures comes into play which involves the Police. The Police would have to investigate the facts of the case and

also the facts pertaining to the individual will have to be taken into account. If it appears from the investigation that there are certain factors which are relevant, including the person's state of mind, these will be brought to the attention of the Public Prosecutor when the investigation papers go out. I would say that a whole myriad of factors come into play concerning the individual. If the issue of mental disability comes into play, then we must realise that mental disability has a wide range from mild to severe. And what the investigation officers and the prosecutors would have to bear in mind is whether the person knew what he was doing was wrong. That is the established principle in our jurisprudence. If the person did not know the nature of the act and what he was doing was wrong, then, of course, that would be a defence for the action.

As to whether there is a fixed code, I do not think there is a rigid fixed code. Let me say that I know that the Attorney General is constantly reviewing the procedures and, in this particular kind of situation, I know that the Attorney General, as part of his normal review of investigative procedures, in consultation with the Police, will be reviewing to see whether there is any room for improvement.

Prof. Chin, a short one, please.

Sir, I believe that the question is relating to sentencing, not investigation. And the question is whether our principle of punishment would sanction the prospect of punishing people with lower intelligence and lower sentence because, presumably, lower culpability. So it assumes that the liability is established, meaning the person is guilty, would our legal system have a sentencing practice at this time that would acknowledge lesser or lower

sentences for those with lower intelligence? I think that is the point that was raised.

No, Sir. The question, if you read it carefully, was whether we will amend our laws to specifically provide for sentencing to take into account low intelligence, and my answer was that rather than legislating for the myriad of factors that come into play, this is best left to the courts.

3. Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law (a) how access to legal aid is determined; (b) what is being done to ensure that those who are in need of legal aid are able to receive it; and (c) whether more can be done so that the net of legal aid can be cast wider.

Mr Speaker, Sir, legal aid is available to Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents who satisfy the "means test" in our legislation based on the applicant's financial circumstances and whose civil case satisfies an independent panel of solicitors on the "merits test", that is, the applicant has a reasonable legal case in his favour.

The means test and merits test ensure that public funds are properly used to help the needy on their legal claims. Over the years, we have expanded the "means test" to take into account the cost of living and other factors. It was last revised in April 2001, where the disposable income limit was increased from $7,000 to $10,000 per annum and the allowable deductions for calculating the disposable income was increased to $3,000 for the applicant and $2,000 for each dependant.

Let me assure the Member that, with this more generous means test, a family

of, say, four, comprising two parents and two dependent children where only the husband is working, will satisfy the means test for legal aid if the father's gross monthly income is about $1,900 (after making deductions for himself, CPF and his dependants).

I also want to assure the Member that more applicants now satisfy the means test. In FY2004, 92% of the applicants satisfied the means test, up from 90% the previous financial year and 81% in FY 2001. In the first three months of FY2005, 93% of applicants satisfied it, in other words, fewer applicants are now being turned away.

With this improved situation, and the last revision being just four years ago, I do not see an urgent need to expand the scope of legal aid. But let me, however, assure the Member and the House that we continually review the means test and will be prepared to adjust it whenever necessary. For example, since 2002, we have made it even more convenient for Singaporeans to assess if they are eligible for legal aid by getting staff at the Marine Parade and Woodlands Community Mediation Centres to help applicants apply the means test to their individual circumstances.

Those who do not satisfy the means test are not without recourse. The Legal Aid Bureau furnishes them with a list of the many free legal aid clinics that are run by voluntary groups, such as the Singapore Association of Women's Lawyers. The Legal Aid Bureau duty officers will also advise unsuccessful applicants on how to tap these community services.

4. Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for

Home Affairs (a) what rights does an accused person have to legal counsel and to be informed of the grounds of his arrest; (b) what are the built-in safeguards in police procedures and investigations to protect an accused person's constitutional rights; and (c) how legal consultation can impede police investigations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the rights of an accused person to legal counsel is set out in Article 9(3) of our Constitution, which states: "Where a person is arrested, he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice."

Our courts, in interpreting the Constitution, have determined that this right to legal counsel is to be exercised within a reasonable time after arrest, and not immediately upon arrest. What amounts to a reasonable time would, of course, depend on the circumstances of the case. We need to strike a balance between the rights of the accused person to consult his legal counsel and the public interest in ensuring that the Police is able to effectively investigate each case.

Sir, the rights of an accused person to be informed of the grounds of his arrest are also provided for in the provision of the Constitution which I had referred to earlier. Typically, an accused person is informed of the grounds of his arrest at the scene of the arrest, unless it is not appropriate to do so, such as when the person is violent or drunk. In addition, after the person is brought back to the Police station, an officer will record his particulars and the offence that he has been arrested for in a charge book which is maintained for the purpose of keeping track of accused persons. The accused person will also be asked to sign against

these records as a form of acknowledgement. This procedure ensures that an accused person knows why he has been arrested.

In addition, our Criminal Procedure Code provides for every accused person to be produced before a Magistrate without unreasonable delay and, in any event, within 48 hours of his arrest. As such, an accused person must either be charged in court within 48 hours from the time of his arrest, released on bail or released unconditionally. No accused person can be detained in Police custody longer than 48 hours without being charged, regardless of the number of reports or charges pending against him. If the Police wishes to keep an accused person in remand for more than 48 hours after arrest, it has to make out a case to the court which will then make a ruling based on the information and facts before it.

Giving the accused person immediate access to legal counsel or family members could compromise Police investigations, especially in cases where the prosecution relies primarily on the testimony of witnesses and accused persons to lead them to crime scenes, accomplices and other corroborating evidence. Permitting an accused person to communicate with third parties before the Police can wrap up their investigation may result in evidence being destroyed or accomplices being alerted.

Sir, we will continue to carefully balance the needs of the accused person and the public interest which is to enable the Police to conduct complete and thorough investigations. Every country must find the right balance that suits its circumstances. Our system is well-established and has proven to be effective over the years in helping to keep Singapore safe and secure, and our crime rates low.

Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. Sir, can I just ask, how does the legal counsel impede or compromise the investigation process because, in fact, when the suspect is not cooperative with the Police during the court process, the judges draw up adverse inferences from uncooperative clients, and it works against them. Would the lawyer not make it more conducive for the suspect to be cooperative and that the lawyer can better advise the client to cooperate with the Police?

Let me reiterate the principle, Sir. The Police's job is to find the reasons and to establish the facts and to know why the accused person has committed a particular crime or is alleged to have committed a particular crime, and he would have access to legal counsel when the Police has wrapped up his case. Therefore, the access to legal counsel is not denied. What we do not want is to have the accused have his counsel present the moment the Police arrests him and have him interviewed in the same room with the legal counsel. Otherwise, the Police investigation would be compromised.

The Member asked why is it not appropriate for the lawyer to be present during the Police interviews. Let me just cite a few examples. During the interview, the accused could be questioned on highly confidential or sensitive matters surrounding the alleged crime. For example, the facts, the documentary evidence, physical evidence, the witness' testimony, the locations, existence and proceeds of crime, etc. There is a need to ensure that absolute confidentiality on these matters is preserved, especially while investigations are ongoing. Otherwise, there is a risk of critical evidence being destroyed or tampered with, witnesses being intimidated or suborned and proceeds of crime being removed or dissipated. The only way to

guarantee that confidential information discussed during interviews is not leaked, thus ensuring that investigations are compromised, is for the defence counsel not to be present during interviews. We also do not want interviews to be interrupted by defence counsel by unnecessary interjection and intervention. For example, the Member said that the counsel can advise in saying this or that. That is the kind of intervention or interjection that can impede an investigation. It would be very difficult for the Police to ensure that the accused persons are not coached by the defence counsel on how to answer interview questions through non-verbal forms of communication, such as hand signal, gesture, or body language, for example, frown, smile, nodding or shaking the head, wink, and so on.

Sir, defence counsel who wants to sit in during interviews must be willing to testify as a prosecution witness if the accused claims that he has been subject to promise, inducement or threat during the course of the interview.

This will place the defence counsel in a conflict of interests, and he may even have to discharge himself as defence counsel in such a situation.

Sir, many of the accused cannot speak English, let alone read it. When they sign any statement, they might not understand what they are signing and, perhaps in this case, it could also refer to people with a mental disability. In addition, any statement recorded and signed would be interpreted by a party affiliated to the prosecuting authority. So, I would just like to ask the Minister: does he not think that access to legal counsel will help to ameliorate this weakness?

Sir, legal counsel is not an interpreter and, therefore, cannot help to do the interpretation either. What is done during the interviews and at

the time when the accused person needs to sign any statement is that there will be interpretation given to him by those who are qualified to do so or those who are able to do the interpretation, and it will be clearly explained to him what the statement is all about.

5. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether his Ministry will allow popular foreign artistes and singers especially from Taiwan and China to perform in constituency social functions in support of a prospective election candidate and, if not, whether such artistes and singers will be blacklisted or debarred from performing in Singapore in the future if they do perform for such a purpose.

Mr Speaker, Sir, foreign artistes and singers are allowed to perform at constituency functions. There is nothing wrong for them, in the course of the function, to express appreciation to their host. Hence, the question of debarment or blacklisting does not arise.

Sir, will the Ministry give an assurance that if a foreign entertainer does take part in local politics when he attends a constituency function, will he be debarred from doing so again?

Sir, the question concerns a constituency function, not about participating in politics. Foreigners are not allowed to participate in local political activities. Under the law, foreigners, especially during elections, are strictly prohibited from taking part in any election political

activities. It is covered under our Parliamentary Elections Act as well as the Presidential Elections Act. So, if they do break the law, they will be dealt with.

Sir, I am speaking from experience. In my constituency, my rival invites Taiwanese singers or singers from China. When he comes up to sing - of course, he is a popular singer and he is very influential - and he says a lot of good things about my rival candidate and asks them even to vote for him, is this not taking part in local politics? And if they are found to be doing so, will they be warned and debarred from coming again to do the same thing?

Sir, actually, the context and, in this case, I think Mr Chiam is well aware, the timing must apply. If the artiste merely performs his regular hits and routine at the constituency function which happens to fall outside an election period, I think there is nothing wrong in that. An artiste giving praises to his host is a common thing happening all over Singapore, whether he is a prospective candidate or not. So, it is not an issue whether the artiste is performing for, in this case, your rival, and whether that election candidate or prospective candidate is an individual or is representing a political party.

The question of blacklisting and debarment is also quite serious. It will have to be considered carefully whether the actions done by the artiste really break the law.

Sir, I would like to clarify with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary: is it during the election period per se that foreigners are not allowed to talk about local politics?

Yes, no foreigners are to participate in our local politics during an election.

Yes? Is it only during an election period? Does that mean that during a non-election period, they can actually talk about Singapore politics? Is that what he means?

They have been talking about it all the time. Foreigners have been here and have spoken, given permit to speak in Singapore.

Sir, clarification. Is the SPS saying that there is nothing wrong for an artiste to urge an audience to vote for somebody on stage not during an election period? Is the SPS saying that?

Is this an actual case or is this a hypothetical case? Every case needs to be studied. In this case, if the comments or remarks were made during a performance outside an election, I do not think he has done anything wrong.

Sir, I think it is the duty of the Ministry of Home Affairs to do the investigation. It is up to the Ministry to go and find out, unless of course you want me to get ---

Mr Chiam, this is a question-and-answer session and not for you to make a speech.

Mr Speaker, Sir, maybe I will answer the question.

I do not know the circumstances of this case. I do not know whether Mr Chiam himself has made a police report about this performer. But the key point he was raising earlier on was whether a foreign artiste can come here and say something about his host. If he is there just to say something about his host, to say that he is a good host and he is doing a good job, it is the same thing that Mr

Chiam can also do, invite a performer and say, "This is a good host and please support him." I think let us not confuse ourselves because, in this instance, we do not know that a person is really the candidate for election. The words "prospective candidate" can refer to anyone in the street. So, let us not jump the gun a bit. If we confuse the two together, then we are going to have a lot of people being prospective candidates.

But as to foreigners' interference in local politics, the Government's stand is very clear. Foreigners have no business in Singapore politics. They cannot interfere in our domestic politics. That is clear, unless Singaporeans want others to come and tell them what to do and how to run the country.

Last question, Mr Chiam.

Sir, I am glad to hear categorically from the Minister that foreigners cannot take part in local politics. So, if there is a report, with evidence, tape-recorded, etc, will he debar that foreigner who is an entertainer from performing again in Singapore? That is the question.

I think we should not use a particular case and raise questions in Parliament and assume that this is the forum for investigation. [Mr Chiam See Tong rose.] Please sit down, Mr Chiam. I am answering your question.

The answer is either yes or no.

We should use this occasion here to elicit policies, and the policy is: no foreigner should take part in local politics. If Mr Chiam has a specific complaint, file a complaint, so that the proper authority could investigate it. Parliament is not the investigation agency, and neither am I the investigator.

6. Miss Penny Low asked the Minister for Transport in view of the number of growing towns in the north and northeast parts of Singapore and peak hour congestions at entry and exit points of expressways, (a) what measures are in place to ensure that the Tampines Expressway (TPE) remains an efficient expressway; and (b) are there plans to prevent it from becoming another Central Expressway (CTE) in due course.

Sir, the Tampines Expressway or TPE serves the towns of Sengkang, Punggol, Pasir Ris and Tampines in the North-East corridor, linking these towns to major expressways, such as the Central Expressway and the East Coast Parkway.

LTA recently conducted a site survey at the TPE during the morning peak hours and found the traffic along the TPE generally smooth flowing, with average speeds above 60 kph. However, there was localised heavy traffic at a particular stretch of the east-bound TPE between Punggol exit near the Punggol West Flyover and Pasir Ris Drive 12 exit near the Api Api Flyover. During the morning peak hours, there is a high volume of traffic heading towards the industrial area via Pasir Ris Drive 12. To improve the traffic situation at this location, the LTA will be extending the deceleration lane to facilitate smoother filter movement into Pasir Ris Drive 12, thereby allowing through traffic along the TPE to move more quickly.

To cater to the needs of the growing towns of Punggol and Sengkang and the industrial estate in Pasir Ris, I am pleased to inform Members that LTA plans to

widen the TPE between Punggol West Flyover and Pasir Ris Drive 12 over the next five years. The tender for this project is expected to be called by 2007.

Moreover, when the Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway or KPE is fully operational in early 2008, the additional capacity provided will help to re-distribute traffic better and relieve the load on the TPE. However, I would like to remind Members that while the LTA will continue to enhance and optimise our road capacity, ultimately, there is a limit to what we can do, in view of our limited land resources. Hence, as our vehicular population grows, it will be all the more important to complement our road-building programme with judicious demand management policies, including controlling vehicle population growth and usage charging and, most important, shifting more commuters from private vehicles to public transport.

Sir, the Minister said that that particular stretch of the TPE serves the Sengkang, Punggol and Pasir Ris residents. I think it actually serves more than just that, because it also serves the residents coming down from Yishun via the SLE, Sembawang and so on. All these are growing towns. My question is whether there are plans to cut additional exit points such that the flow would be a bit smoother from the towns into the expressway itself. In addition to that, why was also the current flyover at Jalan Kayu fully built when the population there is really a lot lower, compared with the eastern part of Punggol Road where the population build-up is?

Sir, additional exits will be provided as and when the need arises. In fact, additional entrances into the TPE will also end up introducing more traffic into the TPE.

As for the Jalan Kayu Flyover, I think that is all part of the expressway system that is being built and is meant to cater to current as well as future demands.

Sir, I would like to ask: in the design of the expressways in Singapore, are we having too many entry and exit points that we actually defeat the purpose of having these expressways? Are the entry and exit points too closely located, causing the frequent increasing and decreasing of speed, thus causing these localised jams at the entry and exit points?

Sir, that is why I said that new exits or entrances would only be added if the need arises and after careful consideration, precisely because we cannot afford to have too many exits and entrances; otherwise we will end up causing a lot of vehicular shifting from lane to lane, thereby resulting in the slow-down of traffic.

In terms of whether the current exits and entrances are too close to each other, that is a problem of Singapore. We are a small island and, therefore, to ensure that the highways are properly utilised, we need to have enough exits and entrances from the built-up areas, especially the new towns. And because of the small size of Singapore, unfortunately, there is a certain distance that has to be observed. Nonetheless, LTA does take that into consideration when planning all these exits and entrances, and we try to space them as far apart as possible.

Miss Low, last question, before we exit from this Question.

The Minister mentioned that there will be exits at strategic points. Would he consider

strategic exit as that nearer to the town where the population centre is, which is next to Punggol East Road?

Sir, I will ask LTA to take a look at it.

7. Mr Arthur Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of traffic incidents involving pickup trucks carrying passengers in the rear; (b) what is the policy on the number of passengers allowed in the rear of these trucks; and (c) what is the number of violations in the last two years.

Sir, LTA has put in place a set of rules under the Road Traffic Act to ensure that owners or drivers of goods vehicles who transport their workers in the rear of a vehicle do so safely. Drivers must display a label on their vehicle indicating the maximum number of workers that can be transported, based on the space requirement of 4 square feet or 0.372 sq metres per person. For example, a pick-up can carry a maximum of nine to 13 persons depending on its size. If goods are transported, the number of persons will have to be reduced accordingly. The workers must be safely seated at a height of not more than 3.2 metres above the ground and the vehicle must not travel faster than 60 km per hour.

Sir, LTA takes a serious view of violations. It conducts regular enforcement actions against vehicle owners or drivers who violate safety rules. Last year, LTA issued 218 summonses to owners or drivers of goods vehicles caught carrying workers in excess of the maximum capacity on the cargo deck. For the first eight months of this year, 112 summonses were issued for such

violations. This represents a drop of 22% compared to last year.

Accident statistics from the Traffic Police show that last year, there were 51 accidents involving lorries carrying workers on the cargo deck. For the first half of this year, there were 16 accidents - again, a drop compared to last year. The LTA will continue to monitor the situation closely and, if necessary, step up enforcement.

Clarification, Mr Speaker. Of the accidents that occurred, how many of them resulted in deaths?

Sir, of the accidents that occurred, none of them resulted in death.

8. Mr Leong Horn Kee asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring companies listed on the Singapore Exchange to do quarterly reporting as opposed to half-yearly reporting; (b) what is the estimated additional cost per year for the listed companies to comply with the current quarterly reporting requirement; and (c) whether his Ministry will consider allowing all companies listed on the Singapore Exchange to choose whether to do quarterly or half-yearly reporting of accounts.

Sir, before I ask the Question, let me declare that I am a director of some listed companies. I am asking this Question on behalf of the interests of all affected companies. Question No. 8, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the demand for more frequent disclosure is driven by many factors. Globalisation means that market cycles are shorter, with companies now having to respond to fast-changing business conditions. Investors, understandably, would like to be continually assured that their capital is not exposed to increased risk. This is usually satisfied by the timely and continuous disclosure of material information by companies. Various corporate scandals in recent years have reinforced demands for higher standards of corporate governance and disclosure.

Investors and stock analysts want adequate, accurate and timely information on the state of companies' finances and business. A balance has to be struck between this desire for updated information and the cost to the company of producing the information.

Quarterly reporting is currently required not only in the United States, but also in the countries in our region like China, India, Malaysia and Thailand. In Singapore, to ensure that smaller companies are not unduly burdened, quarterly reporting is required only for listed companies whose market capitalisation exceeds $75 million. This covers 35% or 235 of the companies listed on the Singapore Exchange.

Quarterly reporting need not be an excessive addition to what listed companies are already doing. First, quarterly financials, unlike annual reports, do not have to be audited. Second, quarterly reports can be produced using existing accounting and reporting systems that companies already have in place for half-yearly and annual reporting. And, third, most companies already do monthly management accounts for their internal reporting purposes.

The Government is mindful that the cost of quarterly reporting is relatively

higher for smaller companies than the larger one. This is the reason for the market capitalisation threshold of $75 million, instead of the $20 million threshold initially recommended by the Council on Corporate Disclosure and Governance.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that even though there is quarterly reporting in the US, it has not led to any better corporate governance or better reporting disclosures in the US. In fact, there are many scandals in the US. Is he also aware that recently, a senior banker in Singapore actually said openly that quarterly reporting is not useful for our Singapore companies? Would he like to respond whether there is a need to review this policy?

I think the Member has articulated basically the position of companies and, I think, the senior banker that he referred to was taking the company's point of view. As I said, in this particular matter, you need to balance off the cost to the company of doing this against the investors' interest in ensuring that they have timely disclosure, especially in a situation today where you have rapidly evolving markets and going for a disclosure-based regime where more information is needed.

But having said that, in response to his point of whether there will be a review, in 2003 the Minister for Finance said that there would be an assessment and review this year on whether we should extend quarterly reporting to the smaller listed companies. My Ministry has asked the Council of Corporate Disclosure and Governance (CCDG) to do so. Specifically, the CCDG has been asked to review the recent international trends and experiences on quarterly reporting, to assess the benefits and disbenefits to

date on quarterly reporting, as experienced by our listed companies, to recommend appropriate changes, if any, and to look at the desirability and feasibility of extending quarterly reporting to the smaller companies. I have asked them also to consult the public before they make the recommendations, and they will take into account inputs such as his.

9. Miss Penny Low asked the Senior Minister (a) whether there is any plan to grow the retirement wealth management market in Singapore; (b) if so, what specific instruments or policies will need to be changed or introduced; (c) whether his Ministry sees a need to improve the perception and returns on annuity plans for retirees, in view of the fact that annuity plans remain unpopular due to the poor understanding and returns of such plans.

10. Miss Penny Low asked the Senior Minister (a) if he will provide a status update on the MoneySENSE programme and how many people have benefited from general half-day seminars and in an indepth manner like courses; (b) how will his Ministry rate the success of the programme; and (c) how much funds will be allocated in the next phase and what will be the areas of focus.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, can I take both Miss Penny Low's questions together?

Yes.

Sir, in developing the wealth management industry in Singapore, MAS looks to grow the number of players in the industry, as

well as the range of products and services offered in the industry.

Wealth management and pension management services catering to the specific needs and demands of retirement will become increasingly important with the ageing population in Singapore as well as elsewhere in Asia. We are exploring how we can further develop the market for retirement products, including annuity products, which provide a regular income over an extended period of time. We will encourage asset managers and insurance companies to offer a range of retirement products and services, to complement the role of the CPF and meet different needs. We will also step up financial education concerning retirement needs and products, in particular.

The CPF Board is developing materials which will give CPF members more information on annuities. MoneySENSE is reaching out to the public by conducting ongoing talks and, through the media, to raise awareness on retirement planning. And the National Council of Social Services is working with community groups and non-governmental organisations to develop guidelines to help the elderly make informed financial decisions. This is one of the initiatives coordinated by the Committee on Ageing Issues (CAI).

This will be a continuing effort in financial education. And in that connection, Miss Penny Low has also asked for a status update on the MoneySENSE programme. Since its launch, almost exactly two years ago, MoneySENSE has organised over 100 talks, seminars, courses and workshops. These activities have attracted over 12,000 Singaporeans from all walks of life. The events are quite well attended in general. For example, the recent MoneySENSE talk on investment-linked insurance plans attracted more than 500 participants.

MoneySENSE has also published 16 consumer guides, which have been distributed very widely. Over one million copies were distributed. We have also been working with the media to disseminate financial education messages to a wider audience. Over the last two years, the local newspapers have published 85 MoneySENSE articles. MoneySENSE currently contributes fortnightly illustrations to the local newspapers to help consumers understand common financial documents, such as CPF statements and insurance policy benefit illustrations. And the broadcast media has also been very supportive of this effort.

Overall, based on the outreach statistics and feedback from participants, MoneySENSE is off to a good start. The coordination amongst Government agencies as well as the strong support and commitment we have received from the various industry associations, community groups, consumer bodies, grassroots organisations and media is enabling us to bring financial education to a wide group of Singaporeans. But there is much work ahead.

Earlier this year, we conducted a national financial literacy survey to benchmark Singaporeans' financial literacy. The survey identified gaps amongst Singaporeans in saving for emergencies, and planning for retirement. For example, only a quarter of adult Singaporeans had calculated the amount of money they need for retirement years. There was also inadequate understanding of common financial products such as life insurance and unit trusts, let alone things like structured deposits. The survey also revealed some wide variations in levels of financial literacy among different segments of the population.

So for the next phase of financial education, we will place special attention on those segments of the population that

have low levels of financial literacy and are in greatest need of it. We will implement customised financial education programmes targeted at these segments of the population. One such areas of focus is low-income families. MoneySENSE and the Community Development Councils (CDCs) have jointly organised a programme - it is called the "Talking Dollars and Sense" programme - to educate those families who are on financial assistance schemes on basic savings and budgeting skills. The programme comprises a workshop as well as practical follow-up sessions where a trainer meets each family, one on one, over two follow-up sessions, to review their progress in managing their budgets and to help them set new targets for their savings, so that we can achieve over time a degree of self-reliance.

Another ground level initiative is financial planning for families. MoneySENSE has also worked with the Securities Investors Association (Singapore) and the Singapore College of Insurance (SCI) to launch a series of "Financial Planning for Families" seminars at community clubs to teach families how to plan for retirement. This series of seminars will run for five years and will reach out to many families. We will also be launching a quarterly newsletter in each of the major local dailies and all four languages to bring useful information and tips on money matters to the general public.

As for funding, the Government has allocated $3 million from the Financial Sector Development Fund (FSDF) to fund MoneySENSE programmes from October 2003 when we first started to October next year. It is a three-year programme. We will review the funding arrangement for MoneySENSE by the middle of next year.

Sir, may I declare my interest here. I was indeed one of the people who kick-started the "Talking Dollars and Sense" programme, although I am no longer involved in it.

Would the Minister consider extending that scheme itself or similar schemes to NGOs, VWOs and especially family service centres where you could do capacity building within these centres that already have a clientele of low income or needy families, or even dysfunctional families? Because certainly if we can help them to get financial problems out of their way, they would be able to get their lives together better.

Sir, this is a very useful suggestion. We started off with the CDCs and I think they are learning from the experience. Both the CDCs, MoneySENSE as well as the private providers are learning from the experience. It will be a useful idea to broaden our viewership to family service centres and VWOs who have a clientele who are in need of basic advice on financial literacy.

I would like to ask the Minister, in preparing for a more ready population going forward, if he would consider incorporating maybe a modified version of the MoneySENSE programme into schools, as part of the moral education for students, knowing that children can actually be a very positive influence on their illiterate parents.

That is the approach we agree with. We are in fact infusing financial literacy concepts into our school curriculum, starting in a very simple way from upper primary levels but extending into secondary school's CME classes, as well as other subjects like Mathematics, Social Studies, and so on. I use the word "infuse" deliberately. We are not incorporating a new

component to the curriculum; we are not adding on to the curriculum. But it can be woven quite naturally into a Mathematics class; it can be woven quite naturally certainly into CME. It is really part of the life skills we want to inculcate in every young child when that person becomes a young adult, not just for the sake of them being able to pass on tips to their parents. But they would eventually be heads of households and we want them to have the basics in place. So, yes, we are working very closely - MoneySENSE, together with the Ministry of Education, and various other providers are working closely. We have been training our teachers. We have been providing them with guides and examples of lesson plans. And it is being rolled out fairly effectively.

11. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (a) how is Internet online gaming in LAN shops being monitored in Singapore; and (b) whether his Ministry has any statistics on (i) the profile and number of visitors to these LAN shops; (ii) the number of hours spent in these LAN shops by each visitor; and (iii) the revenue from such gaming activities; and (c) if so, if his Ministry will provide these statistics.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the interest and concern on youth engaged in Internet on-line gaming in the so-called LAN shops reflects the popularity of such games. Video gaming is not new, as game arcades have been in existence for many years. LAN shops are simply arcades offering access to on-line games. These shops are regulated by both the Police and the Media Development Authority (MDA). The Police Licensing Division

regulates LAN shops under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, which defines public entertainment to include "any computer games centre in any place to which the public or any class of the public has access". Therefore, a LAN shop, as a computer games centre, must have a public entertainment licence and comply with its conditions. Amongst these are strict conditions restricting admission of students and any persons below the age of 16 years during school-hours. Further, only computer games approved by MDA are allowed.

LAN shops are also licensed under MDA's Class Licence as an Internet service reseller for providing online gaming through Internet access. Besides gaming, customers could also engage in other activities, such as checking emails, surfing the worldwide web and conducting online transactions. Under the terms of the Class Licence, access to undesirable websites is also curtailed.

LAN shops are however not required under both regulatory frameworks to provide statistics on their revenue or the profile and usage patterns of their customers. Hence, the Police Licensing Division, IDA and MDA do not have the statistics requested by Mdm Ho. IDA's and MDA's efforts in promoting the online gaming industry are directed at the creation and deployment of content and, hence, jobs and value added for the economy, not promoting more gaming per se. IDA has always advocated moderation in online gaming in its promotion and public communication campaigns. MDA is also looking into the possibility of a classification system for computer games.

To complement regulatory safeguards, there are also various initiatives to provide advice and support to individual users in cultivating good Internet and on-line gaming habits. The Cyber Wellness Task Force (CWTF) of the National Internet Advisory Committee (NIAC) is promoting

a cyber wellness culture to encourage the adoption of sensible, proper and beneficial use of the Internet.

There are also efforts by the TOUCH Community Services that seeks to bring the message of cyber wellness to students in Singapore. Through their "Cyberspace Risks & where U Seek Help" (CRuSH) programmes, they have educated, trained and spread online messages to over 60,000 students in more than 60 schools.

The industry is also doing its part to tackle this issue. As early as 2003, the industry itself recognised the danger of online gaming addiction. Singapore's LAN gaming centre association, the Private Network Alliance (PNA), has made it their social responsibility to set up a monitoring system to track the usage of individual customers and have trained staff to identify and counsel customers who seem to spend too much time online.

Global trends indicate that Internet and online gaming are here to stay. We cannot prevent people from playing online games. The solution lies in inculcating in people the right values so that they can exercise discretion and good judgement while enjoying these games. In this respect, industry, schools, parents and the Government all have significant roles to play in order to allow the development of on-line gaming as a healthy pastime, especially for our youths.

Thank you, Minister, for the comprehensive response. Sir, it would appear that the initiative has actually so far to-date been taken by the industry players. With the possibility of the cyber wave industry growing, is it not time for MICA to actually coordinate these efforts with players like PNA and even the Parents Advisory Group for the Internet to publish data for the awareness of the

public so as to better monitor the developing trends and therefore enable us to better address any concerns before issues get blown up, especially after we have read so much about the long hours and habits ---

Mdm Ho, no long speeches, please.

--- in Korea and China having a very negative impact? Therefore, would the Minister care to comment?

Mdm Ho, what is your question? You are making a speech, not asking a question.

Sorry, I am asking my question now. Could the Minister please comment whether MICA would indeed be making an effort towards this direction and, also, whether there would be any intention to conduct a study on the social implications of too much time spent by students on such gaming activities?

Internet gaming has both its good aspects and bad aspects. It is a form of pastime. It nurtures curiosity in the young and there are many life skills that can be learned playing these games. On the other hand, playing too much can lead to a lack of social life, social interaction, and could affect studies, these are concerns of parents. So we have been working with the parents' group, for example, the Parents Advisory Group for the Internet (PAGi) is cognisant of this. They support the Cyber Wellness Task Force's recommendation for the need for balance on the Internet and stress the importance of personal user responsibility for positive online gaming experience. So far, PAGi has not received any instance of complaint from parents against LAN shops. But we will be monitoring this. We think that what is required is a

balance and, clearly, parents have a responsibility in monitoring the activities of their children.

12. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports if he will provide an update on the success of the Singapore Sports School and whether many students have sustained serious injuries due to intensive training in the school.

The Singapore Sports School is into its second year of operations, and the progress to date has been encouraging. For instance, the school has five student athletes selected for the upcoming Southeast Asian Games in Manila. Nine national age group records in Track and Field and Swimming have been surpassed by our student athletes.

The Sports School's students have also attained success at Asian and World age group levels, such as winning the Girls Under-15 Singles Title at the 2005 Asian Junior Table Tennis Championships. Nevertheless, I must stress that this is early in the game, and it will take some years for our youth to mature and reach their athletic peak.

I would like to reassure Mr Chia and my Parliamentary colleagues that the Sports School has comprehensive Sports Science professionals to monitor the growth and development of our student sportsmen, and minimise their injuries.

The majority of injuries surfacing in the Sports School are minor to moderate injuries like muscle strains and sprains. There have only been six cases of serious

injuries to date, which we classify as those injuries requiring recovery periods of more than eight weeks. Three of these students have already recovered whilst three are in the final stages of rehabilitation.

The severity and number of injuries experienced by the Sports School athletes are not higher than that of national athletes training under the National Sports Associations. Let me assure Members that the Sports School will continually monitor and enhance its injury prevention and treatment practices.

Some supplementary questions, Sir. Out of the six students, three have recovered, the other three are still in the intensive care. So far, has any student dropped out of the Sports School because of injury? That is my first question. The second question is: as the school is performing well, why is there a drop in its enrolment this year? The third question is: what is the school's enrolment target for 2006 and is it able to reach that target? The fourth question is: why did the school open up enrolment for non-citizens? The fifth question is: has the school reached ---

How many questions are you asking?

Last question. Has the school reached its enrolment capacity or is it still under utilised at this point of time?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I said just now that the school is only in its second year and, so far, according to our records, the girls and boys have done quite well. Whether for this year, there is a drop or not, like I said, this was not asked in the Question. So if he sends us the question, I will give him the answer. But, as a whole, my Ministry monitors the enrolment very closely,

bearing in mind the potential of the local students, but we also want to give the opportunity for some interaction to those outstanding students from overseas. I think we want to develop this excellence in our society. On injuries, like I told him just now, whether any student has dropped out because of injury, I do not have the information. But based on the last three months, the average injury is about 20 students and all those cases which are below two or three weeks' rehabilitation, we consider them as minor injury. Only those with more than eight weeks' treatment, we treat them as serious injury. At the school, we have the doctors, physiotherapists and also the coach, and they form a team to monitor all these injuries very closely. The students are very well taken care of.

13. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health what measures will be taken to assist low wage workers and the self-employed to build up their Medisave balances as a recent Ministry of Health report has indicated that low wage workers and some of the self-employed have insufficient Medisave balances to meet their medical needs.

Mdm Halimah asked if the Government could help the self-employed and the low-income Singaporeans build up their Medisave balances. The two groups are not identical, so the approach will have to be different.

First, the self-employed. They must first help themselves by contributing regularly to their Medisave Accounts, like all other economically active Singaporeans. Not all do. In fact, less than half (43%) of the self-employed have paid

their Medisave contributions in full. As a result, the Medisave balances of the self-employed are less than those of salaried employees. For example, for the 55-59 age group, the self-employed's Medisave balance averaged $12,500, much less than the salaried employees' equivalent of $21,500 - $12,500 versus $21,500. We should all encourage the self-employed to save regularly for their future medical needs. That is why the CPF Board has to strongly remind the self-employed to contribute to their Medisave accounts.

As for the low-income Singaporeans, the advantage of our Medisave Scheme is that even low-income workers can,

over time, save up sizeable Medisave balances. The data confirms this. For example, for workers earning less than $1,000 a month, their average Medisave balance today is $10,400, which is not a small sum. It could cover more than 10 average Class C hospitalisations.

In addition, the Government will continue to top up the Medisave Accounts of Singaporeans, whenever the budget allows for it. Meanwhile, the safety net of Medifund will also be there to help those who are unable to pay for their hospital bills despite heavy Government subsidies, Medisave and MediShield.

Two supplementary questions, Sir. On the self-employed, I would like to ask the Minister what other measures can be taken to encourage them to contribute regularly to the Medisave, particularly that we can see a lot more people are going into contracts for services or being self-employed.

On the Minister's point that those earning less than $1,000 have got $10,400, enough for more than 10 average Class C hospitalisations, in a lifetime, how many times are people expected to be hospitalised?

For self-employed, there are various ways to encourage them. I hope Members can also help me whenever they meet their constituents, especially those who are self-employed - taxi drivers, hawkers, and so on - encourage them. Because under our system, while we heavily subsidise healthcare, we also require patients, for good reasons, to co-pay a small part of the bill. And provided you consistently and monthly save a little bit each time while you are fit and active, you will build up a sizeable account. So, please, let us help to educate them. Of course, the other extreme measure is for CPF Board to occasionally remind them, and sometimes very strongly. But it is for their own good.

As for my data of less than $1,000 per month having about $10,000-odd, this is a global average for all low-income groups. It covers various age groups. So, whether $10,000 is big or small, it depends. For the young, it is small, because they have just started saving.

As for the question on how many hospitalisations in a lifetime, the data generally suggest that each of us, on average, may incur one hospitalisation per decade. I am now 52. On average, I should have had five hospitalisations. But because I take healthy lifestyle seriously, for me it is only twice, below average. But for some people, it may be more. It varies. $10,400 is not a small sum: provided you consistently save, I think you will build up a significant amount. If despite all your efforts, you still need help, then Medifund is there to help out.

14. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) whether Singaporeans above 65 years have adequate Medisave balances to take care of their medical needs; and (b) whether

there will be any help given to assist needy elderly Singaporeans who are likely to be inactive CPF members to pay for their MediShield premiums, which are now higher and in view of the extension of the MediShield maximum coverage age to 85.

Singaporeans who are above 65 have an average Medisave balance of $5,300, which is also not insignificant. It is enough to cover 17 years of MediShield premiums, or five average Class C hospitalisations for the elderly. But it is way below the Medisave Minimum Sum of $27,500. This is partly because Medisave was introduced only in 1984 and the present cohort of elderly Singaporeans did not have enough time to build up their Medisave balances. I think future generations of such elderly Singaporeans would fare better.

Meanwhile, the Government has helped to top up their Medisave accounts whenever the budget allows it. Over the past 10 years, the Government has made six rounds of Medisave top-ups, totalling $1.32 billion. On each occasion, the Government gave the elderly more Medisave top-up than it did the rest. The most recent top-up was made in July this year, specifically to help Singaporeans cope with the increase in MediShield premiums.

In any case, elderly Singaporeans are not helpless. Many have means of support, either from their own savings or from their families'. For example, 60% of the elderly have their medical bills paid from their children's Medisave accounts.

In addition, we have Medifund to help those who are unable to pay for their hospital bills despite heavy Government subsidies, Medisave and MediShield. As Members are aware, we are progressively building up Medifund to $2 billion.

Sir, the Minister said that for those above 65 years of age, the $5,000 savings that they have in their Medisave accounts will cover 17 years of MediShield premiums. Now that MediShield has been extended to cover up to the age of 85, there is obviously a shortfall. Secondly, Sir, is the $5,000 sufficient, in the Minister's assessment, to cover specialist outpatient treatment as well as other treatments where Medisave is allowed to be used?

Sir, while $5,300 is not insignificant, certainly it is not sufficient. As I said, it is way below the Medisave Minimum Sum of $27,500. But $5,000 is still $5,000. It can buy, in the case of elderly, 17 years of MediShield premiums. But my main point is this. In funding our healthcare system, we go for multiple sources of funds - with the elderly, their own savings in Medisave, their other savings outside of Medisave and, very crucially, I hope they have good children. Their children will support them. Of course, if nothing else, we have the safety net in the form of Medifund.

15. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what specific strategies will his Ministry adopt in order to double its manufacturing output to $300 billion by 2018, and create more than 20,000 new jobs at the same time, while facing stiff competition from China and India; and (b) how many of these jobs are estimated to be filled by locals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to achieve the target of doubling our manufacturing output to $300 billion and value-add to $80 billion by 2018, we will adopt the following strategies.

First, we will strengthen our manufacturing capabilities, both in terms

of manpower and technology. We will equip our workforce with the knowledge and skills to undertake more sophisticated production, through education and workers training. We will invest more in research and development to support product and process innovation. Under our Science & Technology Plan 2010 (S&T2010), the target is to increase our national research spending to 3% of GDP within the next five years.

Second, we will build up on our connectivity, in terms of physical connections, access to resources and markets, as well as linkages with suppliers and partners. With our efficient logistics and supply chain management, Singapore is well-positioned for high value manufacturing that requires flexibility and fast turn-around time. We are also in the midst of a resource-rich region, and have strong connectivity to world markets. We will continue to expand our network of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), Investment Guarantee Agreements (IGAs), Double Taxation Agreements (DTAs) and Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) so that our manufacturers located here have better, facilitated access to many markets. With manufacturing trends moving towards outsourcing, having strong supporting industries will be a key competitive advantage. We will strengthen our enterprise ecosystem to provide manufacturers with good linkages within and across clusters to support their activities.

Third, we will leverage on our capabilities and connectivity, and grow our existing clusters, as well as nurture new clusters. We have built a core of key industries, such as those in the electronics, chemicals, biomedical sciences and in transport engineering. There is still much scope for us to expand these clusters. At the same time, we will also develop new industries that play to our strengths, such as alternative energy,

environmental technology, nanotechnology and digital media.

Fourth, we will expand our reach for manufacturing investments. We are looking beyond our traditional catchment areas for manufacturing investments to include emerging geographies, such as China, India and the Middle East. These are emerging economies that will also provide the big companies of the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, by adopting all these strategies and continuing to stay cost competitive, EDB believes that it can achieve the target of doubling manufacturing output by 2018 and, in the process, create about 15,000 jobs a year from new manufacturing projects. This growth in manufacturing is estimated to create another 6,500 jobs a year due to spin-offs to the services sector. At least 70% of these jobs will be skilled and professional, and will provide ample job opportunities for Singaporeans.

16. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the take-up rate for studio apartments to date; (b) has there been an increased demand lately; and (c) when will more studio apartments be made available and how many more will be made available to cater to the expected demand.

Sir, HDB introduced the Studio Apartment (SA) scheme in 1998 to provide a customised housing option for the elderly. There are nine SA projects to-date. The first six projects, comprising 936 SA units in standalone blocks, were fully sold.

HDB is currently building another 303 SA units, which are integrated with other

flat types within the same block, at three SERS replacement sites in Geylang, Bukit Merah and Queenstown. The SA units in Geylang that were not required by SERS lessees were offered in the October 2004 Balloting Exercise and had been fully taken up. Under the August 2005 Balloting Exercise, HDB offered 187 SAs in Bukit Merah and Queenstown for sale.

As this followed the recent relaxation of the purchase conditions for SAs, the response has been very good, with a total of 825 applications received at the end of the application exercise on 19th September 2005.

Going forward, to meet the needs of our ageing population, HDB will provide SAs as part of its regular building plan for new flats and offer them under the Build-To-Order system, so that they are built to demand. We will announce more details later.

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what will the new studio apartments be priced at? Will they be priced at more affordable and attractive prices to the majority of elderly Singaporeans? Will he also consider making the lower floor studio apartments or rooms for rental on a daily basis for those elderly who have big families to accommodate them during weekends? Lastly, will he improve the concept of the independent living and self-reliance concept of studio apartments and ensure that the centres of activities are there for the new studio apartments, to promote healthy living and for the participants of the centres?

You have one-and-a-half minutes, Dr Maliki.

Sir, the pricing approach for SAs is the same. As it is now, HDB will price them according to their attributes, the terms and conditions of sale and the HDB

development costs. Just to give a range, the prices of 35 square metre units range from $59,000 to $61,000, and those of 45 square metre units range from $75,000 to $77,000.

On the third question on the concept of independent living and facilitating better interaction and better opportunities for the participation of the elderly to live in, the Government's approach is to encourage ageing in place. We recognise that it is an important concept. That is why the options of either a standalone SA or an integrated SA is being mooted right now. The whole idea is to allow the elderly to live as closely to their children as possible so that they will be able to continue living their life for as long as they can.

Secondly, they are located near community facilities. In standalone SAs, for example, we have neighbourhood links that are run by VWOs that will provide the necessary social services that are required by the elderly citizens.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 17-18 and 23-26 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 19-22 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

* Cols. 1753-1762

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

"That the Bill be now read a Second time."

AMLA and the last amendments in 1999

Sir, the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) provides for the establishment of the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura ("MUIS") to administer Muslim affairs. The Act also provides for the setting up of a Registry of Muslim Marriages to register and regulate Muslim marriages and the establishment of a Syariah Court to deal with, among others, Muslim divorces and ancillary issues arising from divorce. In addition, the Act empowers the Syariah Court to issue Inheritance Certificates on the estates of deceased Muslims. Sir, the last round of amendments, made to the AMLA in 1999, has helped strengthen the Syariah Court and MUIS. The amendments helped to clarify and define the jurisdiction between the Syariah Court and the Civil Court. They also strengthened the Syariah Court's jurisdiction on ancillary matters arising from Muslim divorces. The operations of the Court were also strengthened, with the provision for the appointment of a Registrar for the Court. The amendments also made provisions for ad-hoc Presidents of the Court to be appointed to help deal with cases expeditiously.

As for MUIS, the 1999 amendments enhanced MUIS' ability to better regulate Haj pilgrimage services. They also strengthened MUIS' oversight on halal and wakaf matters.

The need for the proposed amendments

Growing complexity of MUIS' operations

Sir, the Muslim community needs strong institutions to support its growth and progress. A strong institution requires a good management structure that ensures the provision of effective

programmes and services that are comprehensive, up-to-date and relevant to the community. Such an institution requires a responsive and dynamic leadership made up of persons who are not just keen, but also capable and committed towards the mission of the organisation and the vision of the community.

Sir, when MUIS first began its operations in 1968, it was a small outfit of only seven persons, located in a humble office not far from here at Empress Place. The small headcount reflected the limited scope that the young MUIS was cut out to do. The seven staff of 1968 could not have imagined the scope of work that MUIS today handles.

Today, MUIS is at the forefront of guiding and facilitating the Muslim community in its religious life. Its other statutory functions have also become increasingly complex. It administers 68 mosques and the Mosque Building and Mendaki Fund. The Fund has supported the development of 21 well-equipped, well-maintained new generation mosques in HDB heartlands to meet the growing needs of a better-educated, more diverse Muslim community in these areas. MUIS also facilitates the development of religious education in Singapore - both full-time and part-time classes. It manages and develops wakaf properties for the benefit of the community. It is also the regulator for haj pilgrimage and halal certification services. With such a diverse range of duties, it is not surprising that MUIS has grown from the 7-person outfit of 1968 to an organisation of more than 120 persons today. Indeed, had the extensive network of our 68 mosques not been staffed by trained dedicated volunteers, MUIS would have had to recruit even more to help carry out such functions. With the fervent support and dedicated involvement of the Muslim community, MUIS has been able to discharge its duties effectively.

Significance of MUIS' roles

Sir, MUIS has a key role to play in helping the Muslim community realise its vision of a community of excellence. It plays this role by facilitating and shaping the religious life of Singapore's Muslims.

Over the last 37 years, with efforts put in by MUIS leadership and staff with the support of the community, MUIS' stature and image as an authority on Islam has gone beyond the reaches of our finite shores. MUIS has facilitated and supported my involvement in MABIMS (the unofficial meeting of Religious Affairs Ministers of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore), a forum where national leaders from the region overseeing Muslim issues come together to discuss significant religious developments and forge beneficial and strategic partnerships in the interest of our nations, our communities and the region.

Beyond the region, the experience of MUIS in successfully facilitating the religious lives of Singapore's Muslims has helped it represent the substance and face of the Singapore Muslim, and forge ties with organisations and leaders in the Middle East, parts of Europe, USA, Australia and Canada. Its experience in managing the religious affairs of a small but significant Muslim community has been highly sought after as a good model to emulate. Many from within the region and far beyond - organisations and individuals that are both Muslim and of other faiths - are keen to study how MUIS has successfully entrenched itself as a respected authority on Islam in a multi-racial, multi-religious, secularly-governed, democratic state. Allow me to thank the staff of all the 37 years and the community for the support and the leadership of my predecessors, including you, Sir, that have together helped make this happy state possible for us.

Proposed amendments

Separation of Chief Executive from President's role

Sir, let me now go through the key features of the Bill, which concern administrative amendments that are far less extensive compared to the amendments of 1999 and do not affect the community directly, but that are nevertheless necessary to strengthen the leadership structure of MUIS as it matures and progresses further as an authority for Singapore's Muslims.

Sir, in order to further strengthen MUIS in view of the increasingly complex roles it is called on to play in the interest of the Muslim community in particular and Singapore in general, the Bill will provide for the creation of a Chief Executive position in MUIS. Currently, the President of MUIS also doubles up as the Chief Executive. This structure departs from the governance structure practised in most other statutory boards, corporations and community organisations. With the introduction of the Chief Executive's position, the MUIS Council can be chaired by a non-executive President. The Chief Executive will report to, and be accountable to, the Council. Sir, with this move, the position of the President of MUIS can then be filled by an appropriate person with the stature of a respected Singapore Muslim community leader who is able to reach out, engage and galvanise the various stakeholders in the community towards common objectives, without this same person having to also take on the executive, administrative function of running the organisation.

Sir, the Chief Executive will be responsible for the proper management and administration of MUIS. The separation of roles between the President and the Chief Executive of MUIS will bring

MUIS's management structure in line with those other key statutory boards, corporations and community organisations. The change will also bring about greater interest from capable Muslim officers to come forward to offer their services as administrators. In other words, the change will facilitate suitable Muslim public officers to be seconded to MUIS, and after having served their term at MUIS, to proceed on easily to positions in other organisations in the public or private sector.

Sir, I have received feedback from the community leaders that the amendment Bill which provides for the Chief Executive to be appointed by the Minister departs from the convention practised by other statutory boards, where the CEO is typically appointed by the Board, with the approval of the Minister. Sir, when MUIS was conceived, the Secretary of MUIS was playing a role that was equivalent to the Chief Executive of the organisation. The Act in fact provides for the Secretary of MUIS to be appointed by the Minister and not the Majlis or the Council. Logically then, the Chief Executive should also be appointed by the Minister. But, Sir, after receiving the feedback and to be consistent with the practices of other statutory boards, I have recently filed a notice of amendment, which I will move at the committee stage for the clause to be amended to allow for the Majlis to appoint the Chief Executive of the Majlis, with the approval of the Minister. This will bring it in line with the provisions found in many other statutory board Acts.

Composition of MUIS Council - Revising the maximum number of Minister's nominees on the Council, from 5 to 7

Sir, the current provisions of AMLA allow a minimum of seven nominees from Muslim organisations and a maximum of five nominees from the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs to be appointed to the MUIS Council. I propose to move that the

maximum number of nominees from the Minister to be revised to seven.

Sir, I earlier mentioned the growing complexity of operations at MUIS. In view of this, we need more people with relevant expertise to contribute to the MUIS Council. There is a perception that one has to be of a certain standing in the Muslim community in order to serve as a council member of MUIS. This, I believe, has to do with the image of MUIS as a religious authority. For example, it was very difficult for me to convince one Mr Sallim Abdul Kadir, an accountant by profession, to serve on the MUIS Council. He is currently serving as a Mendaki nominee on the MUIS Council. I have observed his contributions to the Yayasan Mendaki Board for quite some time, and his background has been very useful to Mendaki in the Finance Committee. I therefore wanted him to lend his expertise to help start an Internal Audit Committee for MUIS. The Internal Audit Committee had been formed and had their first meeting. Sallim Kadir is lending his expertise to the Committee. Having been convinced finally and taking on the role of MUIS Council Member, he proved himself to be a tremendous asset to MUIS and the Muslim community.

Let me give another example. The composition of the MUIS Legal Committee constituted under section 31 of AMLA stipulates that apart from the Mufti, the other members include two fit and proper members of the Council and not more than two other fit and proper Muslims who are not members of the Council. We therefore need to ensure that we have learned religious leaders to serve on the Council. If for some reason the nominees for the Council from the organisations do not include suitable religious leaders who can contribute to the Legal or Fatwa Committee, it would then become my duty to appoint such a person.

Sir, to recapitulate, section 7(1)(e) currently stipulates that not less than

seven Council members are to be appointed by the President of Singapore, from the list of nominees to be submitted by the President of the Council to the President of Singapore. Sir, this list consists of persons nominated by Muslim societies which are prescribed for the purpose, by the Council. Whereas section 7(1)(d), as it stands, stipulates that the MUIS Council shall have not more than five members to be appointed by the President of Singapore on my recommendation. Sir, what I propose to do is to revise the cap on the number of Council members appointed by the President of Singapore on my recommendation from the present five to seven. This change will give greater flexibility for MUIS to bring in more qualified individuals who have the relevant expertise, to serve on MUIS. These individuals can provide the professional advice to help MUIS fulfil its mission.

Sir, the nominees from the Muslim societies provide us with broad representation from the various stakeholders in the community and they ensure that MUIS' work and its various programmes and policies are well understood and get the support from these key Muslim organisations. They also provide valuable ground feedback and aspirations from their constituents to MUIS Council on what more it can do for the community. Sir, the law provides for a minimum of seven members from the Muslim societies to be appointed to the MUIS Council. There is nothing to prevent more members from the Muslim societies from being appointed, if these societies can recommend people with the required expertise to the Council. I was told by MUIS that in fact we have had in the past even appointed eight persons from the Muslim societies, as the candidates were all appropriate at that point in time. If we are able to get the necessary expertise from the Muslim societies, there may not even be a need for me, or any succeeding Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, to

exercise the prerogative to appoint all our nominees. In fact, I was told by Haji Maarof Salleh, the President of MUIS from 1996 to 2003, that he had been previously nominated by PERDAUS, a Muslim society, to sit on the MUIS Council even though he was never a member of PERDAUS. PERDAUS nominated him nevertheless, because PERDAUS felt that he would be able to contribute to the MUIS Council. I am confident that other Muslim societies would similarly be able to take a broader perspective and look beyond their members to recommend nominees to serve on the MUIS Council if they believe that the person would be able to better contribute on the Council.

Sir, the MUIS Council is such an important body that we need to ensure that we have in our Council the right mix of talents and abilities, and the necessary expertise for the Council to take MUIS to greater heights. With emerging issues such as the life sciences and the impact of the global economy, it is imperative that the Council members of MUIS are able to offer guidance to MUIS on these and other important issues. The practice I shall adopt would be to first evaluate the nominees from the Muslim organisations before deciding on who and how many my nominees should be. It is the composition of the Council that is

more important than the number of nominees or who they are being nominated by.

Other amendments

Finally, Sir, the Bill also provides for the position of the Vice-President of MUIS to be removed. When this position was introduced in 1990, the rationale for this, as explained in this House, was for the position to be filled when the President's position is not filled by a full-time President. Going forward, as there will be a full-time Chief Executive, there is no

compelling need for the position of a Vice-President to be retained. There are also other consequential amendments and the introduction of new provisions which are necessary as a result of the introduction of the Chief Executive's position. Certain amendments are also made to streamline and ensure better administration of various provisions.

We have also taken the opportunity to remove an antiquated provision which had never been invoked. Section 136 requires any Muslim, who is not a citizen of Singapore or Malaysia, and who has married here, to seek the permission of the President of MUIS before leaving Singapore, the failure of which carries the imposition of a penalty. This provision was enacted for historical reasons and is no longer relevant. There are adequate provisions in other legislation to protect married women, including Muslim women.

Community outreach

Sir, in tabling this Bill, I have taken the step to strengthen MUIS as a statutory body. These current amendments would only affect MUIS' organisation structure. The MUIS Council was informed, and I also had a meeting with community leaders to explain the rationale of these amendments to allay any concerns. But after tabling the amendments, I decided to defer the Second Reading, to give me more time to meet further with community leaders in smaller groups to explain my rationale for the changes, given the interest generated by the proposed amendments. I thank our community leaders for their understanding and support, even though they would have preferred a longer deliberation well before the Bill was tabled.

Conclusion

I agreed with the community leaders that we should further improve the process of consultation and discussion on

future AMLA amendments. And indeed this is the beginning of many other changes to AMLA that I hope to make in the coming years. Many new issues have emerged that may warrant a closer look at AMLA. The community will also continue to evolve, as will MUIS and other key institutions in the community. The future will bring many opportunities and challenges, and we will need to continue monitoring the needs of the community to ensure that the AMLA remains relevant, and that it continues to help the community to seize new opportunities and overcome any challenges that come along. Sir, in doing this, I will continue to engage our community leaders in order to better understand their concerns and also to solicit feedback.

Sir, I trust the community will support the amendments that are being proposed today, which will help strengthen the community and keep us on the right track.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.20 pm

Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Bill.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the roles and the responsibilities of the President and the Chief Executive. Sir, as the Minister stated, the Bill will provide for the appointment of the Chief Executive, who will be responsible for the proper administration and management of MUIS functions and affairs. Currently, MUIS has a President, appointed by the President of Singapore, who has, under section 19(1) of the Act, powers of "general control of all deliberations and proceedings of the Majlis". It is important that we have a clear understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of MUIS President and the Chief Executive.

What would be the expected working relationship between them? As the Minister mentioned, there must be a clear separation of roles between the President and the Chief Executive.

Sir, this change in the MUIS leadership and management structure should help to greatly enhance the effectiveness of MUIS, especially to realise its vision of a Singaporean Muslim Community of Excellence. And in this way, it also helps to strengthen the community's confidence and capacity to increase its contributions to Singapore's progress, especially in this intensively competitive and globalised world.

I would like to ask the Minister to outline MUIS' key priorities in the next two to three years to enable the community to face the many challenges ahead with greater confidence. MUIS must continue to focus on strengthening religious education. Sir, much of the media publicity today about Muslims tends to be negative. I think this is due to reports about the callous terrorism committed by misguided and evil people wrongly using Islam. The main concern here is that such publicity can create misunderstanding and the loss of trust and confidence, especially among those who have poor knowledge of Islam. There is no valid justification to commit violence and seriously injuring or killing innocent people, whether they are non-Muslims or Muslims. Sir, Islam is a religion of peace and harmony, and Muslim scholars have stressed that Islam brings blessings for all mankind. MUIS must therefore continue to take decisive leadership to strongly counter those who preach extremist ideology. Such ideology of hatred and violence and against people of other faiths is certainly wrong and against the teachings of Islam.

Sir, I am happy to note that MUIS has initiated the production of the Risalah

MUIS which elucidates the 10 Desired Attributes which the Singaporean Muslim community aspires to be. Just let me mention two of them which I think are of general interest to Singaporeans. First, the Muslim community aspires to be one that is, and I quote, "well adjusted in living as full members of a secular state and multi-racial, multi-religious society and contributes to Singapore and global humanity, including in leadership roles". Next, again I quote, "to be enlightened and appreciates richness of other civilisations and is self-confident to interact with others and prepared to learn from them". Sir, these are the significant attributes of Singaporean Muslims who hold steadfast to Islamic principles and values and, at the same time, able to comfortably adapt to the inclusive, secular and multi-religious society in Singapore. I think MUIS must now move fast forward to enable more people, both Muslims and non-Muslims, to understand and appreciate these attributes and especially for Muslims to practise them in their daily lives.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with the improvements in MUIS' leadership and management and also as MUIS strives to continue strengthening its cooperation and consultation with other Muslim organisations and with Muslim scholars and leaders, I am confident that MUIS would achieve its vision of a "Community of Excellence", and that we can become a model and inspiration for others.

Sir, on this note, I support the Bill.

3.25 pm

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on the amendments to the Administration of Muslim Law Act.

MUIS is an important institution among Muslims in Singapore. Over the years, MUIS has played a more effective role in helping the Muslim community handle various complex issues and new challenges that they face. MUIS now covers a broad spectrum of matters of direct relevance to the Muslim community, such as marriage, divorce, maintenance, wakaf, zakat, fitrah, haj, administration of mosques, religious education, halal certification, and many other areas. In short, every Muslim in Singapore knows about MUIS and would at some point in their lives have come into contact with it. Given the impact and significance of MUIS on the life of the average Muslim Singaporean, there is no doubt that any changes to the law or provisions pertaining to MUIS would be closely watched. There is probably no other law in Singapore which affects the Muslim community as pervasively as AMLA.

It is in this context that one must view some of the comments that have been made about the current amendments. To the Muslim community, MUIS is not just another statutory board. It is a key institution which affects the well-being of themselves and their families. There have been views expressed that the amendments were not widely discussed among community leaders and Malay/Muslim organisations. The points stressed were that greater consultation would have ensured a greater buy-in and sense of ownership of the changes among the community. A few have suggested that this indicates a lack of transparency in the way MUIS operates, citing not only this amendment Bill but also the recent increase in the contributions to the mosque building fund as examples where more consultation would have been useful in getting greater community support for the changes.

I hope that we would view these comments in the right perspective. It

should not in any way be taken as criticism of MUIS or its credibility. MUIS has done good work in helping the community to navigate through really rough waters, particularly over the last few years after September 11 and the increased spotlight on the Muslim community. By no account is the task of MUIS an easy one. MUIS must reflect the views, concerns, hopes and expectations of the Muslim community when it advises the Government on Muslim affairs. At the same time, it also has the responsibility to help the community develop into a progressive, educated and well-integrated Muslim community with a distinctly Singaporean identity but still strong in Islamic values. The Muslim community here is deeply religious, yet, at the same time, acutely aware of the secular context and the need to strike a balance.

Mr Speaker, hence, views expressed requiring more consultation on the AMLA changes is a good sign. It shows that the community is engaged and wants to participate more actively in matters that affect them. I feel that it is important that these concerns are adequately addressed. At the same time, I also urge our community when these concerns have been addressed to move on as there is not much point in endlessly debating this issue and diverting our attention from the more important task ahead of us.

Mr Speaker, let me now come to the substantive amendment. On the appointment of the Chief Executive, I note the Minister's explanation that this is to bring AMLA in line with the other statutory boards which also appoint Chief Executives. However, at the same time, in my opinion, there is a difference between MUIS and the other statutory boards. In the other boards, there is really no equivalent to the post of President of MUIS who is appointed by the President of Singapore, and not the Minister in charge of MUIS. In the other statutory boards, the Minister in charge of the

statutory board would appoint the Chairman of the Board.

In the other statutory boards, there is also no equivalent of section 19 of the AMLA which defines the functions of the President of MUIS as having "general control of all deliberations and proceedings of the Majlis". Neither is it equivalent to section 25(1) of the Act which gives the President the powers in an emergency to act on behalf of MUIS, even without a resolution of a Majlis. These provisions seem to vest the President of MUIS with certain powers, which are different from the normal functions of the Chairman of other statutory boards. This is borne out by the fact that the President of MUIS has, up to now, acted mostly like the CEO of a statutory board.

Under the amendments, the Chief Executive's duties are to be responsible to the Majlis for the proper administration and management of the functions and affairs of the Majlis, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Majlis. If the President has general control of all the deliberations and proceedings of MUIS, would it not mean that he too has the power and duty to administer and manage the affairs of MUIS? If he is to be vested with certain powers during an emergency, he must be sufficiently in control of MUIS to do that.

I am not against the proposal to separate the functions of the two. But it is not clear to me what would be the role of the President and what would be the role of the Chief Executive after the proposed amendments.

The concern here is that, if there is no clarity of roles, then will there be duplication of duties and, ultimately, even conflicts arising which may even hamper the efficiency and smooth functioning of MUIS? It is worth noting that, in all the other statutory boards, the Chairman of

the Board is not an employee. I am not quite sure what is the arrangement with regard to MUIS after the amendments come into effect, as the current President is a full-time employee.

I hope that the Minister, in his response, could give us a better idea of what are the separate and distinct roles that the two are expected to perform.

Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister whether there is a conflict between section 10 of the existing Act and the proposed section 7A(2) of the Bill. Under section 10, the appointment of a member of a board can be cancelled due to various reasons, such as the conduct that brings discredit to the Majlis. Under section 7(6), the Chief Executive can be appointed by the Minister to be a member of the board, but section 7A(2) provides that the Chief Executive cannot be removed from office without the consent of the Minister. Will we have a situation where a Chief Executive is found to be undesirable by the President of Singapore and his membership of the board is cancelled but his employment continues unless the Minister also removes him? In the other statutory boards, this may not be a major issue because the power to remove a CEO as well as a member of the board lies with the Minister. So, he would probably remove the CEO both as a member and as the CEO of the statutory board. However, in the case of MUIS, it is stated that the President of Singapore can cancel the appointment of the MUIS Chief Executive as a board member, but only the Minister can remove him from the office. I think it would be neater if there is a provision to stipulate that the MUIS Chief Executive, if he is also appointed as a member of the board, would automatically cease to be the Chief Executive when his membership of the board is cancelled by the President of Singapore.

Thirdly, there has been some feedback on the proposal to increase the number of MUIS board members appointed by the Minister from five to seven. The concern here is whether this will tilt the balance, a carefully calibrated balance designed to give the Muslim community a greater say in religious matters affecting them. In my view, we should not worry excessively on the power that has been given to the Minister to appoint more MUIS board members. The issue is not so much how many members the Minister can appoint to the board but rather what is the role of the board and how effective it is in reflecting the interests of the whole Muslim community.

Mr Speaker, by increasing the number of the Minister's nominees to seven, the current amendment gives the Minister a greater flexibility to appoint people with sound expertise in various fields and who can make significant contributions to the knowledge base in MUIS. In this way, the MUIS board would be able to make better decisions for the benefit of the Muslim community. For example, Islamic banking is now gaining in importance and the MUIS board may need a Muslim banker with strong expertise in this area to advise the board on aspects of Islamic banking and investments that are acceptable in Islam. There are many other areas of expertise that the board may need, if it wants to be truly effective in performing its role and remain relevant to the needs of the community.

To me, what is also more important is for the Minister to make sure that the seven individuals he appoints to sit on the board have a sound understanding of the Muslim way of life and the issues and challenges that we face in the context of a multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore. Hence, whilst the process is important, I would like to urge the community to focus more on the outcome. The duty of MUIS is to advise the President of Singapore in matters relating to the Muslim religion in

Singapore. MUIS can perform this function effectively only if it has a board which is strong and knowledgeable to supervise and help it address the very complex socio-economic issues of Muslims living in a challenging environment. This is where every member of the board, both representing the Muslim organisations and individuals, can complement and enhance each other by bringing their different strengths to the decision-making process at the board.

Fourthly, Sir, I support the decision to delete section 136 which prohibits a Muslim who is not a citizen of Singapore or Malaysia and who has married in Singapore to leave the country without the permission of the President. This provision is indeed grossly outdated and irrelevant.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to urge the Minister, at an appropriate time, to also consider reviewing other provisions of the AMLA which are unclear and have led to some controversy, such as the provision on nuzriah. The community feels that clarifying this provision is also important and should not be left unresolved for too long.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment will enhance the leadership and administration of MUIS and MUIS will be able to effectively manage the administration of Islamic law.

On this note, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the subject of the amendment to the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA). I hope to give my perspective and views on the matter and briefly give feedback on the views that I have received.

Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) was one of the earlier established

statutory boards and was designed to be a Government agency primarily to advise the President of Singapore on matters relating to Islam in Singapore, and administer and manage all significant matters relating to Islam and Muslims in Singapore.

To ensure effective coordination, support from the Muslim community was important and, with this view, the Majlis was designed to include key stakeholders and representatives from Muslim organisations, bodies and community leaders.

The recent proposed amendments include changes to the composition of the Majlis, increasing the maximum number of independent nominees to the Majlis recommended by the Minister from five to seven. It is also proposed that a Chief Executive position be created and the Vice President's position be removed. The power of appointment for these positions rests with the Minister. Additionally, under section 7A, the Chief Executive may not be removed from office without the consent of the Minister.

The amendment to section 25 also includes the proposal to grant the Minister greater authority to act during an emergency, and the amendment to section 146 provides that the President may delegate the exercise of all or any of the powers vested in him by this Act to the Minister or President.

To me and many others, these changes are significant and could, fundamentally, change the way MUIS functions and operates. MUIS has been a torch bearer and has significantly contributed to the Muslim community.

To some countries, MUIS is acknowledged as a successful model on how to seamlessly integrate and coordinate Muslim community affairs into

a multi-religious society. The efforts and programmes undertaken by MUIS are considered ground-breaking in its contemporary approach and content. This recognition is something that we have to be proud of and continue to improve to address the challenges of an ever changing world.

As highlighted by the Minister, the proposed amendments have drawn some feedback from the public, and there are those who feel that, in the spirit of consultation and transparency, the proposals should have been discussed with the local Muslim association and community. I am happy that these inputs are attended to and the community outreach mentioned by the Minister would certainly go some way to quell speculations and will ultimately lead to undivided support and commitment from the Muslim community. It is also important that people understand the reasons behind the proposal.

Sir, on the proposed introduction of the Chief Executive, apart from aligning to the practices of other statutory boards, in terms of structure, I would like to know how else will this change bring value to the current organisation. Many profit-oriented bodies may benefit from a structure that includes the Chief Executive, as it mirrors the corporate world. But, in the case of MUIS, would not such a change only increase operational cost? So, I think the issue of cost would also be of concern.

Like the other Members earlier, I am concerned that the changes may also lead to confusion between the roles of the President, Chief Executive, Mufti and Secretary. Also, as the Minister-nominated Council members increase in number, from five to seven, there is concern whether MUIS, as an organisation, can ensure that it will

continue to accurately reflect the pulse or needs of the Muslim community.

Sir, I am confident that the changes that are being proposed would bring MUIS to greater heights. It is my earnest hope that Singaporeans be made aware of the reasons behind the proposed amendments.

Sir, apart from the points that I have raised earlier in my speech, I support the amendments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me thank the hon. Members of Parliament, Mr Othman Haron Eusofe, Mdm Halimah Yacob and Mr Zainudin Nordin, for supporting the Bill.

Sir, Mr Othman wanted me to clarify the roles of the President of Majlis and the Chief Executive. This is also the same concern of Mdm Halimah Yacob and Mr Zainudin Nordin. In addition to raising some other concerns, Mdm Halimah has also sought further clarifications regarding the statutory powers of the President of Majlis, as currently vested. Mr Zainudin Nordin also wanted to know whether there will be cost implications for these changes. Let me now attempt to answer all the questions and the clarifications sought.

Sir, as I have outlined in my Second Reading speech, the President of Majlis will preside over the governing body of the Majlis or MUIS Council, and the Chief Executive will be responsible for the proper management, administration and running of the Majlis. The President of Majlis will preside over the MUIS Council, the decision-making body of the Majlis, which is a statutory body entrusted to carry out the functions specified in the Administration of Muslim Law Act. Under this system, the day-to-day running of the Majlis will be entrusted to the Chief Executive and the complement of about 120 staff who will be responsible to the

MUIS Council for the administration and management of the functions and affairs of the Majlis in accordance with the policies laid down by the MUIS Council.

Let me make this clearer by giving an example. The National Environment Agency (NEA) is a statutory body under my Ministry. The day-to-day running of the agency is headed by Mr Lee Yuen Hee, an Administrative Officer who is seconded to the NEA as the Chief Executive Officer. This is the model that I hope to do one day when we have an Executive Officer seconded from other public agencies to MUIS to become the CEO. The policy decisions are made by the Governing Council of the agency

which is headed by Assoc. Prof. Simon Tay, its Chairman. And there are many other statutory boards with similar structure running very well, and this is the model that MUIS will seek to emulate.

Sir, the same arrangements are also working very well in other statutory boards which are under my Ministry. For the PUB, for example, the Chairman is Mr Tan Gee Paw, and its Chief Executive is Mr Khoo Teng Chye. There are no conflicts in their roles, as in many other statutory boards with similar governing structure. Having said that, Sir, it will take time for the new structure to work well in MUIS, which is so used to having the current structure since its inception. We will need time to identify suitable persons for the positions and, I am sure, with this structure, MUIS will evolve and it will be a matter of time for it to be run with a structure just like other statutory boards and corporations.

Sir, it is true, as Mdm Halimah has mentioned, that unlike the other statutory boards in which the Chairman is appointed by the Minister, the President of the Majlis is appointed by the President of Singapore. It only goes to show the important role the Majlis is discharging as an Islamic authority in our multi-racial and multi-religious society.

Under section 19 of the AMLA, which the hon. Member had cited, the powers of the Majlis here are general control of deliberations and proceedings of the Majlis or the MUIS Council as a governing structure. In my view, Sir, this is clear and there is no overlap of his power over the Chief Executive. What will happen is that the President, which is similar to the Chairman of the Board, will have the powers to call for a Council meeting and he, therefore, decides, with the other Council Members, the general policies of MUIS. It is the duty of the Chief Executive and his 120 staff to implement those policies which have been agreed at the Council. That is the practice in other statutory boards and that is the practice that we want to adopt in MUIS.

Similarly, Sir, section 25 empowers the President of the Majlis, during an emergency, in consultation with the Mufti and the Secretary, and which now has been enlarged to include the Chief Executive to do or direct anything to be done on behalf of the Majlis any act or thing which might lawfully be done by the resolution of the Majlis. Sir, the intent of this provision is to ensure that in an emergency, the President of the Majlis, in consultation with the key officers that the Majlis mentioned above, can carry any act or thing which Majlis would like to carry out immediately. Such a decision, however, needs the Majlis' ratification later on. This provision has never been invoked in the history of the Majlis and the intent is not repugnant to the business and the spirit of the Majlis' role and responsibilities. Neither do I see it any way an attempt as providing excessive powers to the President of the Majlis as that imposes on him to consult the Mufti, the Chief Executive and the Secretary before he invokes this provision. So there is enough safeguard. The current safeguard, in fact, allows the President to consult both the Mufti and the Secretary. We have just enlarged this provision to include the Chief Executive. And,

therefore, now the President will have three more officers of whom he can consult when there are cases of emergency.

Sir, the Bill, as it stands, enables the President of Singapore to appoint the Chief Executive as a member of the Majlis, not by the Minister. The Bill also provides for the Chief Executive not to be removed from his office as such without my approval. That is the conflict that Mdm Halimah has raised. The concern by the hon. Member is that whether after the Chief Executive Officer is found to be undesirable by the President of Singapore and his appointment as a MUIS Council Member cancelled, his employment as Chief Executive technically can continue, unless the Minister also removes him.

Sir, even before we recommend to the President of Singapore that he invokes his powers under section 10 of the Act, in all probability, it is due to the fact that the Majlis has recommended to me for his services and appointment as Chief Executive to be terminated. So I am confident, within the consultation process that we have in the Majlis and the constant contact that I have with the President and the officers in MUIS, we will be able to make the decision well before the President can invoke the powers entitled to him in the Act. So only when we have taken this course of action will it become incumbent on us to recommend to the President to invoke section 10 to cancel the Chief Executive Officer's membership in the MUIS Council.

Let me now attempt to answer some of the questions raised by the hon. Member, Mr Zainudin. He raised some questions about confusion of roles. It is clear that the Mufti is a religious appointment in Islam and he presides over the MUIS' Legal or Fatwa Committee. As

you know, in Islam, he is also able to do his ijtihad or give his opinion on religious issues if this is sought on an urgent basis, whereas section 8(1) of AMLA provides for the Secretary of the Majlis to be appointed and for him to discharge certain statutory functions. So, there are very clear roles in terms of the duties of the Mufti and duties of the Secretary as spelt out in the Act. But I agree with the hon. Member that this overlap with the Chief Executive's functions could be regularised over time and it is possible, Sir, for the roles of the Secretary to be subsumed under the Chief Executive completely. I will move these amendments at an appropriate time, together with other amendments to AMLA.

Sir, currently, the Government funding covers the manpower cost of the President who also exercises the administrative role. With the appointment of the Chief Executive, his position will still be paid out of the funding provided by the Government. There could be a transition period but the eventual plan is for the President, as I mentioned in my speech, to be non-Executive, which means a non-salaried position, since this will be someone who is drawn from among our community leaders to contribute on a voluntary basis to become President of the Council. Hence, there is no cost involved, except maybe to provide some honorary allowance to the President, if necessary. So there may be a period of transition and this is something in which I will plan together with MUIS to ensure that the transition from the current structure to the new structure will be done smoothly.

Finally, Sir, I would like to thank the hon. Members of Parliament for their support, in particular the conviction expressed by Mdm Halimah on the intent and increase of the Minister's nominees which I have outlined in my speech earlier. Mr Othman Haron Eusofe has also asked me what are the priorities of MUIS.

MUIS, under the new President Haji Alami Musa, has launched a three-year plan. I think Malay Members of Parliament are familiar with the plan. There are many things in the plan which I cannot give you all the details. But suffice to say that the point that Mr Othman has raised in relation to MUIS' role - to guide the Muslim community to the proper path and the right interpretation of Islam - is one of the key roles of MUIS in the coming years. In fact, MUIS has continued to roll out plans, including the 10 attributes that Mr Othman alluded to, which is part of the Singapore Muslim identity project that we are undertaking currently to ensure that the Muslims in Singapore understand their position both as Muslim and Singaporean. Apart from that, the other areas of concern for us include religious education, reforms of both the part-time and full-time religious classes and, of course, the training of our religious leaders (Asatizah) to ensure that their skills continue to be upgraded and their knowledge continues to be increased so that they understand their role in a society such as Singapore.

Sir, I have also dealt at length on the concerns of the consultation process of the current amendments. So I have nothing further to add and I thank Mdm Halimah for raising those points. The review of AMLA is an on-going process to ensure that it will remain current and relevant. At this point in time, I would not commit myself to a date, but suffice for me to say that we are looking at some other issues in which changes to AMLA may have to be made. For example, we are facing the issue of minor marriages and teenage sexuality and, therefore, there may be a need for us to review AMLA periodically to see whether such an amendment is important for us to address some of these challenges. But if such an amendment needs to be done, we will certainly get the support of the community, because we need the community to understand why this needs

to be done and what is the role of the community in tackling some of the social challenges facing the community.

Sir, I think I have addressed most of the concerns.

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. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 -

Clause 4. There are three amendments. Amendment No. (1), Dr Yaacob.

Sir, may I seek your permission to move all the three amendments together, as they relate to the same issue?

Please do.

Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, line 28, to leave out "Minister may", and insert "Majlis may, with the approval of the Minister,";

In page 2, line 29, to leave out "Minister", and insert "Majlis"; and

In page 3, line 7, to leave out "Minister may", and insert "Majlis may, with the approval of the Minister,".

Sir, the reasons for the amendments have been outlined in my Second Reading speech earlier. The amendments will provide for the Majlis to appoint the Chief Executive of the Majlis, with the approval of the Minister.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments, read a Third time and passed.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.59 pm until 4.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Background

In 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attack there was an anthrax attack in the United States. As a result of the attack, thousands had to be treated for anthrax. Five people died as a result of the attack. Although the source of the anthrax spores

is not known, it is clear that they came from a sophisticated laboratory. The anthrax attack showed that there is a need to have a framework to control biological and toxic agents.

The public health dangers posed by infectious diseases like SARS, avian flu, and Nipah virus mean that there will be more laboratories doing research with such biological agents. When there are lapses in safety, workers in the laboratory can get infected. This happened in laboratories working with the SARS virus in China, Taiwan and Singapore. All three outbreaks were the result of lapses in laboratory practices. This highlights the importance of biosafety in our laboratories.

High containment laboratories are designed for handling dangerous pathogens. They are a vital part of the arsenal against emerging infectious diseases, where we can perform diagnosis and undertake research before, during and after an outbreak. High containment laboratories are also needed to strengthen Singapore's position as the leading biomedical hub in the region. What we cannot afford are lapses in laboratory design and practices that could endanger the laboratory workers and public health.

To this end, MOH has drawn up a comprehensive national biosafety framework to control the access to and usage of biological agents and toxins in high containment laboratories and to promote a safety culture in the industry. A key component of this framework is the Biological Agents and Toxins Bill (BAT Bill). The new Bill was drafted to regulate biological agents and toxins that are of public health concern, some of which could pose threats to biosecurity. The requirements in the Bill are in line with what is practised in developed countries like the United States and the United Kingdom.

Provisions of the BAT Bill

Sir, I would now like to introduce the proposed BAT Bill. In general, the first part of the proposed Bill deals with the requirements to be fulfilled before a biological agent can be imported or used; the second part of the proposed Bill outlines the duties and responsibilities of the operator of laboratories and those involved in the transportation of biological agents and toxins; while the third part of the Bill spells out the enforcement powers of the Director of Medical Services.

Control of biological agents and toxins

The biological agents and toxins are divided into five Schedules according to their risk to individual and public health. The classification takes into consideration the ability to cause death and illness, the availability of preventive measures and medical treatment and the potential to be used as agents of bioterrorism. The operator of the facility would need to obtain relevant permits and approvals from the Director before an agent can be imported or used.

Sir, although biosafety requirements may differ for different biological agents, there are a number of general provisions which apply across the board to all biological agents and toxins. These include the prohibition of the use of any biological agent or toxin for non-peaceful purpose and the transportation of any biological agent or toxin by postal mail or public transportation.

First, Second and Fifth Schedules

The biological agents listed in the First and Second Schedules and the toxins in the Fifth Schedule are subjected to more stringent regulatory requirements as they have greater potential to cause serious disease. There are a total of 93 such biological agents and five such toxins. Of these, 37 biological agents and all the

toxins are further identified to have specific bioterrorism risk.

Facilities handling these biological agents need to be certified that they are able to meet the engineering and procedural controls to ensure safe-handling in the laboratories. This certification will be carried out annually by external certifiers that are approved by MOH. In addition, facilities handling toxins and biological agents with bioterrorism potential need to be gazetted as protected places under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act.

Third and Fourth Schedules

The Third Schedule of the Bill comprises biological agents that are normally of low public health risk but require special attention when they are produced on a large scale. The Fourth Schedule covers the remaining infectious biological agents which are deemed to be of low public health concern as effective treatment and preventive measures are available. These biological agents are only subjected to importation control which is currently required under the Infectious Diseases Act.

Duties and responsibilities of the operator

The second part of the Bill defines the duties and responsibilities of the operator of a facility handling higher-risk biological agents and toxins and in the large-scale production of biological agents. The Bill requires the operator to appoint a biosafety committee and a biosafety coordinator. The Bill stipulates that the operator need to obtain the advice of the biosafety committee with regard to safety measures that are required and to ensure that these measures are implemented by the biosafety coordinator before any activity is carried out at the facility. The operator is also required to ensure that the facility is properly maintained, staff are properly trained, risk assessments are

carried out, safety measures are in place, proper inventory is kept and biological and toxin wastes are decontaminated before removal from the facility.

Transport of biological agents and toxins

The manner by which the more dangerous biological agents and toxins are transported within Singapore will also be regulated under this Bill. Vehicles used need to be affixed with biohazard labels. The Bill also requires drivers of these vehicles to be trained in the management of accidents involving biohazardous materials. This is in line with current practices involving transportation of other high-risk substances, such as toxic chemicals in Singapore. Packaging and labelling of the biological agents and toxins for transport will also be prescribed.

Enforcement

The Bill empowers the Director of Medical Services to investigate any lapses or suspected lapses in biosafety and to take necessary measures to rectify the situation. Where necessary, he can order the immediate cessation of any activities in the facility, destruction of the biological agents as well as the decontamination and closure of the facility. This is to ensure that timely action can be taken to minimise any threat to public health. In view of the possibility of serious outbreaks that could arise if one or more laboratory workers get infected, the Director is also empowered to subject any person who may have been exposed to the biological agent in the facility to medical examination, medical treatment and, where necessary, quarantine.

Penalties

The penalties proposed in the Bill vary according to the severity of the offences.

It ranges from a fine not exceeding $5,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months for lapses in fulfilling requirements for importation of a biological agent to a fine of $1 million and/or life imprisonment for deliberate offences related to the non-peaceful use of gazetted biological agents and toxins.

Exemptions

The provisions of the Bill will not apply in the clinical care setting where laboratory testing of samples, that may contain the Scheduled biological agents, is carried out for diagnostic purposes or when carrying out an autopsy to determine the cause of death. The collection of environmental or food samples to determine the presence of biological agents or toxins will also be exempted from the provisions of the Bill. This is to ensure that diagnostic services and public health investigations can proceed as normal and not curtailed in any way.

The use or possession of toxins in finished medicinal or cosmetic products, for example the use of botox by plastic surgeons and

biohazard waste contractors who handle biological agents or toxins as part of the disposal process, is also exempted from the requirements of the Bill.

Public consultation

My Ministry has consulted widely with the stakeholders in the drafting of the Bill. We engaged key players in the biomedical industry and researchers in tertiary institutions in dialogue sessions. They were briefed on the requirements of the proposed Bill, and in-depth discussions were held on the possible impact the provisions may have on their businesses and operations. The majority of the stakeholders agreed on the need for legislation to regulate the handling of biological agents and toxins. They were

also assured that the Ministry would continue to engage them to allow for smooth implementation of the provisions of the Bill.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, Sir, the provisions outlined in the proposed Biological Agents and Toxins Bill will establish a comprehensive legal framework to regulate the import and handling of high-risk biological agents and toxins to ensure complete coverage from acquisition to eventual disposal. It will enhance Singapore's international standing as a country with adequate infrastructure and systems in place to ensure the safety of workers in the biomedical industry. The proposed Bill will address pertinent issues related to laboratory safety and the risk of laboratory-acquired infections, and the security of biological agents and toxins that have potential to be used as agents of terror.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.33 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill.

The Biological Agents and Toxins Bill is an important piece of legislation. It represents one critical part of the armoury that we need to put in place under our national security framework. The key focus of this legislation is to enhance Singapore's biosafety and biosecurity. It aims to put in place measures to guard against the deliberate release of biological agents and toxins for malicious purposes or, as stated under clause 5 of the Bill, for non-peaceful purposes.

Clause 2 defines what is meant by non-peaceful purposes, by listing seven

situations. This includes using biological agents and toxins to cause death or endanger any person's life, create a serious risk to the health or the safety of the public or release into the environment, distribute or expose the public to any biological agents or toxins in order to cause damage or harm to the environment. So, the possession, use and development of biological agents or toxins for legitimate purposes, such as research work, are not prohibited. This Bill is our effort at prevention, by trying to reduce the risk of an attack and ensure higher standards in the handling of such materials.

If biological agents and toxins fall into the wrong hands, the destruction and dangers posed will be indescribable. At the Fourth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention held in Geneva, one expert described how dangerous biological weapons could be. He said:

"Biological weapons are immensely destructive. In the right environment, they can multiply, and so self-perpetuate. And they can naturally mutate, frustrating protective measures. Chemical weapons, for all their horrors, become less lethal as they are dispersed and diluted. But even the tiniest quantities of disease organisms can be lethal. For example, the botulinum toxin has been described as three times more potent than the chemical nerve agent Sarin."

Bioterrorism, Sir, is not a hypothetical threat. It became a harsh reality soon after September 11, when letters containing a refined preparation of dried anthrax spores were sent to the US mail, infecting more than 20 people and killing five. Although the damage in that attack was limited, it gave us a glimpse of the mayhem that could result from the use of biological weapons. So, I would like to applaud the Ministry of Health for proposing this Bill. This is indeed a far-sighted and strategically important move

to protect our people. It will enhance the security environment for our people.

Sir, as I was running through this Bill, I found a research paper published by Jonathan B Tucker from the US Institute of Peace very useful. Mr Tucker was also the biological weapons inspector in Iraq in February 1995. He suggested that good biosecurity standards should include the following elements:

Mechanisms to account for pathogens that are being stored, used during experiments or transferred or exported;

The regulation and licensing of facilities that work with dangerous pathogens;

Physical security at these locations; and

Procedures for screening laboratory personnel.

I notice that most of the provisions of the Biological Agents and Toxins Bill are focused around these four elements. There are, however, a number of clarifications, Sir, that I wish to seek.

Firstly, I note that the Bill requires every operator of a facility to appoint a biosafety committee comprising specified persons. The biosafety committee has the responsibility to formulate measures, policies, programmes and codes of practice for the operator of the facility to comply with. Members of the biosafety committee are also subject to penalties, if they give advice in a reckless, grossly negligent manner or in bad faith. Depending on the size, resources and capabilities of the facility operator, we can expect biosafety committees to have different capacities to formulate measures on biosafety in the facility.

This being the case, I wonder whether it will be more prudent for the Ministry of Health to come out with some standard guidelines which can be used by the biosafety committees and the facilities, subject to modifications to suit their own needs. The guidelines could be used as the reference point for all biosafety committees. I believe that, in this manner, there will be some consistency as well as some minimum standards for all facilities, as otherwise standards could fluctuate significantly from facility to facility. As these will be minimum standards, all facilities can be expected to reach for higher standards to protect their own interest. I believe that these guidelines will be useful, especially for smaller facilities, as the current Bill will cover all places, big or small, where biological agents or toxins are stored, used or developed, including both public and private laboratories.

Secondly, Sir, I wish to ask the Minister whether complying with this Bill will result in a significant cost increase for research bodies, hospitals, as well as laboratories operating these facilities. There will obviously be more paperwork now, as well as costs, in introducing the other measures required under this Act. Will insurance costs, for instance, shoot up for facility operators who would want to insure their risks, which have increased? The real issue, I suppose, is to ensure that the standards imposed reflect the balance between costs and risks. There is no doubt that biosafety and biosecurity are very important subjects, and we should have stringent measures in place. Nevertheless, increase in costs is one of the complaints that had been cited overseas when such measures were introduced.

The real concern here is whether the increase in costs will result in disincentives for companies or individuals wanting to do research on dangerous pathogens. If this happens, it will not be a positive development as, in today's

context, we certainly need to have more and not less research conducted on this subject. Hence, I would also like to urge the Ministry and the Senior Minister of State not to make it too expensive to register facilities as well as other licensing requirements under the Act.

Thirdly, Sir, this Bill alone is not sufficient to prepare Singaporeans for the dangers posed to them, if there is a biological weapons attack. In addition to this legislation, we should also include an effective medical and public health response programme as part of our overall strategy to deal with the possibility of such an attack. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether we already have such a programme in place, and whether we are also taking steps to educate Singaporeans on the dangers posed by a biological weapons attack, as my sense is that Singaporeans are generally more aware of the dangers posed by bombings and are not so sure on how to protect themselves against a biological weapons attack.

Fourthly, Sir, clause 6(3) provides that there could be uncertified facilities operating without the restrictions and conditions stipulated under the Act. The Senior Minister of State had cited a few examples, but could he also please clarify what other types of facilities can remain uncertified and therefore operate outside the ambit of this Act? What is the purpose of excluding them? What safeguards will be introduced with regard to the use and/or storage of biological agents and weapons in these places? Will these non-certified facilities be gazetted, so that there is transparency and people know that these are facilities which are not certified?

Finally, Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether there are any plans to work with other countries in the region, particularly those that have

not adopted any standards or the equivalent of this Bill. We may be very vigilant and supervise closely the facilities dealing with biological agents and toxins within our own borders. But if nothing is done to get other countries in the region to adopt the same standards, that could also weaken and undermine our efforts to keep Singapore safe. If other countries in the region have lax standards so that it is easy for biological agents and toxins to fall into the wrong hands and end up being used for non-peaceful purposes, these will undermine our efforts to protect ourselves. So, it is useful if there could be some collaboration in the region on this issue. I would appreciate the Senior Minister of State's comments on this.

On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand to speak in support of the Biological Agents and Toxins Bill.

This Bill is important and timely, in view of prevailing circumstances and developments. Yes, the prevailing situation where there is an ever-increasing number of laboratories, 100 or so presently, in Singapore; the opening of more high-safety laboratories dealing with biohazard materials; the emergence of infectious diseases, such as SARS, and, of course, the threats in our fight against bioterrorism.

Sir, establishment of laws on biosafety and biosecurity is not new and had been adopted by other developed countries, such as the United States and Britain. This Bill seeks to regulate the safe handling of biological agents and toxins, and to ensure that laboratories are responsible for safety standards and security measures, and to make sure all their staff is adequately trained to prevent mishaps. The safeguarding of the community from accident taking place is especially critical in a densely-populated small country like Singapore. Having well-

recognised biosecurity and biosafety standards in place would also boost the confidence of international scientists seeking to do research in Singapore.

May I ask the Senior Minister of State whether his Ministry has enough expertise and trained personnel to audit the 100 or so laboratories here in order to certify these laboratories when the Bill is enacted and when annual certification is required after that? How long will his Ministry take to certify all the laboratories? Are recruited safety-officers trained professionally to carry out their duties, and will they be well-protected with all the protection, such as vaccinations?

Sir, while molecular biology and genetic engineering are medical excellence when applied to fight diseases and advance mankind's needs, they can, in the wrong hands, be a real bane when misused to create bioweapons. Bioterrorism must always be a concern for one and all, and we should emphasise prudence and deterrence in all our approach when dealing with it. While it is our intention to support research and not to encumber it with rules and regulations, we must be able to identify and disrupt criminals and terrorists to safeguard our well-being.

May I ask the Senior Minister of State whether there should be more precautionary measures being taken on bioterrorism and national security? For instance, will there be judicious screening of certain foreign nationals for research work in sensitive areas? Should medical researchers working with potentially hazardous agents be registered? This Bill does not provide for this.

Should there also be consideration of a system in place to include the life sciences community in our national security threat? How does the Senior Minister of State ensure that laboratory biosecurity threats such as

misuse, diversion and unauthorised production of pathogens and toxins are always on the radar screens of surveillance and intelligence networks?

Clause 8(4) of this Bill stipulates that the permit for import or transhipment of First Schedule biological agent shall be limited to one consignment. May I ask the Senior Minister of State whether the term 'one consignment' can be rather vague and should not that quantity be specified? If the importer or transhipper wishes to have more in quantity, they ought to apply to the Director for the permit.

Clause 39(7) of this Bill states that the biosafety committees are to review their measures, policies, programmes and codes of practice every two years. Is a two-year time frame not too long as pace of progress may be so fast that such implemented measures, policies, programmes and codes of practice might quickly become outdated? A review ought to be carried out every year and it is up to the biosafety committee to decide whether to continue to adopt such measures, policies, programmes and codes of practice or to change them. Sir, the best way to protect against the effects of harmful incidents is to be prepared.

This Bill does not provide for contingency plans and emergency procedures to the hazard of agents and toxins being handled by laboratories during disasters. There should be a written contingency plan and a protocol for containment, management and reporting of accidents. May I also ask the Senior Minister of State whether our hospitals are equipped to treat infected individuals or those contaminated with hazardous agents in the event of laboratory mishaps? Should there be a designated higher risk hospital ward set aside to contain infectious diseases in order to prevent the spread to the community? And should there be special

medical personnel trained to cope with specific laboratory infectious agents in case of such an eventuality? So I hope the Senior Minister of State will enlighten this House on the issues raised.

4.50 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The enactment of the Biological Agents and Toxins Bill is timely for two reasons. Firstly, the legislation is in line with our goal to be a regional biomedical hub. To gain ground more quickly in this sector we need to increase our collaboration with the international scientific community. In order to attract world class researchers and organisations, we have to establish a good regulatory framework, supportive Government policies and the necessary infrastructure. The new laws will boost their confidence in our research environment, the quality of the work done here and help ensure the safety of their staff.

Secondly, we face the threats of bioterrorism, however remote the possibility. These measures will help to minimise and secure access to agents with bioterrorism potential. The bomb attacks in Bali a couple of weeks ago are chilling reminders of the danger terrorism poses. Terrorism will continue to be a grave problem in the near future.

Terrorists will use any means at their disposal to wreak damage and chaos. Thus, we must guard against this vigilantly. Our laws have to strike a balance keeping research safe and being too restrictive. Our legislation should not be so onerous that we discourage vital research work from being conducted here. However, we must be mindful that as we develop into a biomedical hub, more laboratories will be working with biological agents that could pose public health risk.

The necessity of legislation took on urgency after an incident here in 2003

when a staff was infected after he was exposed to the SARS virus in his laboratory. Soon after, there were two other similar reports of laboratory-acquired SARS in our region. These incidents highlighted the potential of laboratories becoming sources of outbreaks. As a result, most would agree with the need to regulate the safe handling of biological agents and toxins through legislation. This Bill follows the league of developed nations such as the United States and Britain which have established laws on biosafety and biosecurity. I am convinced, after reading the Bill, that we will have adequate measures to establish a high standard of biosafety in Singapore. These will minimise the probability of accidents like those I have mentioned earlier on.

The regulations are thorough covering the possession, import, transportation and the disposal of biological agents and toxins. They will ensure that the operators of facilities handling high risk agents put in place adequate measures and policies to maintain biosafety. It is also very reassuring to know that the Ministry will conduct regular audits to make sure that the laws are followed and safety standards being met. I am also pleased to note that a good degree of flexibility has been included in the legislation to address the issue of balance between safety and freedom of research. Measures to increase safety should not obstruct other essential operating systems within the laboratory. Neither should they hinder the researcher's ability to perform experiments in a timely manner. The agents have been categorised into five Schedules according to the ability to cause death and illness, the availability of preventive measures and treatment and their potential for bioterrorism. These criteria determine the degree of regulation. With this categorisation, we will be able to strike a better balance between allowing more latitude in the handling of low risk agents and greater restrictions for the more dangerous organisms.

Now that we have addressed the issue of biosafety, I would like to ask the Minister if we could do more to enhance biosecurity in Singapore. The objective of biosafety measures is to prevent the accidental release of dangerous agents and toxins, and, on the other hand, the aim of biosecurity measures is to prevent deliberate theft or diversion of purposes of biological terrorism or warfare. This Bill addresses both issues. However, I would like to request that the Government consider putting in place more substantial biosecurity measures in view of our rapid developments in the field of biomedical research. The reason is simple - there are national as well as international security issues involved here. For it is biosecurity or rather the inadequacy of which is what that worries me. Although the possibility of bio-terrorism occurring in Singapore at this point in time seems remote, a single incident could definitely be potentially devastating. We are an international travel and transit hub. Every year, we have 8.3 million foreign visitors, 80 of the world's airlines converge here through 3,900 scheduled weekly flights to more than 180 cities in 56 countries. More than 5 million air passengers stop over here.

Our reputation for safety in all aspects from health to low crime rates is an important asset which must be defended vigorously. We need substantial biosecurity guidelines for the physical protection, control and accounting of dangerous organisms. Security resources are, as we all know limited. However, in view of the lethal potential of certain agents, we need to deploy the best resources available from security technology to armed escorts to ensure that certain agents do not fall into the wrong hands. Insiders, those with approved access, would be the most difficult to guard against. They would be familiar with the protocols and security procedures, they could be motivated by

any number of reasons such as financial temptations or threats. I would like to ask the Minister whether we have a detailed and standardised personnel screening programme in place at all facilities to determine the integrity of the individuals seeking approval for handling higher risk agents or regular access to the facilities containing these agents. Do we have a human reliability programme which conducts regular background investigations? Do we have in place a framework to assess, protect and investigate the claims of maybe whistle blowers? Such policies and procedures should be uniform across similar facilities depending on the types of agents they deal with. They should not be left to the discretion of various management committees of the facilities.

Thus, in conclusion, to ensure high standards of biosafety and biosecurity we must establish uniform standards for the physical protection, control, accounting, and transportation security of listed agents and toxins together with personnel vetting procedures to ensure the reliability of scientists and workers granted access to these agents. This is regardless of whether the personnel are working for private or Government facilities. Equally high standard should be expected of the auditors as a flawed audit in the case of deadly pathogens would be a matter of life and death unlike failed audits in the world of businesses and commerce or charities for that matter.

With this, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would first like to thank Mdm Halimah Yacob, Dr Lily Neo and Dr Chong Weng Chiew for their support of the Biological Agents and Toxins Bill. Sir, while the Biological Agents and Toxins Bill enhances biosecurity in Singapore, it also regulates activities that are important to ensure safe practices in the handling of highly infectious agents and toxins. My Ministry, on the recommendation of the

National BioSafety Committee, which comprises members from key Ministries and agencies and members of the life sciences community, has adopted the latest WHO guidelines for laboratory biosafety and biosecurity. This set of international guidelines is not only comprehensive in addressing all aspects of biosafety and biosecurity but allows for flexibility to accommodate contemporary technologies and ever-changing approaches to achieving safety in the laboratory. This approach would ensure that there is a good balance between safety, security and cost.

Mdm Halimah wondered if the Ministry should come up with standardised guidelines for all laboratories. We have not done this because the laboratories can be quite different and we need to individualise the biosafety and biosecurity controls. To begin with, most of the agents listed in the First Schedule, Second Schedule, and Third Schedule as well as the toxic agents in the Fifth Schedule are agents that are not present in Singapore and we do not have the capabilities of dealing with them. Suppose a laboratory were to ask for permission to do research with the SARS virus. Before the permit is given, the laboratory will have to ensure that the people that it has are not just ordinary experts in microbiology or in viruses, but staff who have the proven capability of doing research with the SARS virus. These staff will form the biosafety committee and they would then draw up all the protocols that are required for dealing with that specific agent and only when it is satisfactory will the Ministry of Health give them a permit. And to ensure that these protocols are satisfactory, we will have external auditors audit the protocols, and the external auditors that we will call to audit the protocols must be experts in that area.

Since these are very specialised areas, it is not possible for the Ministry of Health

to draw standard guidelines and have these guidelines apply for all laboratories. A less dangerous agent like the dengue virus may require a different set of rules.

For example, with the dengue virus, we would not have the same public health danger of a community outbreak of dengue because of release of the virus. But with SARS, if one of the workers got infected with the SARS virus, you could have a risk of a community outbreak of SARS. So the protocols that are required for a laboratory that is going to deal with the SARS virus will have to be quite different from the protocol for a laboratory that is dealing with the dengue virus, and the protocol for the SARS virus will have to have detailed procedures on what to do if there was a lapse in biosafety. Hence, the importance and the need for biosafety committees.

The Sixth Schedule stipulates that there has to be a biosafety co-ordinator who is trained to implement the necessary measures at the facility so as to ensure biosafety and biosecurity. In addition, the committee must consist of a person having expertise in microbiology and knowledge in the physical and biological sciences and laboratory practices, thus are relevant to the agent that has been dealt with in that laboratory. The committee must also include senior management and a person responsible for maintenance of the laboratory. The committee has its own interest at stake as its members and fellow workers will be at risk if biosafety is compromised. The committee will be responsible to conduct risk assessment and draw up policies, programmes and codes of practices necessary for the safe handling of the biological agents and toxins. These would be reviewed at least once every two years, or earlier, if deemed necessary by the committee. Through external audit, the committee will be able to improve the biosafety culture in the laboratory and the standards in the laboratory.

Cost and paper work was Mdm Halimah's second concern. Since the biosafety committee will customise its measures to fit the laboratory, the paper work in administrative cost should be kept to what is considered necessary. My Ministry is mindful that unnecessary administrative cost should not be imposed. I am pleased to announce that the Ministry will not levy any administrative charges for the application of approvals and permits for the import and use of biological agents and toxins. Operators must ensure safe practices within the facility to protect laboratory workers as well as the environment. The cost of managing a biosafety breach leading to an outbreak of disease among laboratory workers, or in the community, is much higher than the cost of having good biosafety culture. So research companies with laboratories and insurance companies that are involved in this area insuring the facility will welcome needed biosafety measures.

I would now like to address Mdm Halimah's, Dr Chong's and Dr Neo's concerns over biosafety. In view of the potential dangers involving the use of certain biological agents and toxins for bioterrorism, the Bill has accorded more stringent requirements for facilities handling biological agents and toxins that have bioterrorism potential. For instance, in addition to the requirement for the facility working on such agents to be certified, the facility has to be gazetted as a protected place under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act, which means it will be working with the Ministry of Home Affairs very closely with regard to security concerns. To be a protected place, the facility must fulfil a set of security requirements which will limit access to the facility and all persons working at the facility would need to undergo security clearance. Access to the biological agents and toxins will also be

controlled and monitored through records and inventories. To ensure that there is no unauthorised production of biological agents, the facilities' inventories would be checked against their import permits and transferred notifications during the annual recertification exercise.

The Act also empowers my Ministry to enter, inspect and search any facility if there is a reason to suspect that there is a contravention of the Act. If such contravention has occurred, my Ministry can order the cessation of activities, closure of the facility, destruction of the biological agent or toxin concerned and the decontamination of the facility. As an additional measure to ensure public health, persons exposed to the biological agent or toxin can be quarantined.

Mdm Halimah asked why certain laboratories were excluded from certification. These are diagnostic laboratories. In a hospital, a person may come in with a chest infection and one may be testing the sputum for a variety of diseases, and one of the diseases could very well be anthrax, very rarely you may get a positive result. But such a laboratory would not be a laboratory doing research in anthrax, neither would such a diagnostic laboratory pose any public health hazard. So that is the reason why these diagnostic laboratories in a clinical setting where they test for viruses, other biological agents or toxins in samples taken from patients, are excluded from the certification process. Theoretically, if they get a positive result, there is, within that laboratory, a minute amount of the biological agent. But, in terms of risk, there is no major risk.

We would like to assure Mdm Halimah that my Ministry has worked with other Ministries and relevant agencies to formulate a comprehensive plan to respond to both natural disease outbreak as well as bioterrorism attacks. As stated yesterday by my Minister, in reply to Dr

Geh Min and Mdm Halimah's queries on MOH preparedness to cater for global and regional epidemics, including avian influenza, we have formulated various outbreak scenarios, including biosecurity breaches and biosafety breaches in laboratories, and have planned specific response strategies. Following SARS, we have significantly strengthened our capabilities and capacity to cope with outbreaks. We now have a more effective surveillance system and a response system in place.

In response to Dr Neo's query on the ability of hospitals to cope with mishaps involving hazardous agents, I am happy to say that the hospitals are already equipped to handle cases requiring decontamination and isolation following exposure to such agents. Isolation rooms are also available in all hospitals to cater for this.

In answer to Mdm Halimah's query on whether there are plans for Singapore to work with the region in biosafety and biosecurity measures, I am pleased to inform her that the process has already started. In April this year, my Ministry, through the Regional Emerging Disease Intervention (REDI) Centre, organised a two-day conference to launch the latest edition of WHO's Laboratory Biosafety Guidelines as well as to discuss concerns relating to biosecurity of infectious pathogens in the laboratory environment. Representatives from a total of nine countries from the Asia Pacific region attended the conference. There was a general consensus that laboratory biosafety and biosecurity are important issues, and each country would have to find the best way to address these issues. Through REDI and through the courses that WHO is running at REDI, we hope that the biosafety culture will spread in the laboratories in this region.

Dr Neo had a specific question on whether the quantity of the agent should

be specified. One reason why the permits do not specify the quantity of the agent is that because these agents will be grown in the research laboratory, the quantity will vary. So even if a small amount of the biological agent is taken to the research laboratory, they can then grow a lot of it. Instead, the permit is given for the importation of the biological agent and toxin on a consignment basis. So each time, there is a quantity of the agent going to the laboratory, we want to know about it and we want to have records of it. The quantity, even if it is small, can be cultured in the final laboratory and therefore the quantity can be much, much greater than what was actually imported. So that is why the permit is on a consignment basis which is more important than the actual quantity.

Sir, the biosecurity and biosafety culture strengthening process in our institutions is an ongoing process and we have been working on it quite diligently over the last three years even since the anthrax attack. With this Bill, another major step will be taken. But this is just a step in the process. We have to continue to strengthen our biosafety culture and the environment in all our laboratories.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek another clarification because I am still concerned about the consignment in specifying the amount? Researchers do not normally require big amounts because when big amounts are being transported from another place, we have to be wary what are they intended for. Are they being used by terrorists or for other purposes?

Sir, the agents are classified according to the Schedules. In terms of virus, no one carries large quantities of virus, because it is not carried by containers, etc. A small amount in a test tube will have enough virus to cause all the problems that you can think

of. So that is why we do not use measurable quantities that you expect like, say, one litre or two litres. But for each consignment imported, we need to know about it, and if you have a laboratory that can culture the virus, from one virus, you can get a billion viruses. So trying to control by quantifying the number of viruses that a laboratory can import is not a feasible method of control. That is why it is managed by consignment. However, in the Third Schedule, the agents are generally quite safe. But if large quantities are kept, then they can pose a danger. There is a limit to the quantity that they can have, which is ten litres.

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. - [Dr Balaji Sadasivan].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

5.15 pm

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

The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2005 comprises two groups of changes. The first provides for the income tax changes announced in this year's Budget Statement by the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance. The second group covers other amendments to the Income Tax Act arising from regular reviews to improve our income tax system.

A public consultation on the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill was conducted from 4th June to 3rd July. The draft Bill has been revised to incorporate suggestions from businesses and members of the public.

Let me first highlight the key tax policy changes that were announced in the 2005 Budget Statement.

Reduction of personal income tax rates

The top personal income tax rate will be reduced to 21% for the year of assessment 2006, and then to 20% for the year of assessment 2007. The marginal tax rates of the other income brackets will also be correspondingly reduced. These changes in tax rates are reflected in the Bill under clause 45.

Introduction of carry-back of capital allowances and trade losses

With effect from the year of assessment 2006, the unutilised capital allowances and trade losses of any taxpayer will, subject to conditions, be allowed to be carried back for set-off against the assessable income of that taxpayer for the immediately preceding year of assessment. Clause 26 provides for these changes.

Extension of tax concessions for qualifying debt securities (QDS) and tax exemption for individuals in respect of locally sourced investment income, to payments from Islamic debt securities

To encourage growth of Islamic finance in Singapore, the concessions under the QDS Scheme will be expanded to cover payments from Islamic debt securities. This extension will apply to QDS issued from 1st January 2005 to 31st December 2008.

The tax exemption on locally sourced investment income derived by individuals

will be extended from 1st January 2005 to include payments from Islamic debt securities. The existing conditions for QDS scheme and exemption for locally sourced investment income will continue to apply to amount payable from Islamic debt securities. Clauses 10(b), (f), (g), (h), (j), 28(c), (e), (f), (g), 34 and 36 provide for these incentives.

Tax exemption on specified income derived from funds held in any foreign account of a philanthropic purpose trust

To facilitate the administration of foreign philanthropic purpose trusts in Singapore, tax exemption will be granted on specified income from designated investments derived from funds or assets in the foreign accounts of a philanthropic trust administered by a trustee company in Singapore. This will apply to funds constituted on or after 18th February 2005. The specified income from designated investments derived from funds or assets of an eligible holding company establised for the purposes of that philanthropic trust, which are held for the foreign account of that trust, is also tax-exempt. This change is covered by clause 13 of the Bill.

Concessionary tax rate for specified income derived from organising or staging approved tourism event

To encourage companies to organise or stage more world-class events and activities, a concessionary tax rate of 10% will be granted in respect of specified income derived on or after 1st April 2005 by an approved company from organising or staging an approved tourism event. Clauses 35 and 47 provide for these changes.

Let me now move on to the second group of tax changes covered by this Bill. Our existing tax policies and incentive

schemes are reviewed regularly to ensure that they remain relevant. We are also constantly looking for ways to improve our tax administration. Let me highlight three major changes aimed at enhancing our policies in tax administration.

Advanced rulings system

To provide greater clarity and certainty to taxpayers, the advanced rulings system will be formalised and enshrined in law with effect from 1st January 2006. Any ruling issued under the advanced rulings system will bind the Comptroller of Income Tax to apply statutory provisions in the manner set out in the law. The amendments of the Act, provided by clauses 43, 44 and 46 of the Bill, also make clear the circumstances under which the Comptroller shall, may or may not provide the rulings.

Income tax treatment of a trust registered under the Business Trusts Act

With the introduction of the Business Trusts Act, the Income Tax Act needs to provide for the tax treatment of the income of a business trust. Any trust registered under the Business Trusts Act will be treated as a company under the one-tier corporate tax system with effect from the first year such a trust commences operation as a registered business trust. Based on this treatment, the income of a registered business trust will only be taxable at the trustee level and not at the unit-holder level. Clauses 10(f) and 21 of the Bill will amend the Act to provide for this tax treatment.

100% capital allowances for items of plant or machinery costing no more than $1,000 each

To reduce taxpayers' costs of compliance, the rules for computing capital allowances for assets costing not

more than $1,000 each have been simplified. These assets which are acquired during or after the basis period relating to year of assessment 2005 will be granted a 100% write-off, subject to conditions. Clause 17 of the Bill spells out the conditions for such claims.

Finally, 11 other changes have been incorporated into this Bill. As they are either technical in nature or relate to improvements in tax administration, I will not bring Members through the details of these remaining changes.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat.]

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 -

Clause 1. There is a proposed amendment standing in the name of Prof. Ivan Png. In his absence, Mr Steve Chia, I understand that you are moving the amendment. As the proposed amendment to this clause relates to other proposed amendments to subsequent clauses, I will allow you to raise matters relating to similar amendments to the later clauses now. Mr Steve Chia, you may speak on the amendments.

(on behalf of Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang): Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, line 31, to leave out "and 48", and insert ", 42, 48(b) and 49.

Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to raise the amendment on behalf of NMP, Prof. Ivan Png, who is currently on Parliamentary assignment to Geneva to attend the IPU conference. Thank you, Sir, also for allowing me to take all the three amendments in one speech. I am not an expert in the details, but I generally agree with the principle brought up by Prof. Ivan Png as outlined in his brief to me. So I gladly take on this assignment on his request to raise this amendment on his behalf.

Sir, a recent World Bank study rated Singapore as the second most business-friendly country in the world, behind New Zealand. We should now do our best to maintain, and even improve on our attractiveness to these businesses. One obvious and important way existing now - as we debate on the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill - is that we seek to cut down the weight of record-keeping for income taxpayers to a lesser burden by reducing the required number of years.

The current Act requires us taxpayers to keep 'sufficient records for a period of seven years from the year of assessment'. As the year of assessment is the year following the actual year of income and expenses, the Act in actual fact requires that all records be kept for up to at least eight years straight.

It is quite a burden to keep a lot of records for so many years and, therefore, it is onerous on the taxpayer. It is time to shorten this burden, especially considering that IRAS now receives information on salaries, dividends, profits, tax returns and many others electronically and online. This extensive computerisation of tax submission, processing and analysis have actually substantially speeded up IRAS work and helped reduce its workforce. It is now time to pass some of these accrued benefits back to taxpayers by lightening up their load and also cost in record keeping. Surely, by now, IRAS

need not force taxpayers to dig back eight years into their archives to retrieve those archaic records.

Anyway, Sir, we have also fallen behind other developed countries. Australia now requires record to be kept for five years after submission. The UK requirement is six years for limited companies, and five years for other companies. The US requirement ranges from three to seven years, depending on the nature of the records.

This record keeping requirement of the Income Tax Act also exceeds requirement under our Limitation Act, which specifies a six-year limit for actions in contract and tort. With various laws specifying different requirements, the hapless taxpayer ends up abiding by the most burdensome requirement.

Thus, the proposed amendments in clause 1, clause 26 and clause 47 and the new clause, seek to reduce the burden of record-keeping for all taxpayers, and especially to individuals and small businesses. They will also support the Government's initiative to simplify policies, procedures and practices for citizens. It will also serve to increase our attractiveness to entrepreneurship with our less cumbersome rules. Finally, it will also serve to bring our business record-keeping requirements closer to those of other advanced countries, as mentioned earlier.

The amendment to clause 1 makes a consequential amendment arising from the proposed amendments as detailed in the Order Paper Supplement.

The amendment to clause 26 aligns the provisions of the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill with the existing subsections: 10(17), 13A(8), 13B(8), 13E(10), 13H(16, 14B(10), 14M(23), 16(10), 74(1), 93(2), and 93A(1), all of which set a limit of six years, and not

seven years - for any additional requirement by the IRAS. This amendment is to make the new amendments consistent with the existing legislation (Cap. 163).

The proposed amendments to clause 47 and the addition of the new clause 'Amendment of Section 67' seek to reduce record-keeping to three years for small businesses - defined as those having gross receipts not exceeding S$100,000 - and for taxpayers with non-business income not exceeding S$100,000. This S$100,000 limit has been set by IRAS as qualification for the simplified two-line statement of business income. This amendment will also limit the record-keeping requirement for all other taxpayers to six years, as per the Limitation Act (Cap. 163).

The proposed amendments to the Income Tax (Amendment) Act are being raised now as Parliament seeks to deliberate on the various other amendments to the Income Tax Act. This proposed relief may also give us a leg up on New Zealand, in terms of business friendliness. So we hope the Minister, and fellow Parliamentarians, will seek to support the proposed amendments.

The Question is the amendment proposed by the Non-Constituency Member.

As the amendment to clause 1 is related to other proposed amendments indicated in the Order Paper Supplement, the debate on this amendment can range over similar amendments to subsequent clauses. When these subsequent clauses are reached, I will put the Questions on their amendments separately for the House to decide.

Mr Raymond Lim, do you wish to respond?

Sir, the proposed amendment to clause 1 relates to the subsequent proposal to amend clauses 26 and 47 and to insert a new clause to amend section 67 of the Income Tax Act. All these amendments relate to the record-keeping requirement under the ITA. I agree that the right balance must be struck between the need for enforcement and not making compliance cost too onerous. I should like to point out that the current six-year period limit for review of tax assessment under the Income Tax Act is in line with that laid out in the Limitation Act. Records have to be kept for seven years of assessment largely because Singapore's tax assessment is based on the preceding year's income. The seven-year record-keeping requirement supports the rights of IRAS to review tax assessment for six back years. Reducing the current record-keeping period will adversely affect IRAS' ability to recover taxes that are omitted, detect tax fraud and prevent revenue leakage. There are cases where IRAS has recovered tax from the six back years of assessment of up to $35 million. It would also reduce the window period available to the taxpayer for claiming relief in respect of any error or omission. Taxpayers with complex tax matters will have a shorter time to prepare and submit their tax computation to IRAS since IRAS will have to shorten the extension periods. Currently, close to 8,000 cases or 8% of corporate tax assessment are settled only in the fifth, sixth or seventh year.

Similarly, over 22,000 cases of individual tax assessments are settled in the fifth, sixth or seventh year.

While there may be merit to reduce the record-keeping period under the ITA, in line with some other jurisdictions, such a decision should not be made in haste. The records kept for income tax purposes are similar in nature to the records required in other legislation such as the Companies Act. Merely amending the ITA will not necessarily reduce the compliance

burden for businesses, if they are still required under other laws to keep records for a longer period of time. So, therefore, we need to do a holistic review to assess the implications of such an amendment, the possible tax leakages from this change, the real lessons from other jurisdictions and the impact of the amendment on other Acts. We also need to examine the transitional provisions required with such a change. While I agree that the record-keeping provision should be reduced as much as possible, it is neither sound nor prudent to simply apply what other jurisdictions are doing without carefully taking into account our own circumstances in Singapore.

So these are my reasons for not agreeing to the amendments at this stage. Rather than to rush to amend this, my Ministry will study this proposal and any changes arising from this review can then be incorporated into the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill next year.

As for clause 26, the reference to the seven year period in that clause is actually in relation to the introduction of the one-year carry back of losses and capital allowances. The utilisation of losses and capital allowances are carried back to previous year of assessment naturally implies that an additional back year's assessment has to be revised. This clause does not constitute a change to the current policy review period of six years.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 25 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 -

Sir, I beg to move,

In page 24, line 23 and in page 28, line 30, to leave out "7", and insert "6".

Sir, the reasons for the amendment are as outlined in my earlier speech on clause 26.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 27 to 46 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 -

Sir, I beg to move,

In page 46, to leave out lines 13, 14 and 15 and insert -

"47. The principal Act is amended -

by deleting the words "or 43S" in the following provisions and substituting in each case the words ", 43S, 43T or 43U":".

In page 46, after line 18, to insert -

"(b) immediately after the full-stop of sections 74(1), 93(2) and 93A(1), the following words:

"Notwithstanding sections 10(17), 13A(8), 13B(8), 13E(10), 13H(16), 14B(10), 14M(23), 16(10), 37E(8) and 37F(9), the period shall be within 3 years after the expiration thereof with respect to income from trade, business, profession or vocation if gross receipts from such trade, business, profession or vocation in the calendar year preceding the year of assessment did not exceed $100,000 and with respect to all other sources of income if such income in the calendar year preceding the year of assessment did not exceed $100,000.".".

Sir, the reasons for the amendments are as outlined in my earlier speech on clause 47.

Amendments negatived.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause -