Hansard, 2005-11-21

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 (2006) To (2006) Mr Lawrence Leow Chin Hin 21 Oct 22 Oct 30 Oct 04 Nov 14 Nov 18 Nov Dr Warren Lee 21 Oct 24 Oct 27 Oct 29 Oct 06 Nov 14 Nov 21 Nov 25 Nov 26 Nov 30 Nov Dr Balaji Sadasivan 23 Oct 28 Oct 20 Nov 27 Nov Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman 24 Oct 30 Oct 02 Nov 02 Nov 04 Nov 04 Nov 20 Nov 25 Nov Dr Ong Chit Chung 25 Oct 26 Oct 08 Nov 10 Nov 05 Dec 05 Dec 19 Dec 23 Dec Mr Wee Siew Kim 26 Oct 31 Oct 07 Nov 19 Dec 22 Nov 24 Nov 29 Nov 03 Dec Encik Yatiman Yusof 27 Oct 28 Oct Dr Lily Neo 29 Oct 30 Oct Mr Loh Meng See 29 Oct 31 Oct 17 Nov 19 Nov Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 30 Oct 30 Oct 07 Nov 10 Nov Mr Charles Chong 31 Oct 02 Nov 15 Nov 18 Nov Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng 31 Oct 03 Nov 21 Nov 21 Nov Dr Wang Kai Yuen 01 Nov 05 Nov 08 Nov 10 Nov 19 Nov 24 Nov 28 Nov 30 Nov Mr Sin Boon Ann 04 Nov 09 Nov Miss Penny Low 05 Nov 12 Nov Mr Abdullah Tarmugi 06 Nov 14 Nov 06 Dec 14 Dec 03 Jan 09 Jan Mr Goh Chok Tong 06 Nov 09 Nov 15 Nov 17 Nov 18 Nov 21 Nov Mdm Ho Geok Choo 06 Nov 09 Nov 17 Nov 21 Nov Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong 06 Nov 19 Nov Mr Zainudin Nordin 06 Nov 14 Nov Mr Lim Hng Kiang 07 Nov 09 Nov 14 Nov 19 Nov 22 Nov 23 Nov Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 09 Nov 11 Nov 22 Nov 26 Nov Mdm Halimah Yacob 09 Nov 18 Nov 22 Nov 23 Nov 06 Dec 10 Dec Dr Lee Boon Yang 09 Nov 12 Nov 15 Nov 19 Nov 25 Nov 27 Nov Mr Chew Heng Ching 12 Nov 17 Nov 24 Nov 26 Nov 02 Dec 04 Dec 08 Dec 14 Dec Mr Alexander Chan Meng Wah 13 Nov 20 Nov Mr Matthias Yao Chih 13 Nov 18 Nov Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 13 Nov 17 Nov 02 Dec 19 Dec Mr Ang Mong Seng 14 Nov 18 Nov Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 14 Nov 18 Nov 22 Nov 04 Dec Mr Lee Kuan Yew 14 Nov 23 Nov 04 Dec 07 Dec Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam 14 Nov 20 Nov Mr Wong Kan Seng 14 Nov 21 Nov 26 Nov 29 Nov 16 Dec 18 Dec Prof. S Jayakumar 15 Nov 17 Nov 28 Nov 30 Nov 02 Dec 05 Dec Mr Teo Chee Hean 15 Nov 20 Nov 11 Dec 22 Dec Mdm Cynthia Phua 16 Nov 19 Nov Mr Gan Kim Yong 16 Nov 19 Nov Mr Lee Hsien Loong 16 Nov 20 Nov 24 Nov 03 Dec Mr Yeo Cheow Tong 16 Nov 19 Nov 20 Nov 27 Nov 28 Nov 02 Dec Mr Chay Wai Chuen 17 Nov 20 Nov 22 Nov 08 Dec Dr Chong Weng Chiew 17 Nov 23 Nov Mr K Shanmugam 17 Nov 29 Nov Dr Ong Seh Hong 18 Nov 20 Nov Dr Teo Ho Pin 19 Nov 24 Nov Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 20 Nov 27 Nov Ms Indranee Rajah 21 Nov 21 Nov Dr Ng Eng Hen 21 Nov 25 Nov 30 Nov 02 Dec Dr John Chen Seow Phun 22 Nov 26 Nov Mr Lim Swee Say 22 Nov 23 Nov 27 Nov 04 Dec 09 Dec 18 Dec Mr Othman Haron Eusofe 22 Nov 23 Nov 22 Nov 26 Nov 30 Nov 04 Dec Mr S Iswaran 22 Nov 22 Nov Mr Teo Yock Ngee 22 Nov 26 Nov 16 Dec 18 Dec Mr Khaw Boon Wan 25 Nov 27 Nov 04 Dec 11 Dec Mr David T E Lim 27 Nov 30 Nov 03 Dec 08 Dec Mr Heng Chee How 27 Nov 03 Dec Mr Chan Soo Sen 28 Nov 04 Dec Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee 28 Nov 01 Dec 02 Dec 08 Dec 16 Dec 18 Dec 21 Dec 26 Dec Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 28 Nov 08 Dec 11 Dec 15 Dec 29 Dec 02 Jan Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 29 Nov 13 Dec Mr Seng Han Thong 30 Nov 03 Dec Dr Geh Min 01 Dec 04 Dec 25 Dec 04 Jan Mr Mah Bow Tan 02 Dec 08 Dec 15 Dec 20 Dec Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 05 Dec 13 Dec 25 Dec 31 Dec Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay 12 Dec 31 Dec

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

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

27th October,2005 (1) Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 9th November,2005 (1) Administration of Muslim Law (Amendment) Bill (2) Public Transport Council (Amendment) Bill (3) Biological Agents And Toxins Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Health, with regard to avian flu, how many young children and old people have taken vaccination jabs because they are, or intend to travel, overseas.

Mr Speaker, Sir,first, letme explain that avian influenza is caused by an avian virus, of which H5N1 is one such strain which is currently endemic among birds and poultry in many parts of the world. In Asia, H5N1 has been found to jump from chickens to human in a number of cases, but fortunately transmission remains inefficient. The risk is that H5N1 may mutate to become a human virus with far greater transmission capability among human beings, causing a global influenza pandemic.

At any one time, there are several predominant circulating strains of human influenza viruses. These are quite different from avian viruses, like H5N1. Fortunately, human influenza is usually a self-limiting illness. But serious complications may occur in certain high risk groups, like the elderly or those with chronic heart and lung diseases.

There are vaccines for human influenza. But because human influenza viruses constantly undergo minor genetic changes, WHO issues regular updates on the prevailing dominant strains in the northern or southern hemispheres. Based on these updates, vaccine producers will formulate influenza vaccines which are deemed to have the best chance of protection against the prevailing strains. These updates are made every six months. Following each WHO update, my Ministry would use the opportunity to issue advisories recommending influenza vaccination for the high-risk groups.

Young and healthy persons visiting temperate countries during the winter season are not in the high-risk group, but if they wish, they may receive influenza vaccination to reduce the risk of getting infected.

Let me stress that current influenza vaccine does not protect against the avian influenza virus. For those visiting countries affected by avian influenza, their best protection is to avoid contact with live poultry and avoid handling or eating undercooked poultry and eggs. And of course, keep a high standard of personal hygiene, including frequent and thorough hand-washing.

Mdm Phua asked for data on the number of Singaporeans who have received travel-related influenza vaccination. We do not keep track of such data. However, so far this year, our public hospitals have vaccinated some 400 young children and 4,000 elderly. Many more may have done so in the private clinics.

Sir, I understand that currently all the clinics have run out of the human influenza vaccines. The advice is for the elderly and children to have this jab before they travel. When will the nextstock come in and what is the quantity?

Sir, there is a temporary global shortage of human influenza vaccines. This is partly because, just like Singaporeans, many people in the West and other countries were mistaken that this vaccination will protect against bird flu which is now endemic among the poultry and birds. So there is a run on the vaccines which caused a temporary shortage. Members will recall that last year there were some production problems of one major vaccine supplier in UK. So several factors have compounded it.

For Singapore, our annual demand for human influenza vaccine is not big. I have looked at the data and last year, we consumed something like 200,000-odd doses. This year alone, we have used up 210,000 doses. But additional supplies have been coming in progressively. Another 40,000 doses will be coming in soon and they are coming in by batches. Somebody sent me an email to say that a particular polyclinic ran out of the vaccine but a few days later, after I responded to him, he said that he was able to get it.

My message remains the same: it is only for the high risk group. If everybody goes and chases for the vaccine, it will be like a run on a bank. If you belong to the high risk group, by all means, have the vaccination and, if it is recommended by GPs, I am sure they will ration accordingly. For the rest of the people, just stick to basic principles - keep a high standard of personal hygiene and stay away from live birds.

Sir, two supplementary questions. May I ask the Minister whether he concurs with the top local infectious diseaseexpert that vaccination with flu vaccine is a strong preventive measure to prevent the deadly H5N1 bird flu virus from mutating? Secondly, in view of the very limited supply of flu vaccines,could he procure the availability of more vaccines for the use of Singaporeans?

I have not seen scientific studies of human vaccines being able to protect against a new mutated virus, because how do you prove it. The virus has yet to appear and it remainsa hypothesis that this vaccine will protect againstsomething which you do not know how it will look like andhas yet to be seen. In healthcare, we have to go with evidence. Without any scientific evidence, I cannot make anyassessment one way or the other.

There may be speculation for various personal reasons such as wanting to up the sale of vaccines. At the population level, let us stick to the best practice and it is still human influenza vaccine only for the high- risk groups and bear in mind that, even then, it is only protection against the current strain of human influenza and it is not 100% effective. There have been studies which show that for adults taking the human influenza vaccine, protection may, at best, be 70-80%. So there are stillpeople who are down with influenza, let alone an unknown bird flu.

Whether we should stock up the vaccines, I think,is related to the first reply. If you are not sure of its efficacy and you stock up, then you may be just holding on to a stock which is useless. In fact, that underlines the great difficulty of vaccine suppliers. I have been studying the economics of vaccine production. Why is it that over the last 10-15 years, the number of vaccine producers has kept on shrinking? There are only a few suppliers in the world left because it is bad business. They have to stock up. They produce certain vaccines and every six months WHO issues new updates and so their vaccines may expire. If they overstock, they lose money, and if they understock, like now, the whole world is against them and asking why they did not stock up more. That is the problem of producing vaccines.

I have been studying this problem for quite some time because, if indeed there is a flu pandemic, I see as one of our key weaknesses, not only in Singapore but in many countries, a lack of domestic production capability for vaccines. But it is related to the economics of it. Unless it is a viable proposition, who wants to sink hundreds of millions of dollars building vaccine factories. But we may find it strategic to want to support some local production capability. This is one big headache which I am studying very closely now.

Sir, there have been some reports about deaths involving Japanese children after being vaccinated with the Tamiflu vaccine. I would like to ask the Minister for his comments whether the Tamiflu vaccine is still safe for use.

The observations by some Japanese doctors have been rather intriguing and global attention is on it now. One of the key tools in our toolbox against a possible flu pandemic is Tamiflu and all of us, like many other countries, are stocking up Tamiflu and if Tamiflu turns out to be a killer, in this case for children, it will be troublesome. The global attention is now on this observation. TheUS FDA has been studying it and will continue its study. Right now, in Singapore, I can only say that we have not received any such adverse reports. As far as I know, for the Tamifluused in Singapore, we have only received two adverse reports and those are the traditional ones, like vomiting, nausea,but not on this particular observation by some Japanese doctors that there were hallucinations leading to suicides by children.

Like all things, we have to see what is the cause and effect. If it is correlated because of some other reasons causing those deaths, that may be so. We are watching and in consultation with the US FDA and they have not banned this product or asked that it be withdrawn. We stand by those judgments by the experts.

2. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for National Development (a) what measures are in place to monitor the migratory birds that land in Singapore, to ensure that they are free from the avian flu; (b) what has been done to prevent these birds from infecting other birds in Singapore; and (c) whether the birds that are commonly found in Singapore, such as crows and mynahs, which live in close proximity to people, are safe.

Mr Speaker, Sir,to monitor and ensure migratory birds that land in Singapore are free from the avian influenza, AVA has put in place an active surveillance programme since August 2003. So far, samples taken from the migratory birds at Sungei Buloh Nature Reserve and Pulau Ubin have all tested negative for avian influenza.

Measures have also been taken to prevent migratory birds from infecting local poultry or ornamental birds. AVA requires our local poultry farms to be bird-proofed to prevent contacts between migratory birds and poultry. AVA inspects the farms regularly to make sure that the bio-security measures are strictly maintained. AVA also requires mainland residents to cage their pet poultry.

Since June 2005, it has banned poultry rearing on Pulau Ubin. Birds at the Jurong Birdpark and Singapore Zoo have been vaccinated against the avian influenza. The vaccination programme has also been extended to free-ranging birds in the Botanic Gardens and Sentosa.

AVA also carries out tests on dead birds submitted by the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the public. So far, the dead birds were mostly local birds, such as crows, mynahs, pigeons, and swallows, commonly found in our urban setting. Their samples have tested negative.

Sir, I wish to reassure the Member that Singapore is free from avian influenza, and AVA will continue to be vigilant and guard against the spreadof the disease into Singapore.

3. Dr Geh Min asked the Minister for National Development, in view of the risk of zoonotic diseases like avain flu increasing by contact between humans and wild animals, whether he will provide an update on the review of present laws relating to the wildlife trade.

Mr Speaker, Sir, wehave legal provisions in place to safeguard Singapore against zoonotic diseases such as the avian influenza and rabies that could be brought into the country through imported animals, birds and wildlife.

The Animals and Birds Act, for example, allows AVA to impose veterinary conditions on the import of animals. Depending on the animal species and the risks involved, AVA may impose import restrictions, set quarantine, testing and vaccination requirements, and require that proper health certificates be presented before allowing certain animals to be imported.

The Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act, or ESA in short, allows AVA to regulate the trade in endangered species of wildlife.

AVA officers work closely with the Police and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) on the ground to curb any illegal wildlife trade that might also bring zoonotic diseases into Singapore.

AVA regularly reviews and updates these trade controls and requirements to ensure that they remain relevant and effective. It has recently completed a review of the ESA. I will be introducing a Bill in today’s sitting to update the Act.

The Bill, when enacted, will enhance AVA’s powers to regulate trade in endangered wildlife,and thatwill also help reduce the risks of our exposure to such zoonotic diseases.

4. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Manpower if low-income or jobless Singaporeans who sold their HDB flats to get out of their debts and to downgrade, can be allowed to either (i) keep a percentage of the sales proceeds of their flat that now have to be returned to their CPF accounts; or (ii) loan from their own CPF accounts the sum of the sales proceeds that now have to be returned, and to arrange an instalment plan for the loan to be paid back into their CPF accounts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allowing low income or unemployed Singaporeans to keep part of the proceeds when they sell their HDB flats instead of returning to their CPF will deplete their CPF savings ahead of their retirement. This is not the best way to help them as it will undermine their post retirement needs in the long term. This might help them meet their daily needs for a while but we would be storing up bigger problems in the future. To allow them to loan from theirCPF is also not practical. They are unlikely to be able to repay the loans, even through instalments.

Instead, there are a number of financial schemes under the three ComCare pillars of ComCare Self Reliance, ComCare Grow and ComCare Enable to help needy Singaporeans, such as the Work Assistance Programme (WAP) and the Self-Reliance Programme (SReP). But we should also focus on measures to improve the opportunities for Singaporeans, to encourage them to find work, to stay in their jobs and to upgrade their skills. In this way, we will help them gain self sufficiency, help their families retain their dignity and self-esteem, while transmitting sound work values to their children and reinforcing the work ethic that has underpinned the success of our nation.

The Ministerial Committee for Low Wage Workers is working out schemes that will help such Singaporeans meet their short term needs through Workfare. One such proposal being studied, as recently announced by the Prime Minister, is the plan to pay a special one-off workfare bonus to low-income middle-age workers to encourage them to stay employed. More details will be released when the deliberations are completed.

Sir, while it is true that CPF savings are primarily for old age, can I ask the Minister whether it is also true that CPF savings are also used for investments which are risky? And according to the CPF website, 50% of total CPF investors in FY 2004 maderealised losses from their CPF investments. Would it not be more prudent to allow CPF investors to take out some of the money to pay their outstanding loans which attract high late payment interest rates as well as outstanding debts which would force them to turn to loan sharks? Would it not be more prudent for them to do that than to allow them to use the money to make risky investments?

Mr Speaker, I sympathise with the Member's concerns.To some extent, we have to also recognise that these are two different groups of people, ie, those who make investments tend to have excess in their CPF accounts, and like all investments,they thus have profits and losses and the risk has to be managed. Whereasthe particular group of people that the Member, Ms Irene Ng, was interested in are the low income workers and those who are jobless.For them, if we were to help them solve their daily problems by extending a loan to them through the CPF, it is consumption in nature, andwe would be storing up bigger problems in the long term.

Sir, a recent paper by Department of Statistics, based on the 2003 Household Expenditure Survey, found that households in the bottom 20% have accumulated an average home equity of $138,000 each. Sir, this asset is their only asset. Would it not make sense for us to help them to monetise this asset so that they will not be driven down the welfare route? It is totally consistent with our message of self-reliance, help them to get back on their own feet based on their own assets, so that they can later on start saving for their future again.

Sir,the Committee is looking at helping our Singaporeans monetisetheir property. One wayto do so is for them to downgrade, for example, to a smaller house so that they will be able to realise some cash that they may need. But Ms Irene Ng is talking about allowing them to withdraw from CPF, what rightfully belongs to the CPF, ahead of their retirement. This is quite a different proposition that the Member is proposing. AsI mentioned before, therearemany schemesavailable to help these lower income workers in Singapore. And I would encourage the Member to approach the relevant authorities forhelp, rather than to work on the CPF which is meant forold-age retirement.

5. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Manpower what solutions has the multi-Ministerial committee come up with to resolve the plethora of problems that 240,000 full-time and many more odd job, low income workers earning less than $1,000 per month are facing.

Sir, the Ministerial Committee on Low Wage Workers started work in July this year and released some initial recommendations for public consultation on 30th August 2005 under the broad strategy for Workfare. The recommendations have been generally well received by various stakeholders among workers, unions and employers as well ascommunity groups. Singaporeans have responded positively to the Workfare approach as they recognise that welfare is unsustainable and unproductive. Through Workfare, we will do our utmost to help and reward those who make an effort to find and keep a job and who upgrade themselves to earn more.

Keeping this broad principle in mind, the Committee proposed that Workfare should help low wage workers in sixareas. Firstly, to make work pay. These include the Workfare bonus and housing grants tied to work.Secondly,toprovide social support for work, to put in place programmes to help workers to take care of their dependants while they are at work.Thirdly,higher skills for better jobs, namely, to help low wage workers improve their skills so that they can keep their current jobs, or take on new ones. Fourthly,expand job opportunities by re-designing existing low paying jobs into higher productivity and better paying jobs.Fifthly, hope for the future. These include programmes to help children from the lower income familiesto complete their education so that they are better able to find and keep jobs in future.

Sixthly,sharing in the nation’s progress. Finally, when the economy is doing well, we will examine ways to share the fruits of our economic progress with the low income families in a way which is fair and helpful.

For those who are physically or mentally incapable of work, ComCare will continue to serve as the safety net.

The Committee recognises that Workfare can only succeed through collective efforts at every level of society. We have therefore been holding extensive consultations over the last few months to help us understand further problems faced by low wage workers and formulate and fine-tune our recommendations to help them.

The Committee will be releasing its report outlining the problems and challenges faced by low wage workers and the proposed measures to address these challenges in January next year.

Sir, on behalf of workers, like the low-wage workers, I would like to ask: can they expect to take home more cash soon from the work? Are they expected to have more take-home cash?

The key for the Committee is to focus on measures that are practical and sustainable. To allow workersto take home more salary without commensurate increase in productivity may not be sustainable in the long term. So the focus of the Committee, as I explained earlier, is on the six key areas to fundamentally help improve the productivity and the competitiveness of ourlow-wage workers so that they would be able to earn more and, as a result, they would be able to take home more pay.

Sir,with respect to the second point that the Minister of Statementioned just now on providing social support for work, would the Ministry consider providing eldercare leave since now we already have child sick leave. Providing eldercare leave will apply to workers who are a single child in a family and providing eldercare will help them to work and take care of their parents at the same time.

These are areas that we would look into. We thank the Member for the suggestion.

6. Dr Tan Sze Wee asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports if he will provide an update on the ComCare Fund for needy Singaporeans, and in particular (i) whether the fund has been used to address the needs of unemployed Singaporeans; (ii) whether the introduction of new programmes has been effective in addressing these needs; and (iii) whether any public education programmes have been introduced to raise awareness of the ComCare Fund to segments of the public who may be marginalised and are in need of assistance.

Mr Speaker, Sir,

the Prime Minister launched ComCare on 28th June this year to help provide a safety net for Singaporeans faced with hardship, and to ensure that no one is left behind.

From July to September 2005, the firstthree months of the operation of the ComCare Fund, ComCare had disbursed $8.7 million for nationwide social assistance programmes administered by MCYS and the Community Development Councils (CDCs). About 13,700 low-income households were helped by these programmes.

ComCare had also set aside $4 million to give the Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) more flexibility in meeting the needs of their residents. As at end September, the CCC ComCare Fund (CCF) had disbursed $663,600 to help about 5,400 distinct needy persons.

In addition, ComCare had pledged additional resources to empower the community to do more for the needy in their midst. Since its launch, ComCare has received 30 proposals for funding under the ComCare Enterprise Fund and the ComCare Social Support Projects Fund. Of these, five proposals have been approved for funding, and the rest are still under evaluation.

Helping the unemployed

Helpingthe unemployed is a key focus for the ComCare Fund. Under the ComCare Self-Reliance pillar, the Work Assistance Programme (WAP) is targeted at helping unemployed Singaporeans find employment and become self-sufficient. Families under WAP receive job-matching assistance as well as financial assistance to help them with their basic living needs. Between Julyand September 2005, about 1,900 families were helped under WAP. 40% of these are likely to find employment withinsix months. 60% of those who find employment are likely to be retained in their jobs.

To help the unemployed return to work, ComCare also provides assistance for childcare, kindergarten and student-care expenses under the Centre-based Financial Assistance Scheme for Childcare (CFAC), Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KIFAS), and Student Care Fee Assistance (SCFA).

Through the ComCare Enterprise Fund, we have also facilitated the creation of social enterprises, which are sustainable businesses with a social cause. Many of these social enterprises provide jobs for needy Singaporeans. From July to September 2005, about 100 people have been placed in social enterprise jobs through ComCare.

ComCare will continue to focus on ensuring sufficient help for needy Singaporeans. It will complement Workfare by providing the necessary supportive assistance so that needy Singaporeans can go to work.

Public education

Mr Speaker, Sir,we do not believe that it is necessary to spend money to advertise ComCare. Instead, it is more effective to work with the community. The community knows best who the truly needy residents are.

The People's Association and the CDCs have been organising briefings to update grassroots leaders on social assistance schemes and the different channels for assistance. More than 20 sub-sessions have been conducted since July this year.More sessions will be held over the next few months so that all our grassroots leaders involved in community assistance will know how to help those in needwho may approach them.

For the needy, all they need to know is to approach their CDC

or Citizens' Consultative Committee or Family Service Centres, if they need help. They do not need to know which scheme to apply for. These agencies will coordinate with one another, and help the needy person using the appropriate schemes and programmes that are available.

Justa point of clarification. From the CDC itself,I understand that about $663,000 has been disbursed to 500,400 people, which worked out to be $122 per person. To the low income who earn less than $1,000 a month, this is quite substantial. But fortheir daily needs, is this sufficient for them to cope until the tide turns against them? The second matter I would like to clarify is, for the social enterprise, what sort of programmes is the CDC assisting. Is it by providing seed capital so that the social enterprise can be started off?I bring this up becauseI have a friend who is actually unemployed. He has been approaching the CDC for eight months. They basically try to tell him to retrain, but he cannot get any job until the company that wants to employ him sends him for training and he has no money to start up an enterprise. That is onefeedback I have received,and I would like some clarification.

The Minister of State,Ministry of Manpower,mentioned just now that under ComCare, thereare three pillars. They areComCare Self-Reliance, ComCare Growth and ComCare EnAble. Sopeople go for help under the MCYS' traditional schemes, eg, public assistance, utilities, etc, as well asMOM's WAP schemeto help them getjobs.These schemes, more or less,help support them so that they canget jobs. But the $4 million that I mentioned about is for the CCCs,from which we have so far spent more than $600,000. Thisis on top of what we have done so farfor those Government schemes. It is a flexible scheme for the CCCs to decide. This scheme is normallyfor one-off payments. For example, they may need something for the children or they are trying to get a job but need a bus card and so on. This is one-off. Therefore, it is about $120. This is not a long-term welfare scheme.

As for social enterprises, I am sure hon. Members would know that MCYS has been promoting them since last year. We have about $3 million per year to promote them. Normally, what we do is that we give them seed money, capital grants, to start the business. The cap is about $300,000. Asto Dr Tan's question aboutthe individual going to the CDC and not being able to get anything, I haveheard from Mr Lim Swee Say that they have converted some jobs, such as those at the hawker centres. Whereas70% of the jobs were previously done by foreigners or illegal workers,80% of them are now done by Singaporeans. Therefore, if they really want to do something as a start, they should first try to get a job that maybe pays $1,000, andthey canupgrade themselves after that to get their own job. Social enterprise is more an informalor secondary economy sector. It is more complicated.

7. Mr Arthur Fong asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports given the incidents at National Kidney Foundation, Singapore Association of the Visually Handicapped and other charity bodies, (a) what will his Ministry do to stop or prevent the slide in Singaporeans' civic consciousness and generosity to donate to causes for the less fortunate; and (b) have the recent incidences raised skepticism and cynicism in Singaporeans who have been encouraged to do some part in helping the less fortunate in our society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the light of recent incidents in the charity sector, the public has become more concerned about the integrity and efficacy of programmes run by the charity organisations. This, in itself, is not a bad thing, if it helps to bring about a culture of "informed giving" and, in turn, encourages charities to higher standards of transparency and accountability to their donors.

I am glad to say that there is evidence to suggest that Singaporeans' trust in the charity sector and their willingness to help the less fortunate in our midst still remain high. Let me cite a few examples. Inthe President’s Challenge 2005, a noteworthy point is thatmost of its fund-raising activities occurredafter the NKF saga. Total donations to the President’s Challenge this year have reached more than $9.3 million so far. This is more than the $8.8 million that was raised last year. A number of Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) have also indicated that their fund-raising efforts have not been adversely affected. For example, in September, Tulips Heart Day, an event runby the Children’s Cancer Foundation, netted over $300,000, pretty much the same as what they achieved in 2004. More recently, the Singapore Cancer Society’s Charity Show 2005 received more than 180,000 calls and raised a total of $3.2 million, more than what it collected last year. I am very encouraged by these figures, and it shows that Singaporeans still carefor the well-being of the less fortunate in our society, and are stillprepared to donate generously to worthy causes.

But our charities are notstanding still. They are drawing useful lessons from the recent developments. In September this year, when I met 300 heads of charities, I was heartened to note that many of them had been proactively reviewing their internal processes in order to become more accountable and transparent todonors. The National Council of Social Services (NCSS) has alsobeen helping the VWOs to improve their governance and management through conducting training courses and providing consultancy support.The VWOs under NCSS have alsostarted discussions to explore thepossibility of peer review of the services that they are providingto their beneficiaries. The National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre is also stepping up efforts to educate the public so that they canmake informed decisions when donating their time or money. These areallinitiatives which we should welcome.

On its part, the Government has set up an Inter-Ministry Committee just last month in order toexplore ways to optimise ourregulatory processes. This Committee willmake recommendations for a more streamlined, effective and efficient regulatory framework for charities and Institutions of Public Character. I would like to emphasise that, whilst doing all these, we do notwant to stifle the growth of a vibrant and active community. Self-regulation by the voluntary welfare organisationsis the preferred approach. In the light of this, ourpreference isto adopt a "light-touch" approach in regulating charities.

8. Mr Ong Kian Min asked the Minister for Transport whether he will consider adjusting the operating hours of the Electronic Road Pricing gantries located near Handy Road and after the YMCA International House, which demarcate the Orchard Road area from the rest of the Central Business District (CBD), so that motorists will not be charged when travelling from the Orchard Road area to the rest of the CBD and vice versa.

9. Mr Ong Kian Min asked the Minister for Transport whether evening peak period northbound traffic along the Central Expressway (CTE) and other trunk roads has improved following the implementation of evening Electronic Road Pricing along the northbound CTE and, if so, whether he can provide some measurement of the improvement.

Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 8 and 9 together as they both deal with the use of ERP to manage congestion?

Yes, please.

Sir, Mr Ong asked if the ERP charges for the ERP gantries on Handy Road and outside the YMCA can be done away with so that motorists are not charged when going from Orchard Road into the CBD and vice-versa.

Sir, let me explain the purpose of these two gantries. They serve to demarcate two distinct ERP cordons, ie, one for the Central Business District, and the other for the Orchard Road area. The CBD consists primarily of offices, while Orchard Road is a shopping belt, and both have different traffic patterns.Having the two cordons enables the LTA to tailor ERP charges to manage the traffic demand in each cordon, based on its distinct traffic conditions. For example, since implementing the two cordons, the LTA has been able to lift ERP charges in the Orchard Road area during the weekday mornings, whereas full ERP charges are imposed for the CBD.

The ERP charges for the Handy Road gantry also serve to discourage motorists from driving through Orchard Road to other destinations, including the CBD. The aim is to improve traffic conditions on Orchard Road for the benefit of genuine shoppers. Hence, on weekday afternoons and evenings, motorists using Orchard Road to enter the CBD will have to pay more than those entering the CBD through other roads.

Since the change, the average travel speeds on Orchard Road on weekday evenings and on Saturday afternoons, have improved from about 17 kilometres per hourto 23 kilometres per hour.I would like to assure Mr Ong that, as with all other ERP gantries, the rates at these two gantries will be regularly reviewed and adjusted based on the traffic conditions, so that our roads are optimally used.

Sir, Mr Ong has also asked if the implementation of the ERP along the northbound CTE on weekday evenings has improved travel speeds. Average travel speeds during the most congested period, ie, 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm, have gone up significantly, from 28 kilometres per hour to 55 kilometres per hour.The average speeds of northbound traffic on the CTE stretch before the turn-off into the PIE have also improved, notwithstanding the heavier traffic on this stretch. The speeds here range from 45 kilometres per hour to 55 kilometres per hour instead of below 40 kilometres per hour previously.

While the average speeds on the alternative arterial roads have decreased, they are still within the optimal speed range of between 20 and30 kilometres per hour. For example, on the Thomson Road-Upper Thomson Road stretch, average speeds are about 24 kilometres per hour, compared with 30 kilometres per hourpreviously, while along Marymount Road, the average speeds are about 24 kilometres per hour, compared with 27 kilometres per hour previously.Finally, on theSerangoon Road-Upper Serangoon Road stretch, the speeds have come down slightly from about 22 kilometres per hour to just above 20 kilometres per hour.

Sir, LTA will continue to monitor the traffic situation closely.

Sir, the two Questions have been combined. With your indulgence, I have four supplementary questions.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State - now that the Orchard Road area and the CBD, ie, the Bras Basah and Raffles Place area,operate effectively as two separate ERP cordons, whereas they used to be one large continuous zone and there are also offices in the Orchard Road area, such as Temasek Holdings - foroffice workers who used to drive within the CBD for meetings without having to pay, whether the two-cordon CBD has affected travel patterns and business within the CBD.

Secondly, Sir, while we understand that the peak hours for the two zones are different, ie,during certain hours the CBD ERP should operate and during certain other hours the Orchard RoadERP should operate, whether the Minister of State can consider that, during the overlapping operation hours, the two said gantries should not charge, so that the two zones are effectively combined into one, as in the past.

Thirdly, Sir, whether the Minister of State has observed that traffic along Orchard Road during the evening ERP hours is very smooth, maybe even too smooth, as there is so little traffic. So, will the ERP charges or operation hours be tweaked or adjusted to allow a reasonable flow of traffic and bring in more shoppers and, thereby, helping retailers in the area?

Fourthly, Sir, whether the Minister of State has found anecdotal evidence or complaints that the congestion along the northbound CTE now extends to beyond the ERP operation hours into quite late at night, sometimes even to 10.30 pm and 11.00 pm, and whether this has made it more inconvenient for motorists to get home to be with their families and, if thecongestion persists, are there any plans to extend the ERP operation hours?

Sir, for the first two supplementary questions on the two cordons, basically this arrangement of having two adjacent cordons is new and we should really give it time to see how it works out. In addition to the quarterly rate reviews, the LTA will also review the overall effectiveness of the scheme and see if it needs to be improved after a year or so of operation. Also, as the two zones are actually quite well-served by buses and trains, motorists may want to consider using public transportation for inter-zone travelling.

As regards whether the traffic flow along Orchard Road during the evening ERP hours has been too smooth, based on LTA's data, the average travel speeds on Orchard Road on weekday evenings between 7.00 pmand 8.00 pm in Octoberwas about 23 kilometres per hour. And on Saturday evenings, the average speed recordedwas about 22 kilometres per hour. The ERP rates will be adjusted according to the traffic conditions during the quarterly reviews but, currently, the speeds are within the optimal speed range of between 20-30 kilometres per hour.

On Mr Ong's question about the implementation of the ERP on the CTE, LTA is monitoring the situation on the northbound CTE very closely. The current assessment is that traffic situation beyond 8.00 pm is still manageable. There are certainly some days where traffic speeds have dropped below the optimal range for short durations, but a consistent trend has not been established yet. It also depends, Sir, on whether there are occasions and events in the CTE, in particular, at Orchard Road. But, nonetheless, LTA will continue to monitor the traffic situationat the northbound CTE closely and will recommend additional measures to manage the congestion if a consistent trend has been established.

10. Miss Penny Low asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) if he will give a status update on Singapore's offer to be a regional disaster rescue and resource centre; (b) whether there is any scope or effort to develop Singapore into a hub for regional or global risks and resource management, given the info-communications technology, finance and logistics infrastructure of Singapore's knowledge-based economy; and (c) if so, what are the costs and benefits.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during last December's tsunami, Singapore had offered the UN its facilities for a regional coordination centre to help in the relief efforts.The UN was appreciative of our offer even though they did not take it up.

Following the tsunami, the UN is reviewing its logistics operations in the region. A joint UN team has visitedSingaporeas well as other countries in the region to assess the feasibility of setting up an Emergency Logistics Response Facility. Singapore is, of course, happy to support the UN if they are interested to base their facility here. We have indicated to them the areas where we can be helpful.

There is some potential for the UN and its affiliated agencies to leverage upon Singapore's regional hub status for disaster response management, given our strong logistics and communications infrastructure and well-known efficiency. In addition, there is some scope for cooperation with UN agencies interested in sharing information and knowledge in this specialised field. Our agencies, such as MOH and SCDF, already conduct various training courses related to emergency preparedness and disaster management in collaboration with international agencies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our efforts to support international agencies like the UN or others interested to base themselves here will be a logical extension of our role as a major transport, telecommunications and IT hub. But it is difficult to quantify the costs and benefits given that logistics needs in any crisis are by definition uncertain.For Singapore, the benefits will mainly come from the recognition of our useful role in helping the UN and their affiliated agencies. It will also complement the presence of our logistics multinational companies. However, we should bear in mind that we are a small country with limited resources. The UN has enormous needs.Sir, as a responsible member of the international community, where we can make a difference, we will try to be as helpful as we can.

11. Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance if he will make it a requirement for statutory boards to disclose salaries and other compensations of top employees on an annual basis, as is done in the civil service and public-listed companies.

Sir, requirements for financial disclosure by companies in Singapore are guided by the Financial Reporting Standards (FRS). In July 2004, FRS 24 was revised to explicitly require companies to disclose the remuneration of key management personnel in their financial statements for annual periods beginning on or after 1st January 2005.

The Government requires all statutory boards to comply with the same set of accounting standards that applies to companies in Singapore. Hence, all statutory boards will comply with FRS 24 and provide the necessary disclosure on remuneration of key management personnel.

12. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, with regard to the National Research & Development (R&D) Survey 2004, (a) what are the percentages of Singaporeans and naturalised Singaporeans who are (i) researchers with Master and PhD qualifications in the private and public R&D sectors (ii) full-time postgraduate students pursuing Master and PhD degree courses; and (b) if his Ministry plans to increase the number of Singaporeans pursuing Master and PhD degree courses and the number of Singaporean researchers in the private and public R&D sectors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, based on the findings of the 2004 National Research & Development (R&D) Survey, Singaporeans and naturalised Singaporeans made up 55% of the 2,073 researchers with Master degrees and 33% of the 3,282 researchers with PhDs in the public sector. In the private sector, Singaporeans made up 39% of the 2,831 researchers with Master degrees and 24% of the 781 researchers with PhDs. Singaporeans made up 24% of the 1,215 full-time postgraduate research students pursuing Master degrees; and 11% of the 2,490 full-time postgraduate research students pursuing PhDs, at the local universities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Member is aware, the public sector R&D takes place in three areas. First, in our universities; second, in MTI's research institutes; and third, in the other agencies in the other Ministries, for example, in the Ministry of Health, MINDEF and the Environment and Water Resources Ministry. As far as MTI is concerned, A*STAR's focus is to train PhD level research manpower for its research institutes (RIs) and to spin out these researchers at its RIs to the industry. We feel that there are too few Singaporean PhD researchers today. So one of A*STAR's goals is to develop a more balanced mix of nationalities at its RIs. It targets to increase the number of Singaporean PhD researchers at the RIs from about 175 today to about 500, or about 50% of the PhDs at the RIs, at a steady state. To this end, A*STAR established the National Science Scholarship (NSS) and A*STAR Graduate Scholarship (AGS) programmes. These scholarships and fellowships build the pipeline to grow the base of Singaporean PhDs. They are open to both Singaporeans and foreign citizens who intend to become Singaporeans.

Since the launch of the NSS and the AGS programmes in 2001 and 2003 respectively, A*STAR has awarded close to 600 scholarships and fellowships. A*STAR expects to award another 900 scholarships and fellowships in the next five years, ie, from 2006-2010. Of these, about 200 will have completed their PhD training by 2010.

13. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, with regard to the National Research & Development (R&D) Survey 2004, what are the specific research areas in terms of biomedical, engineering, electronics, water research, etc, that have accounted for the 30%, 29% and 41% of R&D expenditure by the Government, higher institutes and research institutes respectively.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government sector, higher education institutes and the public research institutes carry out research in the various areas, which can range from biomedical and related sciences, to engineering and technology. The distribution of the R&D expenditure across more than 20 Scienceand Technology fields for the different sectors, can be found in the 2004 National R&D Survey, copies of which have been distributed to the Members and also available on A*STAR’s website.

14. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the milestones and achievements of the Singapore BioImaging Consortium and Singapore Cancer Syndicate since they were set up in 2004 and 2002 respectively, (b) what are the specific milestones that have been set for the newly formed Stem Cell Consortium to achieve; and (c) if A*STAR plans to set up similar consortiums in areas other than the biomedical field.

Mr Speaker, Sir, A*STAR is increasingly using the consortium platform to build critical mass in specific strategic areas by forging research network among scientists at the A*STAR research institutes, the extramural community and the industry. The aim is to create and develop synergy and complementary expertise through collaborative projects.

Singapore BioImaging Consortium (SBIC)

The Singapore BioImaging Consortium was officially launched in May 2005. The Consortium aims to facilitate and promote cross-disciplinary research with a focus on Cancer, Metabolic Medicine and Regenerative Medicine, using thefour core technology platforms of Optical Imaging, Image Processing, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Development of Chemical/Biological Probes. The Consortium core facility is currently being outfitted with a Magnetic Resonance Imaging equipment and employment of key staff is underway. The core facility is anticipated to be opened by the first half of 2006. The Consortium has also conducted its first grant call to promote and support cross-disciplinary and cross-institutional research as well as to encourage novel, exploratory and developmental research.

Singapore Cancer Syndicate

Let me turn to the second Consortium. The Cancer Syndicate was established to develop a comprehensive cancer research pipeline that starts from basic science discovery to eventual therapeutic applications in the clinic for cancer patients. The Syndicate has brought about harmonisation of research objectives across the universities, hospitals and the research institutions. This has led to the adoption of common protocols that is contributing towards building a national cancer research programme.

Since its inception, the Cancer Syndicate has established research programmes, grouped around consortia that work together towards a common goal, for example, gastric cancer, paediatric oncology, liver cancer orclinical trials consortia.

Among the achievements for the Cancer Syndicate is the early engagement of the pharmaceutical industry to partner with syndicate consortia to bring in new and novel cancer therapies that can benefit our cancer patients. The Syndicate's goal is to improve cancer outcomes for Singaporeans through the use of these research platforms.

Singapore Stem Cell Consortium

Let me turn to the third consortium which is theSingapore Stem Cell Consortium. The establishment of this Consortium was endorsed by the Singapore Biomedical Sciences International Advisory Committee on 31st October this year. It is currently putting together a strategic plan to support translational research activities that can lead to therapeutic or commercial applications of stem cells. Some ideas under consideration are the setting up of a national stem cell bank and acurrent Good Manufacturing Practice facility to produce clinically compliant stem cells for clinical applications.

Outside of this biomedical field, A*STAR’s Scienceand Engineering Research Council (SERC) also supports this multi-disciplinary research approach through joint projects and consortia. An example is the Equipment Consortium which was set up in 2004 to address critical issues and to harness emerging technologies in precision equipment design, simulation and manufacturing. The SERC research institutes and 11 local enterprises from the equipment manufacturing sector aremembers ofthis consortium, which is supported by the Economic Development Board and the Singapore Industrial Automation Association.

15. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Health (a) why the death of a 49-year-old due to dengue on September 17, 2005 in the hospital was reported to his Ministry as a dengue-death-case only after one month in mid-October; and (b) is the Ministry's monitoring of infectious disease data accurate and up-to-date.

Sir, Mr Steve Chia cited a case of fatal dengue infection which was apparently only notified to my Ministry one month after the event. He has rightly asked why this was so, as it would suggest that our monitoring of infectious diseases might have been compromised. Let me assure him that nothing was amiss.

Dengue is a notifiable disease under the Infectious Diseases Act. All doctors are required to notify my Ministry within 24 hours after any diagnosis of dengue has been made. This is to enable prompt public health measures, including vector control measures by the National Environmental Agency, to be initiated to prevent further spread of the disease.

In this instance, the 49-year-old man visited Yishun Polyclinic on 12th September 2005. He was diagnosed as a dengue suspect and was referred to Tan Tock Seng Hospital's Emergency Department for further management. The polyclinic notified my Ministry the next day. On September 14, after verifyingthe details, my Ministry alerted NEA and vector control activities were initiated. On the same day, the patient made a second follow-up visit to Tan Tock Seng Hospitaland was admitted this time. On September 15, blood test confirmed the case as dengue. Unfortunately, his condition deteriorated and he died on September 17.

His death was subsequently reported to the Registry of Births and Deaths. We do not require doctors to re-notify dengue death cases as the necessary public health measures would already have been put in place.

Nonetheless, for statistical purposes, the Registry would compile and submit returns of dengue deaths to my Ministry. This is batched and done on a monthly basis. This particular patient’s death was included in the October data which was sent by the Registry. I presume this is the notification that Mr Chia was referring to.

16. Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts if he will relax regulations that prohibit Singaporeans from subscribing to satellite television.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the satellite TV policy has been debated several times in this House on previous occasions. The installation of satellite dishes for households has been disallowed to keep out undesirable content that is at odds with Singapore's multi-racial and multi-religious society. This was why we have built up the cable network nationwide, so that Singaporeans would nonetheless be able to subscribe and enjoy a wider range of television programmes. In terms of content and programming, the digital cable TV in operation today has the capacity to offer nearly as much choice as satellite television, not quite but nearly.

Nevertheless, the Government has constantly reviewed the satellite TV policy over the years, and where it was necessary to relax satellite TV regulations, the Government had done so. For instance, banks, financial institutions and commercial organisations with the need for time-sensitive information are already permitted to install satellite dishes to access satellite TV. More recently, we have also allowed hotels, tertiary and technical institutes, international schools and hospitals to have access to satellite TV for restricted use.

Sir, however, the reasons why we should prevent undesirable content from easy entry to the homes of Singaporeans through satellite dishes remain valid and important. In the face of increasing security challenges worldwide today, we must continue to be vigilant against external influences that may seek to split or divide our society.

Going forward, the Government will continue to constantly review the satellite TV policy to ensure that our regulations keep pace with technological developments and trends in the entertainment industry. The Media Development Authoritywill continue to work towards a regulatory environment that ensures a wider choice of TV content and range of broadcast platforms available in Singapore. But this must be guided by the need to remain vigilant and steadfast in our duty to safeguard the racial and religious harmony of our society. Until we can fully and viably address the potentially adverse social effects of allowing households to install satellite dishes, we will have to continue to disallow satellite dishes to be installed in our homes.

Sir, I thank the Minister for the answer. I have two supplementary questions. First, I understand that thereare a lot of choices available on cable TV. Indeed, there is even more content available on the Internet, as the Government has said so many times. Since we are not fearful of what is available on the Internet, we should not be fearful of what is available on satellite TV.

My supplementary question is this. Content is one issue. The other issue is choice and pricing. We have only one cable TV provider. Would the Ministry not consider the introduction of satellite TV from the point of view of competitiveness as well as from content? Namely, we have no way to make sure that our cable TV provider provides good choices atlow prices, because no one else wants to provide cable TV. The obvious way is a technologically neutral policy which admits satellite TV as a competitor to cable TV.

My second supplementary question is: does the Ministry also regulate the use of global positioning system (GPS) receivers in Singapore? Are there any restrictions in Singapore on the use of GPS receivers?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we should make a distinction between broadcast and what is available on the Internet. The fact thatSingaporeans have full access to theInternet and through broadband technology they have rapid access to almost any content that is available on the Internet does not mean that we should try to replicate everything that goes onin the Internet in our broadcast environment, which is very much a part of our public arena.The Internet, while it is freely accessible, is still a matter ofindividual choice of which website he wants to access and what services he wants to look for. I think we should not try to replicate everything that is on the Internet in any of our public arena just because people have access to the Internet.

On competition, I agree with the Nominated Member of Parliament that we should try as far as possible to have more competition in our pay TV sector. Members will recall that in 2003 when the monopoly for the Singapore Cable Vision's pay TV service came to an end, my Ministry, in fact, issued an invitation for bidders to a second pay TV licence. On hindsight, Mr Speaker, Sir, the timing was not perfect. We had just come through the regional economic downturn compounded by the appearance of SARS in early 2003.The economic scenario was rather bleak at that point in time. So it was not surprising therefore that there were no interested parties bidding for the second pay TV licence. We said at that time when the outcome of the exercise became known that there was no bidder,that we would continue to explore the possibility of introducing a second pay TV operator. And the purpose is, of course,exactlywhat the Member is suggesting - introduce competition in the pay TV market so that consumers in Singapore can have more choices and, hopefully, through competition, there will be even a greater variety of content made available to our consumers.

Let me assure this House that my Ministry is continuing to examine the possibility of introducing a second TV operator and we will considerall the various technological platforms that are available for a second TV operator to be commercially viable and successful.

On the regulation of GPS receivers, I think it is not quite related to TV RO. I believe that GPS receivers are already available in Singapore. Cars are equipped with such GPS devices to help drivers navigate. There are many other applications where GPS receivers are installed. I do not think that they are in the same kettle of fish as satellite TV ROs.

I thank the Minister for the answer. I just want to reiterate to the Ministerthat we know there is very little economic ground for another pay cable TV operator to come in, because they just cannot earn the required return on investment of the network. That is why I have asked the Minister to please consider using satellite TV as the way to ensure good enough competition with the cable TV company.

Sir, we do understand that to specify a second pay TV operator should also install a fibre network is not a commercially attractive proposition because the cost is quite high. So we are prepared to examine various alternatives. That is why I mentioned earlier on that we will study the different technological platforms that can enable a second pay TV operator to roll out his service.

Sir, thank you for your indulgence. I just want to raise a point of clarification. I think the point was made earlier that if there is very little restriction toaccess on content in the Internet, why can the Government not allow people to then subscribe for satellite television if they are broadcast from outside of Singapore? Because, equally, you have access to content that would otherwise be available on the Internet.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my explanation is that we should try to make a distinction. The Internet has grown to become a very pervasive medium, reaching globally to all communities. There are lots of good aspects and there are also a lot of bad aspects of the Internet. But we leave it to people in the privacy of their homes and working on their computers to decide how they want to access this medium and what they want to have delivered to themselves through the Internet. In the case of parents who are concerned with their children's access to the Internet, we have always advised them that when they sign up for Internet access from their households, they shouldsign up for what is called family-friendly access network where the Internet service provider will ensure that their children do not have access to undesirable contents. So there is this element which will enable parents protect their children from the undesirable side of the Internet.

Having said that, we concede that there is no way that we could effectively regulate what goes on on the Internet, because that was how the Internet was designed to be beyond most regulation. In terms of content, we have only salutarily blocked access to 100 websites. In fact, a recent study by a group called the Open Network Initiative in the US showed that in Singapore, there is hardly anyobstruction created by the regulator for access to the Internet and that we are truly an open network society. But that does not mean that we should allow the broadcast media to adopt the same approach to broadcast anything directly into the homes of our people. I think that is a totally different matter. Of course, we also understand that with technology evolving so rapidly, maybe one day it may not be possible for the Government to even regulate access to satellite television content. When that day comes about, we will then review our policy again and see how we deal with the situation. As of now, it is still within our ability to regulate the installation of satellite dishes for direct access to TV broadcast and we will continue to do so for the time being.

17. Mr Andy Gan Lai Chiang asked the Minister for Transport whether Singapore is still the main port of call despite competition from ports in neighbouring countries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to inform Members that the Singapore port has continued to perform well in the first nine months of 2005. Shipping tonnage is up 10.1%, cargo throughput up 8.8%, and bunker sales up 9.2% compared to the same period last year. 2004 itself was a record year for the Singapore port. In 2004, total tonnage crossed the one-billion tonne mark for the first time to reach 1.04 billion gross tonnes, and we maintained our position as the world’s top bunkering port with a record 23.5 million tonnes of bunker supplied.

Notably, with more than 17 million TEUs of containers handled in the first nine months of this year, we are likely to overtake Hong Kong to become the world’s busiest container port this year. At 9.8%, our container throughput growth was higher than the growth rates of 2.1% and 4.2% recorded by the Hong Kong port and Malaysia’s Port Klang respectively for the same period. It also compares favourably with the Port of Tanjung Pelepas’ announced growth rate of 3.4% for the first half of this year.

Nevertheless, competition remains keen, with regional neighbours competing hard to increase their share of the container transhipment business. PSA and Jurong Port will continue to upgrade their facilities and improve their efficiency and cost structure to meet the needs of their customers. We are therefore confident that we will remain the port of choice in the region.

Order. I wish to welcome the Delegation from the European Parliament led by Mr Hartmut Nassauer, Chairperson of the Delegation for Relationships with countries of South East Asia and ASEAN, who is in our House right at the moment. [Applause].

18. Mr Andy Gan Lai Chiang asked the Minister for Transport whether the plan to turn Singapore into a maritime centre is receiving support from the shipping community.

Sir, our efforts to promote Singapore as an International Maritime Centre (IMC) have indeed been receiving strong support from our industry partners. In the last few years, we have made good progress and our overtures to companies have met with very positive responses.

One key element to a successful IMC is having a core group of ship owners and maritime operators based in Singapore. In this respect, our fiscal incentive schemes have been very successful. To date, the schemes have encouraged more than 60 reputable international shipping groups from diverse industry segments to base their operations here. This year alone saw another 20 new companies added to these schemes. Feedback from some of these that have relocated here indicates that they have chosen Singapore because of our supportive policies and conducive and stable business environment.

We also have encouraging response from the industry to our manpower development, industry upgrading and R&D promotion efforts. Programmes such as the Maritime Cluster Fund, Maritime Enterprise IT Development (MERIT) Programme and Maritime Innovation and Technology (MINT) Fund enjoy strong take-up rates. Companies find these schemes beneficial, and have been tapping into them to upgrade the skills of their employees, improve their IT systems and develop their R&D capabilities. To date, about 2,000 employees from more than 500 maritime-related companies have benefited from training grants or co-sponsorships for short courses, advanced diplomas, Master degree programmes and overseas attachments. 125 applications from maritime SMEs have been approved under the MERIT Programme. We have also launched a full suite of manpower development programmes, including the Seafaring Alternative - an Investment for Life (SAIL) Scholarship and Tripartite Maritime Scholarship Schemes. These programmes are conducted in partnership with the industry.

Besides companies, industry associations such as the Singapore Maritime Foundation (SMF) and Singapore Shipping Association have also contributed enthusiastically in support of our efforts. They play a valuable role in consolidating the industry's views and providing valuable feedback to the Government, as well as leading and updating their members on the Government's initiatives. This June, SMF led a delegation to the Norshipping Conference at Oslo where Singapore's capabilities were showcased. Their active participation in dialogues with the Maritimeand Port Authority of Singapore and the relevant industry groups have helped create a more conducive business environment. Likewise, efforts are directed at promoting careers within the maritime industry.

While we are still at an early stage compared to mature maritime centres like London, things are moving at a suitably quick pace and in the right direction. Already, companies under our Approved International Shipping (AIS) and Approved Shipping Logistics (ASL) schemes generate business spending in excess of S$2.5 billion annually. The Singapore Registry of Ships has moved up to become the fifth largest registry in the world, with more than 3,100 vessels totalling 31.7 million gross tonnes. Apart from the conventional shipping activities, the Government is also actively gearing up the ancillary service infrastructure. This would include maritime insurance, arbitration, ship financing and derivatives trading.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our IMC efforts are therefore progressing well, as a result of excellent support from the industry. My Ministry will continue to develop this close partnership to bring Singapore's maritime sector into its next stage of growth.

19. Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang asked the Minister for Transport if he will work with the Malaysian Government to generally liberalise air services between Malaysia and Singapore, and specifically to (a) abolish the "revenue pool" on the Kuala Lumpur to Singapore air route, as it inhibits market competition; and (b) facilitate multi-mode travel, for instance, arrangements combining travel by bus and air.

Sir, Singapore has always adopted an open aviation policy that seeks to maximise air links with other countries for mutual benefit. We have always been prepared to liberalise our Air Services Agreement (ASA) with Malaysia to establish more air links between our two countries.

During PM's visit to Malaysia in October 2004, PM and Malaysian PM Abdullah Badawi had agreed to expand cooperation in air transport. Mr Yeo Cheow Tong had also visited his Malaysian counterpart, Transport Minister Dato' Chan Kong Choy last year, and they agreed that it would be timely for both sides to review our bilateral Air Services Agreement, which was last expanded in 1980. Since then, our officials have held preliminary discussions to expand the air links. We have also invited Minister Chan to visit Singapore for further discussions.

Sir, a more liberal Air Services Agreement would allow carriers from both sides to expand their operations between Singapore and both Peninsular and East Malaysia. It would also pave the way for new Singapore and Malaysian carriers to serve the market. The travelling public will then benefit from a wider choice of carriers and destinations, as well as more competitive fares. More air links will generate greater economic benefits for both countries as well as the region through increased tourism, trade and investments. Singapore and Malaysia can also help bring about a more liberal aviation regime in ASEAN by taking the lead and moving ahead of ASEAN's goal of lifting all restrictions on passenger flights between the ASEAN capital cities by 2008.

Prof. Ivan Png has asked if the existing "revenue pool" arrangement between SIA and Malaysian Airlines on the Singapore-Kuala Lumpur route would be abolished as this may be inhibiting market competition. Let me provide some background information on this "revenue pool" arrangement. SIA and Malaysian Airlines first entered into this arrangement in September 1988 to divide their combined revenues from their Singapore-KL operations. The objective was for both airlines to share capacity and to coordinate flight timings in order to provide frequent and regular operations for the Singapore-KL route. Today, the two airlines operate a combined total of 13 frequencies per day, ie, almost an hourly service by SIA or Malaysian Airlines between 6.00 in the morning and 11.00 at night. As this "revenue pooling arrangement" is a commercial agreement between SIA and Malaysian Airlines, itis best for the two airlines to decide on whether to continuewith this arrangement, based on their own commercial considerations.

Sir, this arrangement, however, does not prevent other approved carriers from operating services between Singapore and Malaysia. Besides SIA and Malaysian Airlines, other carriers such as Japan Airlines currently operate a total of two daily services between Singapore and KL. Singapore is prepared to allow other carriers from both countries to operate on the Singapore-KL route, as well as to other points in Malaysia but this will require the agreement of the Malaysian side. I therefore hope that both sides can meet soon to expand bilateral air services for the benefit of the travelling public.

Prof. Ivan Png has also asked about facilitating multi-mode travel. We would be happy to explore this where it makes sense and it is in our national interests. In any case, there are already extensive road transport services linking Singapore and Peninsular Malaysia.

Sir,is the Minister aware that as a result of the revenue pool, there are fewer flights between Singapore and KL, and the prices are higher than even more distant destinations such as Singapore-Bangkok orSingapore-Jakarta?Would the Minister please comment on the usual way to undermine a cartel, such as this revenue pool, is through the entry of competition? Competition is now limited on the KL side, according to the Minister. But if we allow low-cost carriers to operate a combination of bus plus air services through Senai Airport, this would be a way by which the consumers - theSingapore travelling public -can enjoy low-cost fares to Kuala Lumpur, and the additional benefit of undermining this revenue pool that SIA and MAS are holding up.

Sir, for the Member's interest, there was actually an expansion of airline operationson what we would term as an extra bilateral basis, and this was done in March 2005 where SIA, SilkAir and Malaysian Airlines actually mounted additional services in response to the demand. So I am not aware of a reduction in the number of services. But beyond this, these extra bilateral arrangements are not unique to the Singapore-Malaysia route, and are really meant to facilitate air services in general. The existing G-to-G Air Services Agreement currently does not provide for such services and would necessarily have to bereviewed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this issue of the revenue pooling between the two airlines of Singapore and Malaysia is not a new issue. But can I ask why is it that in this era of competition and trade liberalisation, we are still allowing the two airlines to have this archaic policy of revenue sharing which, in fact, results in higher prices for travellers commuting between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur? Does it not appear ludicrousto the Minister of State that it is in fact cheaper to fly from Singapore to Bangkok than to fly from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur?

Sir,airline operators would have to decide on the commercial arrangements that best fit the needs whilst at the same time, as a country, we need to ensure thatall air rights are fully utilised.The policy of the Ministry of Transport is one of encouraging all carriers to operate on the Singapore-Malaysia route and, as it is, this route is not dominated by Singapore Airlines and Malaysian Airlines. This is strictly a commercial arrangement and it is quite similar to the different code-share arrangements that other airlines have on other segments as well. As the Member would know, pricing for any one sector is not strictly by distance and it is more a question of supply and demand. And, therefore, a comparison between the pricing of a service from Singapore to Bangkok with that from Singapore to KL is not entirely comparable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister of State believe that it is in the interest oftravellers between the two countries to allow what is essentially a cartel made up of MAS and SIA to exist? Because although she says that there are other carriers that ply this route, in effect, these other airlines are not having the same frequency of flights as SIA and MAS. And at any rate, the times at which they fly off are not really practical for most people, particularly business people.

You have two minutes, Mrs Lim.

Sir, this is really ultimately a question of allocation of air rights to the different operators operating on the route. The solution is not to re-allocate the air rights. The solution is to seek greater air rights so that we can cater to the underlying demand that is currently not satisfied.

20. Dr Geh Min asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what will be the environmental impact of Power Seraya's switch to Orimulsion for three of its power generators; (b) if an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was done; and (c) if so, whether the results of this study can be made available.

Sir, in 2001, Power Seraya proposed to retrofit three of its fuel oil electricity generating units to use orimulsion. As with all major industrial and power plant projects, Power Seraya was required to conduct an environmental Pollution Control Study (PCS) to assess the environmental pollution impact of the proposed retrofitting. Power Seraya engaged a specialist consultant to prepare a PCS report which is available for public access from Power Seraya on a request basis.

The PCS report ascertained that without pollution control, the combustion of orimulsion would emit higher levels of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM) than fuel oil currently permitted for use in electricity generation in Singapore. It therefore recommended appropriate pollution control measures to mitigate these impacts.

These measures include installing (i) flue gas desulphurisation equipment to remove SO2 in the flue gas and convert it into calcium sulphate, which is a useful product commonly known as gypsum; and (ii) high-efficiency electrostatic precipitators to remove PM in the flue gas.

With these equipment, the use of orimulsion by Power Seraya would not only comply with the pollution standards stipulated in the Environmental Pollution Control Act (EPCA) and its Regulations, the SO2 and PM emissions would be 70% and 60% lower than fuel oil power plants respectively. NEA therefore approved Power Seraya's proposal.

Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 20and26 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 21-25 and27-29have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

* Cols.1929-1932.

"to provide for the oversight of payment systems and stored value facilities, to make related amendments to the Banking Act (Chapter 19 of the 2003 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Companies Act (Chapter 50 of the 1994 Revised Edition) and the Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276 of the 2004 Revised Edition), and for matters connected therewith",

presented by the Minister forEducation (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act (Chapter185 of the 2001 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws",

presented by the Senior Minister of State forHome Affairs(Assoc. Prof.Ho Peng Kee); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Intoxicating Substances Act (Chapter146A of the 2001 Revised Edition)",

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

"to amend the Road Traffic Act(Chapter 276 of the 1997 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister of State forTransport (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act(Chapter92A of the2000 Revised Edition) so as to give effect to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora by controlling the importation, exportation, re-exportation and introduction from the sea of certain animals and plants, and parts and derivatives of such animals and plants, and for matters connected therewith",

presented by the Minister of State forNational Development (Mr Heng Chee How); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Singapore Armed Forces Act (Chapter 295 of the2000 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister forDefence (Mr Teo Chee Hean); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.03 pm

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

Objective

Sir, the Competition Act ('the Act') was passed by this House on 19th October 2004. We are now implementing the Act in phases. Under Phase One, the Competition Commission of Singapore(CCS) was set up on 1st January this year. During the course of this year, CCS has been preparing for the implementation of sections 34 and 47 of the Act which will come into effect on 1st January 2006. These two sections respectively prohibit anti-competitive agreements and the abuse of a dominant position. The provisions on investigation, enforcement and appeal will also come into effect on 1st January next year. The CCS has issued10 guidelines for public consultation, which will be finalised by December this year.

During the course of preparation for implementation of the Act, it was found that the Act had to be amended to enable CCS to carry out its enforcement duties effectively. Let me now explain the proposed amendments.

Section 64- Preservation of documents

Clause 2 of the Bill amends section 64 of the Act to allow CCS officers to take any necessary steps to preserve evidence when entering premises without a warrant. This means that CCS officers conducting a search of premises will be allowed to secure the premises or a part of it, to prevent any persons from tampering with or destroying the evidence. This will happen only when a search cannot be finished within a day. The CCS will, of course, be mindful of the need to minimise disruption to business operations.

Section 66- Self-incrimination and legal professional privilege

Clause 3 of the Bill will rationalise the law relating to the privilege against self-incrimination and legal professional privilege. Clause 3 repeals section 66 of the Act and replaces it with a more comprehensive formulation based on section 153 of the Securities and Futures Act. This new section 66 will be aligned with our common law and other legislation, such as the Media Development Authority of Singapore Act and the Gas Act.

Under the present section 66, persons are not permitted to disclose self-incriminating information or documents to CCS. This will hamper CCS investigation work as undertakings will not be able to cooperate with CCS by disclosing self-incriminating information or admit to an infringement, even if they are willing and able to do so. For example, a person may wish to disclose his own involvement in an anti-competitive activity when he is seeking leniency from CCS. However, he will not be able to do so under the present section 66 of the Act.

The new section 66 will facilitate CCS investigation work, by providing that a person cannot refuse to disclose information on the grounds of self-incrimination. The amendment rationalises the position under the Act with the common law and other legislation in Singapore. There is no privilege against self-incrimination in civil proceedings.

The new section 66 also clarifies that the self-incriminating information can still be used as evidence against the person disclosing the information, in both civil proceedings and criminal prosecutions for ancillary offences under the Act, for example, obstructing investigations or giving false information to the CCS. However, such self-incriminating information cannot be used as evidence to prove any other criminal offences, thereby protecting the rights of such persons. The new section 66 also provides that a professional legal adviser cannot be compelled to disclose a document that enjoys legal professional privilege. This is a privilege which belongs to the client and only he can waive it by making the disclosure himself or allowing his professional legal adviser to do so. A professional legal adviser includes in-house legal advisers and foreign legal advisers. The power to require the details of relevant persons will only be used where necessary to ascertain if the communications are indeed privileged. Litigation privilege, which protects from disclosure, documents produced in connection with a possible court case, continues to be protected under common law.

Section 71 - Granting a right of appeal to non-infringing undertakings that are subject to directions

Let me now turn to clause 4 of the Bill which amends section 71 of the Act to give a right of appeal to parties who are not infringing undertakings, but who have been given a direction by CCS. As a matter of fairness, these parties whose rights may have been affected by a CCS direction should be given a right of appeal.

Section 91A - Allowing CCS officers to act in appeals and court proceedings on behalf of the CCS

Finally, clause 5 of the Bill adds a new section 91A to empower CCS legal officers to act for the CCS in proceedings before the Competition Appeal Board and the courts. Similar provisions also exist for legal officers of other agencies, such as Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS). This is a practical amendment to enable CCS legal officers to carry out their duties.

Conclusion

Sir, the operative provisions of the Act will come into force on 1st January 2006. These amendments do not have any new policy positions for which public consultation are required. They are all practical changes that will enable CCS to carry out its investigative and enforcement functions efficiently and effectively. This, in turn, will help CCS fulfil its mission of promoting healthy competitive markets that will benefit the Singapore economy.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

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

Order for Second Reading read.

3.12 pm

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

Sir, this Bill amends the Legal Profession Act to enable lawyers to form Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) as an alternative business structure for legal practice. The provisions are modelled on the provisions in the Legal Profession Act relating to law corporations, provisions which have worked well over the past five years.

Sir, in 2004, the Government introduced limited liability partnershipsas a new business form in Singapore, and the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2005 came into force in April 2005.

Sir, these amendments are needed to allow legal practices to be converted to or constituted as LLPs.

Lawyers who are not sole proprietors can form ordinary partnerships or law corporations with other lawyers. The addition of an LLP option will provide lawyers with the ideal combination of limited liability, whilst preserving their status as "partners" with the flexibility of a partnership. Sir, I should say that leading law firms in the United States and United Kingdom and elsewhere are increasingly converting to LLPs, which are generally acknowledged to be a much more pro-business corporate structure.

But let me stress that there will be no compromise in protecting the interests of clients. The Law Society will exercise regulatory and ethical control over lawyers practising in LLPs. Lawyers seeking to register LLPs to practise law must obtain the approval of the Law Society. In addition, rules will provide that all partners of the LLP must be lawyers. Existing rules relating to professional conduct, solicitors accounts, publicity and professional indemnity will be extended to LLPs. In particular, the requirement for law corporations to have professional indemnity insurance of $2 million will also apply to LLPs.

Sir, the Bill also clarifies the application of certain provisions of the LPA to locum solicitors. From 1st April 2005, lawyers have been allowed to practise as locum solicitors. The Act will be amended to clarify that law pupils may not serve their pupillage under locum solicitors.

In addition, the Act currently requires a solicitor who has not been in active practice for three out of the preceding five years to undergo additional training as prescribed by the Council of the Law Society, if he wishes to apply for a locum practising certificate. This Bill amends the Act to allow such a solicitor to apply for the locum practising certificate,

if he has practised as a locum solicitor within the period of three years immediately preceding his application, without having to undergo the requisite training.

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.- [Prof. S Jayakumar].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

3.18 pm

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

Sir, this Bill amends the Small Claims Tribunals Act to expand the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT)and to require leave of court before an appeal can be made against an SCT order.

If I may explain, Sir, the SCT was established almost 20 years ago to provide a quick and inexpensive forum to resolve small claims between consumers and suppliers. We have been gradually expanding the jurisdiction of the SCT over the years. At present, the SCT deals with claims arising from contracts for the sale of goods or provision of services and claims for damage to property, excluding damage arising in connection with motor vehicle accidents. The claim limit is $10,000, but itcan be raised to $20,000 with the consent ofboth parties.

This Bill seeks to expand the jurisdiction of the SCT, to allow it to determine claims arising from short-term residential tenancy agreements not exceeding two years, which are normally straightforward and not complicated. This amendment will benefit both landlords and tenants, as it provides them with a speedy and cost effective means of resolving some of their disputes. Landlords seeking to recover unpaid rent within the small claims limit, as well astenants who have either rented an entire property or a single room in disputes over rent deposits, will now have aquicker and cheaper avenue to press these claims.The expanded jurisdiction only applies to residential properties. The SCT will not have the jurisdiction to hear disputes arising from leases of commercial properties, as such leases are likely to be quite technical and far more complicated.

Sir, with the expanded jurisdiction, the SCT will be empowered to deal with a wider range of disputes that consumers are likely to be involved in.

This Bill also amends the Small Claims Tribunals Act to require leave of court to proceed with an appeal against an order made by the SCT.

Sir, let me explain. At present, appeals against an SCT order can be made as of right to the High Court, but only on a question of law or on the ground that the claim was outside the jurisdiction of the SCT. The scope for an appeal is deliberately narrow, in order to promote finality, and to avoid highcosts in appealing that may exceed in fact the sums in dispute.

The Bill amends the Act to require the leave of the District Court before an appeal can be made against an SCT order. With this amendment, the position of appeals against SCT orders will be brought into alignment with appeals against decisions of a District Court or a Magistrate’s Court. The grounds for appeal will not be affected or further limited by this amendment, whose main effect is to ensure that the parties will not be put to unnecessary expense, for example, in cases where there is no prospect of an appeal succeeding. 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. - [Prof. S Jayakumar].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

3.23 pm

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

Objective of Bill

Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Moneylenders Act by introducing higher penalties to curb the rise in illegal moneylending activities and related harassment cases.

Background

In 1993, we introduced a number of measures to deal with unlicensed moneylending activities. These included:

enhancing penalties for carrying out unlicensed moneylending activities and related harassment cases;

classifying these offences as seizable and non-bailable;

subjecting debt collectors who are hired by illegal moneylenders to thesame penalties as the illegal moneylenders; and

making illegal moneylenders and debt collectors liable to be caned up to six strokes.

Sir,the number of unlicensed moneylending and related harassment cases, however,continues to rise from some 1,500 cases in 1995 to almost 6,000 cases last year, ie, about a four-fold increase.In some instances, parties who did not borrow money were also harassed. For example, new occupants of dwellings that were formerly occupied by debtors, and people who had lost or misplaced their identity cards. In addition, the number of arrests made in unlicensed moneylending and related harassment cases increased by almost 20% in one year, from 330 arrests in2003 to393 arrests in 2004.

Sir, we must tackle the rise in illegal moneylending cases resolutely, adopting a comprehensive approach. On the enforcement front, police has formed a dedicated Anti-Unlicensed Moneylending Task Force in June this year. With this task force in place, police will take a more focused approach in intelligence-gathering and investigations against unlicensed moneylending syndicates.

Next, police intelligence has uncovered a distinct pattern of higher-tier loansharks operating from overseas after being punished, in order toescape police detection. Therefore, MHA has put in place measures to deny convicted higher-tier loansharkstravel facilities for 10 years from the date of their release.

Sir, on a wider front, MHA is also collaborating with other agencies, such as Minlaw, MAS, HDB and IRAS to curb unlicensed moneylending activities.

In addition, MHA will continue to reviewlegislation to better empower police to deal with the syndicates. For example, we have provided powers under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act to confiscate benefits derived from unlicensed moneylending activities.

The proposed amendments

Sir, as for these amendments which are under consideration, Parliament should send a strong signal to loansharks that we will not tolerate the conduct of unlicensed moneylending activities, where exorbitant interest rates are charged and borrowers and even non-borrowers are harassed in their own homes.

Therefore, this Bill seeks to increase the penalties for unlicensed moneylending under the Moneylenders Act as follows:

First, the existing fines for offenders who carry out unlicensed moneylending activities or harassment cases will be doubled;

Secondly, the meaning of "harassment" will be refined to make it difficult for any accused to argue that an isolated act does not constitute harassment;

Thirdly, in harassment cases, first-time offenders who, in the course of harassment, cause damage to property or hurt to person will beliable to caning; and

Fourthly, repeat offenders of illegal moneylending will be subject to mandatory imprisonment, whilst repeat offenders of harassment where hurt to person or damage to property is caused will be subject to mandatory caning. Sir, people who use a corporate entity, such as a company, to carry out unlicensed moneylending activities will not be able to hide behind the corporate veil. If such activities are carried out with their consent, connivance or neglect, they, as well as the corporate entity, are liable to be prosecuted for the offence of illegal moneylending.

Bank accounts are now used by runners to collect debts on behalf of unlicensed moneylenders. Debtors are increasingly being asked to make interest and principal repayments of their debts by depositing them into bank accounts. Such arrangements make it difficult for the police to detect unlicensed moneylending activities. As such, a new provision will create a presumption that any person whose bank account or ATM card has been proven to have been used in the collection of debts by an unlicensed moneylender is presumed to have assisted in the carrying out of unlicensed moneylending activities. But, of course,this is a rebuttable presumption.

In line with the higher punishments proposed, we are also making it clear that offences under the Act will be tried before the District Court.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Sir, these amendments are needed to send a strong signal that the Government has zero tolerance for unlicensed moneylending activities. The enhanced deterrent effect should also help stem the increase that we have seen in such activities.

Indeed, the amendments are part of a larger exercise to update the Moneylenders Act. Thisbroader review, which addresses issues other than unlicensed moneylending, should be completed by early next year. So there is a possibility we will come back to the House for further amendments to the Moneylenders Act.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.50 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.30 pm until 3.50 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm

Debate resumed.

Sir, I support the Bill.

The two main technical thrusts of the Bill are, firstly, to enhance punishment for illegal moneylenders and those who assist them, including runners and collectors, and secondly, to enhance the powers of the court in dealing with illegal moneylending cases. But what is more important, Sir, is for us to note the socio-political aspects of the Bill.

In the last few years, as the Senior Minister of State has acknowledged in his speech earlier, illegal moneylending cases have increased and indeed have become more visible. This probably coincided with the economic downturn in the last few years. We see more cases of vandalism related to illegal moneylending. All of us are now quite familiar with this conspicuous "owe $, P $" graffiti sprayed at our HDB flats, which means owe money, pay money. Translated, it means youowe illegal moneylender money, you better pay them back. And this is normally followed by the person's address, sometimes, name and telephone number.

There is a need to stem this discernible rising trend. Sir, such vandalism causes much embarrassment to the victims, especially if the victims are innocent. And as the Senior Minister of State has acknowledged just now, there are cases where non-borrowers have been made victims. These could be tenants who have moved into the house of the previous borrower or persons whose identity cards have been used.

Sir, the victims, whether innocent or otherwise, feel threatened by this graffiti or acts of vandalism. Why is this so? Because all of us have heard stories of debt collectors using their runners to break flower pots, to spray paint or splash paint on front doors ofalleged borrowers, even to start small fires outside or sometimes, even inside the homes of purported borrowers. Therefore, this passes a message that if a victim does not pay up, collectors are willing to do more than just to vandalise, ie, to cause more damage to property and also to the person of purported borrowers. Therefore, this early vandalism amounts to an assault,a threat, nothing less. Spraying words, such as "owe money, pay money" is a precursor to the more damaging acts and is therefore part of the threat process. We need laws and punishments to reflect the real nature of such harassment.

Sir, perhaps it is helpful for us to compare the proposed section 33 of this Bill with present laws on related crimes. If we take a look at the section on assault, ie, section 352 of the Penal Code, an assault, Sir, if I may just remind everyone here, is defined as making any gesture or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person and that person committing the offence is said to commit assault.

Assault carries punishment of imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of up to $500or both. Another offence of causing hurt,section 323 of the Penal Code, is punishable with imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up $1,000 or both, ie, actual causing hurt is involved. The third offence of criminal intimidation, section 506 of the Penal Code, is punishable up to two years or with fine orboth. We compare this with the proposed section 33. For the first offence, the person who is involved can be fined between $4,000 and $40,000 or imprisonment of up to three years or both. For second offenders, it is the same fine but imprisonment of up to six years. So clearly, if we make a comparison, we will find the new proposed section 33 will mete out more severe punishment than the other offences that I have mentioned earlier. And this indeed is a welcome move, Sir.

But there are also questions that we need to address ourselves. Are the police better equipped to fight illegal moneylending? The Senior Minister of State alluded to some of these aspects just now. What efforts have been made to address this particular issue? Are there more and better trained officers assigned to deal with this issue? The Senior Minister of State mentionedjust now aboutsetting up a taskforce. What kind of better trainingis provided to these officers? Are there better systems, intelligence and resources allocated to fight illegal moneylending?

Sir, illegal moneylending is not a private transaction between a moneylender and a borrower and we will be naive to think that it is a petty crime of lending or borrowing money not according to the law. Let me explain why.

In June 2005, the police crippled an illegal moneylending syndicate believed to have an estimated pool of 2,000 debtors. This operation of raiding the illegal moneylending syndicate covered 22 locations simultaneously. Thirty people were arrested and I understand that this number is larger than most branches of banks. More than $200,000 worth of loans were given out monthly by this syndicate, generating profits of at least $100,000 per month. The majority of the monetary transactions between the syndicate and the borrowers was done through ATM transfers.In the second raid in November 2005, the police smashed another syndicate. Twelve men were arrested. The operation covered 14 locations and this syndicate was believed to be responsible for more than 40 cases of harassment in the last 12 months. They are believed to have at least 800 debtors, estimated to have more than $300,000 worth of live loans and they are believed to give out $300,000 worth of loans per month, with profits estimated at about $50,000 per month.

While I applaud the successes of the police and the authorities in smashing these syndicates,the figures tell us that illegal moneylending is an organised crime. Organised crimes, Sir, if not checked early, can subvert our economy and the rule of law. Sir, this is not empty talk. We really have real examples in third world countries where illegal moneylending and crimes similar to it actually subvert the country's economy and the rule of law. We have to check it early.

Secondly, Sir, organised crimes at the present timeare usually transnational in nature, bearing in mind our more globalised world. The SeniorMinister of State mentioned just now about higher-tier illegal moneylending which operates from overseas. This is exactly the point that I am trying to say. The question is: what are the other steps that are being taken by the Minister to combat illegal moneylending, bearing in mind that it is an organised crime with likely transnational network support? Is there a comprehensive approach or framework to tackle this issue?

The next question, Sir, is whether the Government should also not look at curbing the demand side. This may be beyond the purview of the MoneylendersAct or even the Ministry of Home Affairs, but then the Ministry has better access to figures and information on why people resort to illegal moneylending. This information can be shared with other agencies and help them design schemes to make illegal moneylending irrelevant.

Sir, I urge everyone to support the fight against illegal moneylending. As a character in Shakespeare said, "neither a borrower nor a lender be". Let us rephrase that, "neither an illegal borrowernor an illegal moneylender be." In supporting this combat against illegal moneylending, we would gather more support if the Government also acts, besides enhancing prosecution and punishment, to reduce the need for illegal moneylenders. The new section 33 clearly makes the offence more serious than the three that I had mentioned earlier. This is a clear and important signal that the Government wishes to treat illegal moneylending harassment very seriously and I therefore again reiterate my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I hope the enhanced punishment of fine, imprisonment and caning would dissuade perpetrators and would-be perpetrators of future mischiefs.

I have some sympathy for those who borrowed from illegal moneylenders but they must accept responsibility for their actions. Yes, circumstances could have forced them to resort to illegal moneylenders as a desperate act of last resort, but they know that what they borrowed they have to pay back according to the terms thatwere agreed between them. And if they do not do so, they have consequences to pay. But even then, I agree that there must be limits to what moneylenders can do and the limits should not be excessive, as it is at the moment.

However, I am particularly sorry for those who are harassed when they or their family members have not borrowedmoney but harassed and intimidated by the mere fact that they may just live in the premises. In many instances, the family had innocently bought the flat without knowing that the seller had taken loans from illegal moneylenders. Not only were they inconvenienced by the vandalism and embarrassed by the notices on the walls, many were afraid for their own physical well being. Some of these victims resorted to selling their new flats at a great loss while others moved out to stay with relatives, hoping that time would heal and things would abate.

Sir, I have encountered many cases during my meet-the-people sessions, but let me say that the number of caseshas reduced in recent times. This is probably due, in large part, to the improved economy when there is less need to borrow. If the illegal moneylenders and their hirelings now feel this increasing heat of the law, they have only themselves to blame. In this present day and age, it would not be a problem for them to verify with the people that they are harassing are indeed the people who borrowed from them. Some of the innocent victims have even resorted to putting up notices on common corridors and outside their houses to inform that they are new occupants. However, these notices make no difference. The harassment continues. How on earth domoneylenders expect these innocent people to make good the debts that they do not owe?Moneylenders are intelligent people and this question baffles me.

The ICA can also do more to come down hard on those who misuse addresses of other people. These people pass off addresses of other people as their own and occupants of these addresses fall victims to harassment. Also, there is a trend for companies to refer bad debtors to debt collection agencies, some of whom have resorted to aggressive tactics to collect the debts rather than to turn to the courts. Some of the methods used are also intimidating and amount to harassment. I am not sure if the provisions of this Bill apply to such activities. I would urge the debt collection companies to be circumspectin their collection methods.

Sir, I hope that this Bill will provide the necessary power for our police to go after the perpetrators. On the other hand, if such activities are reduced, then less police time would need to be spent on attending to and investigating these activities.

One other party that will welcome this Bill is the Town Council.Town Councils have, over the years, spent considerable amount of money and time to repair walls, to clean up the mess and to repair other physical damages arising from such activities. And I hope that with this Bill,Town Councils will have to spend less money doing such things as well.

Sir, on this note, I support the Bill and hope that the Bill will be very effective in curbing such activities.

Sir, I thank both Mr Ahmad Khalis and Dr Tan Boon Wan for supporting this Bill. Indeed, Sir, our hope is that this Bill will achieve its intended effect, which is to reduce the high number of, in particular, harassment cases. We cannot just wish for it to happen. I think what has been said is that everybody must play a part. And I can assure Members that on the part of the police, they will certainly do their part. As I have said in my speech, the police, in fact, have geared up. In June this year, we formed this task force within CID. As Members know, the CID deals with major crimes. So it is a clear signal that with the formation of this task force, comprising officers not just in CID but also pooling resources from the various land divisions, they will have this focused approach which will then target syndicates. We know that it is very difficult to catch the individual runners, and that is why enforcement has to be rigorous and punishment has to be tough. Because we all know on the ground that the runners come, theycarry outtheir very devious act and then they disappear. So with the dedicated task force and with the targeting of syndicates, I should say that over the next six months to a year, maybe a bit more, hopefully, with the syndicates taken out, the action on the ground will get less hot.

Mr Khalis is absolutely correct. Today, this House should send a very strong signal to illegal moneylenders and the runners that we will not condone such actions. And as Dr Tan Boon Wan has said, why should illegal moneylenders harass innocent buyers of HDB flats when it is made known to them that they were not the original borrowers? So Iappreciate Mr Ahmad Khalis' welcoming of these tough punishments.

Mr Khalis is also correct in saying that illegal moneylending activity is not just a simple crime. It is not, thankfully, a transnational crime, in the sense thatthere aregangs actually supporting one another across borders. But like I have said in my speech, illegal moneylending neverthelesstranscends borders because you do have loan sharks who have operated networks and who have been dealt with. They have been convicted, punished or fined. But we know from intelligence that some of them do continue with their activities. And with the very rich database of debtors' addresses, in fact, they can perpetrate their ill intentions from overseas. And that is why, after careful consideration, MHA has decided that we have to take this further step of cancelling the passports of higher tier loan sharks - people with access to such databases, so that they will not perpetrate their activities overseas.

Illegal money lending syndicates have become more organised. They are also using technology. That is why the presumption has been put inthe Act, eg,the payment of the monies. Manytransactions arenow done through ATMs and computer systems. So we have also to watch out for this.

The other point I want to make is that, as I have said in my speech earlier on, it is not just a one angle approach, because illegal moneylending involves the Moneylenders Act. The Moneylenders Act, in fact, is under the purview of the Ministry of Law. So the Ministry of Law will continue to work with the various agencies involved - whether it is MAS, HDB or IRAS - to see whether more measures should be introduced to take a more holistic and more comprehensive approach to tackle this problem. Sir, today's amendments are really just from one angle - a very focused angle - but one, which because this House supports it strongly, to send a very clear signal to perpetrators, andI think this will have the intended effect. We know that the numbers are rising. This is a phenomenon in Singapore which some may say is quite peculiar here but it is something that we cannot tolerate, because all of us on the ground will know that we do have residents coming to see us and sometimes wringing their hands in despair, like what Dr Tan has said, whether more can be done.

Dr Tan says that the Town Councils will welcome this move. Indeed, it is true. Because when walls are defaced, the Town Council has to spend money to putthe walls right. And that is why police, in fact, had been working with the Town Councils to introduce CCTVs on the ground. This has been announced before. This is being rolled out soon. CCTVs are not just to address the problem of illegal moneylenders but crime in the HDB neighbourhoods, and that will include certainly this phenomenon of illegal moneylending. In the meantime, my suggestion to Singaporeans is thatthe act of your walls being painted in a manner that Mr Khalis addresses is really very odious, something that puts you off, and sometimes they put fear in people and also devalues the value of the neighbourhood. And to some people, italso affects their sense of public safety andlevel of comfort. Perhaps neighbours can take a CSSP-type of approach becauseit will never be able to solve the problem. But I think if neighbours are more watchful, more careful andbeing vigilant, eg, if some neigbhours come back at night, they can also be the eyes and ears. And if there is an alert system, eg, handphone, then they could also link up with the nearest Neighbourhood Police Post. Whilst Government will do its part and the communitycan do its part, I think on the ground, the Town Councils and even the residents themselves can also do their part.

As regards identity card offenders, Dr Tan is correct. I think this is also a timely reminder to Singaporeans to take good care of their identity cards, becauseone situationwherepeople suddenly find themselves being harassed is because they have misplaced their identity cards or given their IC to somebody else who then misuses it. So it is not so much for ICA to then come down very hard on situations of illegalmoneylending per se, but those who lose their IC. I think Members know that they are appropriately dealt with and the message is also sent that your IC is an important document. Please take good care of it.

Sir, I think I have addressed all the points. Basically, I am confident that if we work together we cannot solve it entirely but reduce the incidents of illegal moneylending.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

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

Order for Second Reading read.

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

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

Amendments due to changes in modes of commencement of court proceedings (clauses 1 to 9) [Part I of the Bill]

First, we have a number of technical amendments that reflect the Courts' initiative to simplify court procedures and promote the use of plain English in our laws. Currently, there are four ways to commence court proceedings in non-criminal matters, ie, (i) a writ of summons, (ii) an originating summons, (iii) an originating motion, and (iv) a petition. Different procedures and court forms are prescribed for each process. These different processes are procedural in nature and must be distinguished from the substantive law that decides the legal outcome of any case, which remains unchanged.

The intention is to amend the Rules of Court early next year to simplify court procedures by reducing the number of processes from four to two, by abolishing the "motion" and "petition" processes. Some Acts and subsidiary legislation prescribe how court proceedings are to be commenced for specific actions, eg, by writ or by petition to the court. These Acts and subsidiary legislation will be accordingly amended. These amendments will be policy-neutral and purely procedural in nature. In general, existing applications to court using the "originating motion" and "originating petition" processes will be converted to use the originating summons process. In addition, some archaic Latin terms will be substituted with plain English terms for clarity.

Amendments to the Computer Misuse Act and Criminal Procedure Code (clauses 14 and 15)

Sir, let me now go on to the next set of amendments, which is, currently, only section 15 of the Computer Misuse Act (CMA) provides specific powers for police officers and authorised persons to gain access to decryption "keys" in computer-related offences and other offences discovered in the course of investigations into computer-related offences. This power does not extend generally to non computer-related offences, including those relating to national security.

Sir, criminals are becoming more tech-savvy and are making use of information technology, eg, computers, to commit non computer-related crimes. Indeed, the international press haswidely reported that international terrorist groups are using computer networks to communicate with each other. If these criminal and terrorist elements use strong encryption, law enforcement agencies would face operational challenges and difficulties in gaining access to essential encrypted information for investigation and enforcement.

It is therefore necessary to amend the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to include several new provisions which provide for, firstly, access to decryption "keys" for the investigation of all seizable offences; secondly, empower the Public Prosecutor to issue a Decryption Order to allow the police and authorised persons to obtain access to decryption "keys" that can unlock encrypted information, including voice and fax encryption;thirdly, impose a penalty for disobeying a Decryption Order and, fourthly, impose a heavier penalty if there is evidence that the encrypted data was used to conceal evidence relevant to the planning, preparation or commission of a specified serious offence, such as a national security-related offence. Sir, the proposed amendments are intended to widen investigative powers where the police and authorised persons have to access computer and, in particular, decryption data.

Consequentially, section 15 of the CMA is deleted as that provision is rendered obsolete with the introduction of the proposed powers in the CPC.

Amendments to the Trade Marks Act (clause 21)

Sir, the third set of amendments under the Trade Marks Act(clause 21) makes several amendments to the Trade Marks Act. The definition of "Convention country" is amended to provide that "Convention country" includes Singapore. This clarification will ensure that Singaporean owners of unregistered well-known marks are protected under the Act.

Clause 21 will also enable the restoration of withdrawn trade mark applications. Currently, where Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has queries or objections to an application for the registration of a trade mark, the applicant has four months to respond, after which the application is automatically withdrawn. The applicant will then have to re-start the application process, pay application fees again, and lose his priority to register the mark. With the amendment, IPOS may restore the withdrawn application on request from applicants. Businesses will benefit from the resultant time and cost savings.

Miscellaneous amendments

Finally, Sir, let me briefly touch on a bunch of amendments which facilitate better administration of various Acts.

Amendments due to operation of Companies (Amendment) Act 2005 (clauses 10, 12, 13 and 19)

Under this category, first, the Companies (Amendment) Act 2005, passed by Parliament in May this year, abolished the concepts of authorised capital and par value shares. Consequential amendments are now proposed to the Architects Act, Professional Engineers Act and Companies Act, to align affected provisions with the new Companies (Amendment) Act 2005.

Amendment to the Interpretation Act (clause 16)

Next, clause 16 makes a technical amendment to the definition of "States of Malaya" in the Interpretation Act to clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, that the expression "States of Malaya" in our laws includes the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya, as well as any other Federal Territory that may be established in the future from any part of the territory of any state in Malaya. The amendment does not expand the scope of the definition but merely serves to clarify the scope of the definition.

Amendments to the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act and Land Titles (Strata) Act (clauses 11 and 17)

Next, clauses 11 and 17 make a number of consequential amendments, which are housekeeping in nature, to the Land Titles (Strata) Act and Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act arising from earlier amendments to the Land Titles Act, Land Titles (Strata) Act and the new Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004. They will provide greater clarity and facilitate the operation of these Acts.

Amendments to the Probate and Administration Act (clause 18)

Sir, next, two amendments are made to the Probate and Administration Act. Firstly, a technical amendment is made to section 35(1) to bring it in conformity with the Subordinate Courts Act, which was amended when the District Court's monetary jurisdictional limit for probate matters was increased from $250,000 to $3 million.

The second amendment is necessitated by the privatisation, in September this year, of the Dependants' Protection Insurance Scheme maintained by the Central Provident Fund. With the privatisation of the Scheme, the monies payable by the insurers under the Scheme will form part of the deceased's estate and are no longer paid out together with CPF funds. The amendment clarifies that, for the purposes of administration by the Public Trustee, the monies payable by an appointed insurer pursuant to the Scheme will not form part of the $50,000 limit imposed upon the value of the estate of the deceased.This amendment will take effect from 17th September 2005 to ensure that the Public Trustee can continue to administer cases of up to $50,000 as before, even before the privatisation of the Scheme. So that essentially maintains the status quo.

Amendments to the Securities and Futures Act (clause 20)

And, finally, Sir, clause 20 makes a number of technical amendments to the Securities and Futures Act resulting from the change in the numbering of the provisions made by the Securities and Futures (Amendment) Act 2005. Consequential amendments are also made to two sections arising from the repeal of section 73 and the Companies (Amendment) Act 2005.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Bill.

I wish to speak on Part I of the amendments relating to certain court proceedings, in particular, the amendments to the Interpretation Act, the Supreme CourtJudicature Act and the Subordinate Courts Act where petitions and motions are converted to writs of summons, originating summons or a summons and whether these amendments should apply to divorce cases.

I have come across residents in my constituency during the meet-the-people-sessions where they relate to me the acrimony and bitterness they face in divorces, from unreasonable spouseswith unreasonable expectations and demands to recalcitrant and unrepentant spouses.Adivorce is an emotionally trying and difficult experience for the parties and families concerned. These types of cases must be handled sensitively and appropriately. We should strive to encourage people, having noalternative but to seek a divorce,to start their regrettable proceedings with the right attitude.

With the amendments, a person starts divorce proceedings with a writ for divorce (Third ScheduleNew Part X of Women's Charter, sections 92, 94 and 95) and the parties are called plaintiff and defendant respectively, like in normalcivil suits.Thisimplies that one spouse is suing the other for a divorce. By contrast, presently, a spouse formally asks the court to dissolve his marriage to his spouse by a petition.

We must not advocate a litigious society for divorce cases. Instead, we should try and help these parties resolve their marital problems and issues as amicably as possible. To say that one is suing for a divorce takes a different tone from a request of a court to grant a divorce. From the word "go" and from the very description of what the law calls them, it is inevitable that the parties may see themselves as combatants -on one side, a party suing for a divorce, and the other defending. This may lead to enhanced hostility and acrimony, making divorces hard to resolve amicably.

One can say that this change is not a serious matter as it is just a change in name and that the courts are well equipped to deal with contesting parties through counselling and/or mediation. And it is true that about 90% of contested divorces are settled through counselling and mediation. However, the courts already have a trying time, having to mediate and counsel parties in divorce cases based on petitions. At the moment, the mindset is not one where a spouse is suing the other spouse as in normal civil suits. The petition is a formal request to the court for relief. This is different from a party commencing proceedings to sue the other. It is possible that, with the change in descriptions and proceedings, the mindset will change and proceedings may start off even more acrimonious and hostile. This may make the task of the counsellors and mediators harder.

Only the US has adopted the writ process. In the UK, divorces are started by petitions and the parties are called petitioners and respondents respectively. In Australia, the person who applies for a divorce order is called an applicant and the other party is called a respondent. Likewise, the same applies for New Zealand.

Section 41A(7) of the to-be-amended Interpretation Act allows the Minister charged with the responsibility for law to determine whether the amendments should apply to divorce and family cases. In view of the social concerns, is it necessary for the amendments to apply to divorce cases?

First, I thank Mr Andy Gan for supporting the Bill. He expresses a concern whether or not the new procedures should apply to divorce and family-related matters, in particular, in the context of whether the way in which the divorce proceedings are started, which is currently by way of a petition, should be replaced by that of a writ of summons, so that the petitioner becomes the plaintiff and the respondent becomes the defendant.

But, as Mr Gan has himself said, it is really a change in nomenclature,achange in terms, because the parties, really, when they come to court, they are seeking the court's leave vis-a-vis the situation that has arisen before them. In some cases, there may be already acrimony. I do not think theacrimony there would be accentuatedby the fact that the petitioner is now called plaintiff and the respondent is now called the defendant, because, in substance, the law remains the same.

Andin terms of the court's approach, the court's approach would also remain the same. In other words, the court will still try to reconcile the parties, as they are doing now. There will still be mediation processes. So, in a sense, the process will not change.

We know that there is adjustment required on the part of many people. In fact, lawyers have to adjust to it and, in particular, lawyers were very used to the four processes. But as I have said, the need has come to streamline the process.Certainly, going into the future, with new generations of lawyers and, over time, even with a new generation of people who want to divorce, I think they will come to the courts seeking a divorce, whether they are calledpetitioner orrespondent, orplaintiff ordefendant. People on the ground, what is important to them is that they are coming to court to seek relief. The relief will not change. The process in which the relief is derived will not change. So I think we should not just be fixated on these terms and by association, because I know where Mr Gan is coming from. When you are a plaintiff in a civil claim, you are suing the defendant and, very often, you want something out from the defendant. So it is a matter of association. But let us take that association out and look at it from this standpoint. The starting standpoint is that we are simplifying andstreamlining the procedures, and, in a sense, like I have said, it is policy neutral.

It is not naturally evocative if you are a plaintiff. In the past, it could be so. But under the new process, depending on what you are coming to seek the court's help for, in the case of divorce andsome have contested, certainly, it would continue as it is.This has been thoroughly thought through and indeed the courts have already consulted with the present parties, including family law practitioners who are in the Law Society and Family Law Committee, and also the law academicsat the NUS and also, I think, briefings have been made to the GPC, not Home Affairs and Law, but GPC for Community Development, Youth and Sports, and indeed even women MPs and representatives of various women groups, like SCWO, SAWL and AWARE. So let us give the process an opportunity.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

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

Order for Second Reading read.

4.33 pm

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

As Singaporeprogresses towards a knowledge-based and innovation-driven economy, our three universities- National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and Singapore Management University (SMU) - will have a key role to play in producing graduate manpower, enriching our human capital by providing quality education, and excelling in research to create knowledge and wealth for Singapore.

Our universities are already well-recognised today. But the global university landscape is changing and changing rapidly. Our universities have to compete in this new landscape to get the best faculty and students, including the best Singaporean students. They also have to developworld-class capabilities in specific fields. To achieve this, a new model of governance for our universities is necessary, to give them the autonomy to chart new directions, to differentiate themselves, and to focus on developing excellence. We are not alone in moving in this direction. It is a global trend. For example,Japan, Denmark and Finland are reforming their universities by devolving more autonomy to them. Japan enacted the National University Corporations Law in 2003 to transform its national universities into independent administrative corporations with more autonomy. Denmark enacted a new University Act also in 2003 to transform the Danish universities into self-governing institutions, each with their own Boards of Directors and in fact with a majority of external members of their Boards (including the Chairpersons of the Boards) to advise and guide the university Rectors and management in the strategic development of the universities. This is quite unlike the traditional model of Boards in Europe where the majority of members of the Boards are internal members from within the university.

In April 2004, we initiated the University Autonomy, Governance and Funding review, what I will call the UAGF review,to find an appropriate model of autonomy for our three universities. The UAGF Steering Committee, chaired by then 2nd Permanent Secretary of Education, LG(NS) Lim Chuan Poh, released its preliminary report and recommendations in January this year. Its key recommendation was to corporatise NUS and NTU into not-for-profit public companies limited by guarantee, or in short, to make themAutonomous Universities. SMU, which was already established as a public company limited by guarantee, has always been an Autonomous University.

The Ministry's International Academic Advisory Panel (IAAP) met in January 2005 and discussed extensively therecommendations of the UAGF. It strongly endorsed the move to transform NUS and NTU into Autonomous Universities, just like SMU, to enable them to achieve teaching and research excellence, raise their international standing and enhance their students’ learning experience. The IAAP also made several useful observations. These included the need for university education at the three universitiesto remain accessible and affordable. There must also be greater accountability with increased autonomy. The IAAP endorsed the enhanced accountability framework for the Autonomous Universities, whichassures the public that the universities' missions remain aligned with our national strategic objectives and that the quality of university education continues to be enhanced.

Mr Speaker, Sir,Members of this House will recall that at this year's Budget debate, the Committee of Supply had deliberated on the UAGF recommendations. The Government announced its acceptance of the UAGF recommendations in April this year. The move to transform NUS and NTU into Autonomous Universities marks the beginning of the next major phasein our universities’ development.

As I shared at the Committee of Supply debate, we have good people in our universities, comprising the Chairmen and members of the university Councils, the key management in each of the universities, and thefaculty and staff. I am confident that, with these good people,the universities will also be able to develop an internalculture of collegiality that is characteristic of all top universities.

Our experience with SMU as an Autonomous Universityhas given us confidence that the proposed model of governanceat NUS and NTU will work. But the two larger and much more complex universities, NUS and NTU, will need time to change.

The change process has already commenced at the universities. Both the NUS and NTU Councils, together with their respective university management and faculty, have embarked onstrategic reviews to set their future directions in an era of autonomy.

The granting of autonomy to NUS and NTU will, fundamentally, not just be about a change in relationship between Government and universities butabout a change inthe internal cultureof our universities.Autonomy isthe catalyst forthe change in internal culture. It will bring greater collective ownership and more proactive participation from amongst all the university stakeholders - theCouncil (or what will soonbe calledthe Board of Trustees after corporatisation), the university management, faculty, staff and students and, quite importantly, the alumni of the universities.

The three Autonomous Universities will remainkey institutions in Singapore. The Government remains committed to providing themsubstantial funding. We want to ensure that they continue to contribute to the well-being ofSingapore and its people, not just by producing graduate manpower to support the economy, but also in propellingSingapore up the value curve of knowledge creation through a concerted investment in R&D. The new Acts for our Autonomous Universities will allowthe Ministry of Education to ensure that the university sector as a whole meets these national objectives. MOEhas the fundamental responsibility, and will work closely with the universities, to ensure that university education remains affordable and accessible and that the universities achievethe highest quality in teaching and research.

Next, the issue of accountability. It is critical that we strikethe rightbalance between autonomy and accountability.We have to giveour universities the freedom to set their own directions,to differentiate themselves and to forge their own distinctive cultures. In this regard, the NUS and NTU (Corporatisation) Bills are in line with the thrust of the existing SMU Act. The new legislation aims to safeguard the Government’s strategic interest in the university sectorbut give the universities the autonomy to be nimble and responsive in a rapidly evolving landscape.The Bills are crafted with this balance in mind. The approach we have taken is to retain those clauses from the existing NUS and NTU Acts which are still relevant, with some modifications in the new Acts where necessary, and to include new clauses arising from the UAGF recommendations. The internal governance structures of the universities and various operational matterswill beincorporated in the university company’s Memorandum and Articles of Association (M&A), which is alsothe case for SMU in the case of the existing SMU Act. As an additional safeguard, any amendment to the M&As would require the consent of the Minister for Education, as provided for in the SMU M&A today.

The NUS Bill also provides the legislative provisions to transfer NUS’ property, rights and liabilities to the successor university company, and will repeal the existing NUS Act which establishes NUS as a statutory board.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now highlight the key clauses of the NUS (Corporatisation) Bill.

Role of Government

It will remain the Government’s responsibility to steer the strategic direction of the overall university sector and ensure that our three universities meet strategic national priorities. This is provided for in clause 5. Itwill largelybe operationalised through the Policy Agreement that will be signed between the Ministry and the university, as part of the enhanced accountability framework that is being put in place.

Strong governance structures are critical to the success of the university. As such, the Minister for Education will continue to appoint the university’s Board of Trustees (BOT), as provided for in clause 6. We must appoint the right people as Trustees. They play several critical roles: firstly, to provide leadership and guidance on the strategic directions for the university; secondly, to appoint the President of the university and to appraise the President of the university; and thirdly, to ensure the responsible use of the university’s resources and maximise the returns on those resources.

Enhanced accountability

The enhanced accountability framework for the Autonomous University, as reflected in the new clause 4, will comprise the following:

Firstly, a Policy Agreement to be signed between each university, in the presentinstance,NUS,and the Ministry of Education that stipulates the key policy parameters articulated by MOE which the university must abide by in order to receive Government funding. Some of the policies include the tuition fee setting framework, the framework for admissions, andadequate cost control measures to ensure that resources are utilised optimally. The Policy Agreementwill not be cast in stone, of course, and from time to time, we willreview it tomake surethat it is suitable for the directions that the university itself is pursuing.

Secondly, a Performance Agreement, besides the Policy Agreement I just spoke about, which will be formulated by the university and agreed toby the Ministry of Education. This is the university's ex-ante declaration of what it is setting out to achieve in the areas of teaching, research, service and organisational development. This Agreement will be reviewed every five years. In addition, the Ministry and each university will work out and agree on the number of graduates to be trained by the university in broad clusters of disciplines on an annual basis. The performance of the university will be reviewed annually in the four areas of academic teaching and curriculum, research outcomes and training, contribution and service to the wider community, and organisation development matters. It would include such issues as the breadth of the curriculum that the universities are seeking to achieve, things such as the number of cross faculty modules that undergraduates are required to cover, andthe percentage of students that the universities intend to send foroverseas exposure throughexchange programmes.

Thirdly, the existing Ministry of Education's Quality Assurance Framework for Universities (QAFU) that includes an on-site external validation of the university's performance by an MOE-commissioned external review panel. QAFUalready exists. It is chaired by Dr Jennifer Lee and comprises a few eminent international experts, as well as senior members of the local corporate community. This validation will be carried out once in every three to five years. The process is in place and has been working well.

In order to ensure that the Autonomous Universities remain fully accountable for the use of public monies, the new clause 9 provides for the Ministry to have continued full and free access to all records relating to financial transactions of the university company, and to be able tomake such records available to the public.

The Minister for Education's consent would also have to be sought for the university's functions cited in clause 7 of the Bill, such as the disposal of property, winding-up of the university company, as well as the addition, deletion or alteration of the university company's constituent documents.

The Ministry is mindful that we want to give our universities the autonomy they need to excel, and not to be encumbered by unnecessary procedures and processes. I am confident that we will be able to find the right balance between autonomy and accountability, and that the processes of accountability will not be burdensome.

Transfer provisions

Parts III and IV of the NUS (Corporatisation) Bill provide for the transfer of property, rights, liabilities, employees and others, from NUS as a statutory board to the corporatised NUS. This is to ensure a smooth transition from NUS' statutory board status to its new identity as an autonomous university company.

Dissolution of Academic Staff Provident Fund (ASPF) Scheme

The First Schedule of the NUS (Corporatisation) Bill provides for the dissolution of the ASPF and transfer of the balance of the ASPF assets to the Central Provident Fund Board.

The ASPF started at a time when the CPF did not exist. For greater cost effectiveness for the benefit of the ASPF members, the NUS Council made the decision in October 2003 to dissolve the ASPF and merge it with the CPF. NUS will bear all costs relating to the closure of the ASPF and ensure that no member is disadvantaged. NUS has also sought feedback from current and past ASPF members, and the response has been positive.

MOE, NUS, MOM and the CPF Board have worked closely on this matter and the necessary legislative provisions for the dissolution of the ASPF and the subsequent transfer of balance of assets to the CPF are included in the First Schedule of the NUS (Corporatisation) Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude. Our universities have done exceptionally well within a relatively short space of time - a short history. But it will take more for them to become great universities. The three University Bills to establish NUS, NTU and SMU as Autonomous Universities will lay the foundation and position our universities well to become leaders amongst universities in the Asia-Pacific and to be up to the best internationally in specific fields. This will allow our universities to be key strategic assets for Singapore, as we stake our claim in the knowledge-based economy.

As the universities enhance the quality of education, MOE, together with each university, will ensure that university education remains accessible and affordable to Singaporeans. No Singaporean admitted to the university will be denied a university education because of financial constraints.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.52 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand to speak in support of the National University of Singapore (Corporatisation) Bill 2005. With globalisation, information revolution, diversification of training needs and demand patterns in the labour market, universities need to be more entrepreneurial and innovative to become quicker, more flexible and much more focused in reactions to expanding and changing demands. I hope the enactment of this Bill, and thus the autonomy given to our universities, NUS and NTU, will facilitate them to be more nimble to accommodate these changing needs. The desired outcome, of course, will be for our universities to be capable at competing globally with innovative training and research and with increased productivity, thereby receiving not only national but also first-league international recognition.

Sir, to be able to initiate and implement the process ofchange, there is a need for a steering core that has the steering capacity, especially on organisational structure, beyond the traditional mode. Structural changes that increase the pace and effectiveness of decision-making are required. But there is always dialectic underway between steering core or groups representing the interests of the total university versus faculty and departmental individuals or groups responsible for the welfare of a part of the whole. The question is whether our universities are ready for this new role. Is it a case of expecting a child to run when he has not even walked yet?

Sir, is an appropriate team of key leadership in place to chart the strategic direction, competent on new policies and efficient on management of resources? Just recently, NUS announced that it plans to borrow up to $1 billion in funds for running costs, new buildings, hostels and upgrading facilities. NTU also plans to borrow $800 million next year to fund the new facilities and services. The question is whether such large borrowings are prudent. Will such borrowings result in too heavy a burden on the universities with regard to the servicing of debt obligations? How does MOE ensure the proper use and accountability of university resources? For example, on the current issue, will MOE ascertain the wise use of funds in the case of NTU's intent, as reported in the Sunday Times on 13th November, to purchase 300 Herman Miller Aeron chairs or their equivalent costing up to $2,200 each? Will MOE still be able to ensure that corporatised universities are credible and accountable in all their dealings to maintain public confidence with the greater autonomy given to them?

Sir, I have three other areas of concern with regard to the corporatisation of our universities.

My first area of concern is on the affordability of fees for our university students. Universities will have the autonomy to set fees, albeit with limits set by MOE. It is the intention of our Government to reduce the subsidy and let students bear the greater portion of tertiary education cost. According to Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, it is a global phenomenon that the cost of higher education increases faster than general inflation. All these will only mean fee-hikes for university students and, thus, my concern on the affordability of fees for university students. Although there are loan schemes available, will it still be too onerous for students to pursue tertiary education? Should they be burdened with debt even before they find employment? Will the high costs deter people from pursuing tertiary education? It will be a sorry state, Sir, to both the individuals and to the nation, if we fall through to educate fully the next generation of citizens and leaders. This will go against our main aim of developing our students to their fullest potentials and, worse still, snubbing the potential of the most able students that usually qualify for tertiary education, the group that is important for our continued economic success. The concern is also for those less well-off bright students who have qualified for places. These students may have difficulty in raising the 10-20% minimum-payments before loans. Will the Ministry ensure that there will be enough scholarships or bursaries to assist them?

The other concern, Sir, is on the cultivation of knowledge of our students and the quality of education. In countries where universities have been corporatised, many classics departments, especially on the humanities, have been eliminated. Corporatisation always also means market-driven, ie, a new emphasis on market forces in higher education policy. The concern is that, as corporatised universities are expected to raise their own revenues, they may become beholden to the financiers on the skills required by them. Students may be deprived of a well-rounded education. The potential removal of certain disciplines due to a lack of market demand will necessarily lead to a streamlined focus on "hot" disciplines, neglecting others which are less in demand but which are essential to a balanced tertiary education and leading to lack of diversity in knowledge. University education should not only prepare students for the jobs of today, but also for jobs which have yet to be "invented". In the quest for raising revenues will corporatised universities accept more foreign students that pay higher fees at the expense of the places for the locals? Will corporatised universities accept students on the promise of donations to the universities despite the students being lesser qualified?

My next area of concern is for the staff of the corporatised universities. Will there be cutting back on costs that result in increasing casualisation, juniorisation and "churning" of academic staff? My concern is that, with any cost-cutting measures, more part-time staff and junior professors will replace tenure and senior academics which may affect the quality of education. The drive for non-continuing or limited-term contract appointments will point towards human costs to individuals and their families. The morale of the staff may take a toll, resulting in lower performance levels to the disadvantage of students.

Sir, innovative research and training are the driving components of increased productivity in our industry to compete globally and universities can contribute to this national industrial performance by engaging in areas in the market-driven research and market-sensitive products. But, this may bring its own side effects. Other corporatised universities in developed countries have responded to the market-place and raised revenues by exploiting commercial opportunities, especially in targeted research and joint ventures. Academics are also expected to change considerably to respond to corporatisation by engaging in the production and sale of educational services to a market in return for specific rewards. As faculty members increase their marketability and are given

more external counselling opportunities, faculty time would decrease and create conflicting demands for teaching versus research versus service. Universities may lose control over their faculty members. The credibility of its standards will be a problem by allowing marketplace to determine academic policies. There is a need to ensure that universities are dedicated to education, be interested in research and strong academic values. Consideration must be given to academics that are not best at bothcutting edge research and teaching, as some are brilliant in teaching, but are not good in research or in commercialisation needs and hence, the necessity for cross-subsidy across departments and faculties to minimise conflict and division.

Corporate work practices may accelerate the demand on staff to work as researchers, teachers, leaders and managers. This would mean impossible workloads for the majority of lecturing staff that invariably result in work stress.

This Bill does not address issues on academics with sidelines consulting arrangements, direct financial interests in the companies sponsoring research and in the publication of data from research. We have to address any area of conflicts in order not to corrupt the mission of the universities.

My last area of concern, Sir, is on whether the corporatised universities, since they are expected to raise greater proportions of their own revenues, will adopt commercialisation and commodification of higher education and will enter into partnership with private business firms in the pursuit of wealth; with erosion on the long-term priority of higher education and mission and lowering of education standards. Education objectives may be formulated into producing marketable, saleable commodity to different segments of the customer or student population for the purpose of dispensing degrees and generating large numbers of "job-ready" graduates. Attracting as many students as possible and failing as few as possible will result in falling standards. Universities should remain first and foremost centres of learning and fulfilling cultural and ethical role for society at large. Will more funds be earmarked for commercial projects, rather than as general educational funds?

Companies may violate academic freedom or change the direction of academic research. Universities should have full and open disclosure of any contract with any industry and should fully respect the academic culture, protect academic freedom and do not permit the industry excessive control over research process or publication of the final results.

This Bill doesnot address the issue of universities holding equity in the companies that are sponsoring research. It also does not address the issue of royalties and other fees in the commercialisation of university research. Are patenting and licensing allowed? Should there be a third-party licensing body to assume the responsibility of technology transfer and commercialisation needs and leaving universities to concentrate on cutting edge research and teaching?

5.05 pm

At the expense of well-rounded and diverse education, corporatised universities may compete with other universities in the production and marketing of courses that attract mass participation of students that are seen as customers. Only two weeks ago, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it was announced that NUS Business School will have a new $20 million building to accommodate its plan to nearly double its enrolment in the coming years. With so many other universities, such as SMU, NTU, INSEAD here offering the same courses, will it be a case of duplication and thus, the potential of diluting quality and too little differentiation?

Lastly, both NTU and NUS have indicated that they plan to issue bonds to borrow money. It would be important to reflect on the possible repercussions of a bond issue by the universities. The use of bond issues has been increasingly popular in the United States. Some, such as that issued by Harvard, have consistently outperformed against many of the benchmarks of asset classes, apart from real estate and inflation indexed bonds. This has allowed Harvard to deliver the appropriate returns to investors. However, Harvard's ability to do so is through its prudent management of its policy portfolio for the Harvard endowment.

Thus, the first question to reflect on is what steps Universities would need to take so that they can deliver the expected yields on investment made. In the case of Harvard, the Harvard Management Company issues an annual report to its investors tracking five-year and 10-year performance. Harvard has consistently outperformed in its results. However, it is a benchmark since it has a long tradition and its alumni donate generously to its alma mater whereas in Singapore, the culture of philanthropy is not as developed. Will our Universities be able to fulfill the performance targets?

Secondly, the success of a possible bond issue in attracting investors would be dependent on its ability to obtain a good bond rating. Agencies, such as Moody's would provide a positive outlook on a bond issue if it is able to secure its repayment obligations through unrestricted revenues. So the local universities that intend to issue out bonds would need to ask if they have the ability to attract strong student demand with high net tuition revenue per student. Similarly, these universities would need to ensure efficient operating performance. An increasing proportion of the repayment obligations incurred by universities that have issued bonds in the United States is sourced through robust fund-raising campaigns. Thus, we have to ask if our local universities have the people who are equipped to handle these kinds of activities to support their repayment obligations if they issue out bonds.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, bond issues by local universities may result in accelerated fee hikes. This would be a negative consequence of a bond issue that I am wary of. In the United States, some universities that have issued bonds implemented fee hikes in stages for the specific purpose of funding bond repayment obligations. If universities are going to issue bonds here, it may be important to know what steps they intend to take and the impact of their decisions.

Sir, the salient point is how does our Government ensure that the corporatised universities are accountable to certain performance measures and transparent in their dealings, management and spending? Transparency in all these areas is essential to maintain public confidence. Will MOE attach certain performance measure for the continuation of Government subsidy? What kind of penalty will be attached to failure of accountability? Will the Quality Assurance Framework for Universities address all these areas?

I hope the Minister can address my areas of concerns.

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

First, I should disclose that I am a professor of the National University of Singapore and an elected member of the Senate Delegacy.I would like address the same point to both the NUS and the NTU Bills. I support both these Bills. I have only one concern.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the cornerstone of the success of our universities is academic governance, and,in turn, the academic governance is founded upon the university's constitution. I think we are all aware of the sensitivity of the issue of academic governance, especially with regardto the recent decision of the University of Warwick not to come to Singapore. Sir, my concern is, with regard to the NUS and NTU Corporatisation Bills. Under these two Bills, theoriginal NUS and NTU Acts will be repealed. Along with the repeal of those Acts, the respective universities' constitutions will also be repealed.

My concern, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is what will become of the universities' constitutions with the corporatisation of these two universities? Will the constitutions be incorporated into the new university Memorandum and Articles of Association? If not, how can we be assured that the academic governance of our two great universities will be continued to be safeguarded in the era of corporatisation?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

The Minister for Education posed the question onwhat makes a university great. I believe that John DRockfeller asked the same question of the President of Harvard, Charles Eliot,who answered "$50 million and 200 years".This answer was given approximately100 years ago. I assume that the figures have changed. I am sure everyone will agree with me that it takes a lot more money now to make a great university. Hopefully, it takes less time, perhaps we can telescope the time with globalisation and IT. But I think with the new university autonomy corporatisation Bill, this is a question that we all should be asking ourselves, and especially the universities.I am sure they are doing that.

Since there have been some -in fact, no less thanthe Prime Minister himself - who havebrought up the issue of the X-factor with regard to Singapore becoming a great global city,I think it is relevant to ask what the X-factor is with regard to universities.Like all X-factors,when you see it, you recognise it,you know what it is. But it is very difficult to put in words. If you have not seen it, likea great work of art or agreat culinary dish, it is very difficult for someone else to transmit it to you second-hand. But I believe that all ofus must have experienced it in some way or another. If Imay be permitted, I would like to describe my own experience.

When I was admitted into NUS as a medical undergraduate, I remember that in our first year, we did a survey - I thinkthiswas spontaneously initiated by the students -we did a survey of all the medical studentswho had gone in to find out what was the mainmotivating reason that we were doing medicine. At that time, of course, there was no careerguidance. There was no interview system.So it waspurely on grades.

Themajority of the students said that they went in because they thought that medicine gave them a degree which wouldprovide a respectable and secure job. In other words,they went in for thatpaper qualification. The second largest group said that they went in - and I am sorry to say that I belonged to that group - mainly because of parental or family pressure. But presumably, the parental and family pressure was for the same thing, the paper qualification, but we did not have the ability to think it out ourselves. And only a very small minority said that they went in out of love for medicine, either the ideal of practisingas a doctor or the pursuit of medical knowledge. I do not think there was any fine distinction because it was such a small group. This does not sound very good,not just for the medical profession, but for medicine in Singapore.

I am glad that the Minister for Health is not here.

But what happened to all of us? I think if a survey had been done in our final year, we would have responded differently, because the X-factor had, I believe, touched all of us, which is that we were exposed to teachers, professors, clinicians who were passionate about the way they practised medicine. They had an uncompromising pursuit of excellence, both in the practice of medicine and the pursuit of knowledge. Although not all of us - in fact, most of us did not turn out as perfect products - at least, I think, all of us were touched by this inspiration. So this is what I consider the X-factor that all universities must have and thisis why you have to have a person-to-person contact. This is why universities cannot just convert totally to IT. This is what makes a university great. If you put in a lot of money and even if you had 200 years, if you do not have this X-factor, I do not think you would get the maximum benefit of the money and time.

How do we create an environment that allows this X-factor to flourish? The University Autonomy Governance and Funding (UAGF) Report has quite correctly identified - and the Minister has touched on this - that the culture of ownership is very important. I quote:

"For autonomy to succeed, we need to nurture a culture of ownership by stakeholders in the university. This requires a mindset change which will take time and will be difficult to achieve if there is no overt change in the status of the universities."

I presume this is one of the justifications for autonomy.

A culture of ownership, however, must have the following. It must have autonomy, it must have trust and it must have continuity. The autonomy should include freedom to make choices by the university, including mistakes, in order for them to develop a full sense of responsibility.The trust, presumably, is mutual trust between allstakeholders, which I think should be manifested by a free flow of information and opinions. And, of course, continuity allows for the time for all these to develop.

I would now like to refer tothe National University of Singapore (Corporatisation) Bill. Clause 4(1) and (2) is on accountability and quality assurance framework that is described in the Bill.As itstates, this framework is an agreement in writing between the university company and the Minister. Clause 4(2) states, "... the performance of its activities in accordance with such quality assurance framework as the Minister may determine."

Now, too many conditions, restrictions and guidelines by MOE would tend, in my opinion, tocreate a perception of a lack of autonomy and a lack of trust between the university and the Government. I hope thatthis framework, which I acknowledge should exist, should be seen as a light, flexible and, hopefully, temporary scaffolding largely constructed by the universities themselves, and this should be seen as a framework to enable the universities to scale to greater heights and to create new edifices. It should not be regarded by the universities as a case that restricts their growth and constrains academic freedom.

The same with the External Review Panel (ERP) and policies on Higher Education (HE). Our Minister has said, if I heard him correctly,that the External Review Panel will be appointed by the Ministry of Education. This seems to me rathera lack of trust, and also going contrary to allowing the universities to have more autonomy. Should not the Government consider taking a backseat on the ERP? And does the same apply to the Higher Education policies?

The question here is: does the Government view the university as a trusted partner and equal? Also, perhaps more importantly, how do the universities view the Government? It has been said very often that universities alreadyhave a considerable amount of academic freedom and autonomy. But when one questions academics, you get a very varied spectrum of responses to this question, even in the press. This may not be a black box but I think it is a grey area where many academics andstudents have a perception of a lack of autonomy, and I think this should be addressed at this point. If the universities are going to go on to the next stage and have real autonomy, perhaps the Government might like to state what their OB markers are, where they would not interfere with university autonomy.

One area I would like to specifically address here -and I say that I have no vested interest in this - is in relation to the retirement age of academics. Will universities be allowed to change this, now that they are corporations?

I now refer to clause 6 on the appointment and removal of trustees by the Ministry of Education. I believe that this too will infringe on the university's autonomy and detract from its sense of ownership, particularly since the Minister mentioned that the trustees have an important role, including on theappointment ofthe President. The Ministry of Education appoints the trustees. The trustees appoint the President and make important decisions in the university, then it is still going to be a very, very top down approach.Instead, perhaps we could have an independent national agency, somewhere along the lines of the Australian University Quality Assurance (AUQA) agency. I quote:

"This is an independent national agency to monitor, audit and report on quality assurance in Australian higher education... It operates independently of governments under the direction of an appropriately structured Board of Directors."

If I may say so again, if Singapore universities are to become internationally recognised for excellence, it is the international academic community that should decide this. An endorsement by a government saying that the university possesses certain standards does not really hold much water in the academic community. I believeNUS was ranked 18th in the Time Education Supplement ranking, it later dropped four points. I thought it dropped to 22. I do not think this is relevant. The actual position is relevant. It dropped because of the lack of peer review. This was the impression that I was given.

So, the question here is: will this amendment Bill give the university autonomy in the areas that will really make it improve as a university - academic freedom? Or will it just transfer additional financial responsibilities on the universities without giving them the necessary freedom? Dr Lily Neo expressed some concerns about universities becoming over commercialised, becoming for-profit universities and private corporations using the universities for their ends. I think this will happen if the universities have the responsibility of raising their own funding without autonomy in the academic arena.

As the Minister has also indicated, and in the UAGF too, the autonomy should not be just a transfer of power from top down- from Government to universities. It should permeate right down to faculties and students. I believe that it should also be a bottom up movement. Students should initiate moves which would move up to the top of the university hierarchy. And there should also be a lateral movement between universities and the larger community that they exist in. Faculty and students should therefore not be divorced from national issues whether big or small. I believe that for students especially, this is a critical time which determines many of their future affiliations to people, places, ideals, concepts, and how they develop and strengthen their bonds within the university and the larger community will impact on their sense of ownership and belonging in Singapore itself.

On the issue of foreign students and academics who have temporarily made Singapore their home, they have made a commitment- maybe a temporary one - but I think it is the responsibility of our community and our universities to make them feel as comfortable and to develop as strong a sense of belonging as possible. If we do not do so, they will use our universities as a stepping stone for greener pastures. But since they have made this temporary commitment, I think that we should give them the same ability and the same sense that they can participate, analyse and criticise national issues as well as issues within their discipline.

Here again, I know we are in a grey area. Somepeople think that there is total freedom, but a lot of academics are still very dubious. There are certain areas that they feel they would rather not venture into because, as one academic said to me, it is a high-risk low-reward area. I thinkwith this new Bill, the Government perhaps should define clearer OB markers. Otherwise, we will lose out on many valuable perspectives that will help us build the big picture, and we will also lose out on talent, both local and foreign.

What is our desired goal? I believe ownership and autonomy are just means for us to combine within the university framework our global aspirations and local needs in one. I do not see this as mutually exclusive but complementary. Although I agree that certain choices have to be made, I think excellence and affordability can be seen as two sides of the same coin. It is thesame with teaching and research or the balance between local and foreign students. I believe that each adds value to the other. And a coin should be seen in its whole entity as currency ofvalue. We should not be obliged to choose between one side and theother side. It is understandable that governments regard universities as an investment. Of course, the Minister has said as much- an investment of our resources, both monetary and human, for the future of our nation. But I feel that this talk of investment sometimes leads to misinterpretation or misrepresentation by some people. It should be realised

that there are serious limitations in applying an economic model to the university, both in the way it is run and the desired outcomes that cannot be measured in economic terms alone.

First of all, people and knowledge cannot be regarded or treated like dollars and cents. And, therefore, universities cannot be run like business corporations, or a good university should not be. A global university should not be seen as a multinational corporation.

Secondly, I believe that too much dependence on numerical and mechanistic criteria, such as rankings, awards or numerical KPIs - key performance indices, the number of publications in top journals -all these,they are worth something, but I do not think over-emphasis on them would be productive in assessing the value of the university.

Finally, I believe that this investment is far too long-term. It may not be200 yearsbut, definitely, I think, it is 25, 50 years or more.Therefore, it is far too long-term for any reliable forecasts to be made by policy makers, industry players, economists or even academics themselves.

I think the best thing that we can do is to go for diversity and quality, and universities, of course, you have to be discipline-specific, but the purpose- as I mentionedabout the X factor -should be teaching students how to learn and how to think, rather than how to perform within a particular discipline and nothing else.

In a knowledge-based economy,I think it is highly dangerous if we are too discipline-specific, especially at the undergraduate level. Therefore, I would like to say that this Proposed Graduate Output Funding Model, which is described in the UAGF Steering Committee's review, sounds to me a very, very obsolete way of doing things. I quote paragraph6.20 on page 59: "We propose that MOE fund theuniversities based on graduate output numbers rather than enrolment." This, I believe, is a new development. Conceptually, in such an output-based funding model, the universities can be viewed as suppliers of graduate manpower. The Government, as a buyer, then funds theuniversities to produce a predetermined number of graduates in the different disciplines.

I am not an economist, but this does not seem to make economic sense to me although it seems to have a narrow economic target. It also detracts obviously from the universities' autonomy because, if you cannot determine the product, where is the autonomy?And I believe that, most important of all, it works both against our national interests and our global aspirations.

Perhaps a more workable compromise would be to involve universities more closely in the manpower process, but not to pay them based on outputs which are discipline-specific. You could ask universities to make their manpower projections,give them the necessary data and information to enable them to do so, and,importantly, you could fund them for manpower studies in areas decided either by them or Government, or jointly, but I do not think the funding should be dependent on Government's projections of manpower outputs, especially such short-term ones. I believe that this is going to be done on an annual basis. So where is the long-term vision in this?

On a broader sense, I would echo again what Dr Lily Neo said,I am concerned here again with these manpower projections and with autonomy too on the neglect of the humanities. To quote a well-respected former civil servant, Mr Ngiam Tong Dow, "Many Singaporeans lack cultural DNA due to educational neglect to teach history and literature." I presume that Mr Ngiam was not just referring to university education but to schools as well. But I think universities do set a standard there and there is a trickle-down effect. If you do not emphasise or value itatthe university level,how do you expect schools to value the humanities?

The question here is: where will our future leaders come from? If we want to have universities of excellence locally, I hope that one of the aims is to produce future leaders of Singapore. Surely they should not come from just the top universities abroad. Also, what disciplines should they come from? Surely they should not just come from business, science and technology-oriented disciplines. I would like some leaders who come from the humanities.

But, as I have said, it is not just discipline-specific but the fact that every student should be exposed to as broad a number of disciplines as possible. I remember, as a university student, one of the best bits was when we went over - at that time the medical campus was separate -and had some interaction with the arts and humanities students. That, I felt, was a great education.

Sir, in conclusion, may I say that, as Minister said, the universities are our key strategic investment for the future. But the most important stakeholder is not the Government but future generations of Singaporeans.I believe that the best way that this University Corporatisation Bill can add value to this investment is to give the universities autonomy where they need it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I would first like to declare my interest. I am presently an associate professor at the National University of Singaporeand I am also an elected member of theUniversity Senate Delegacy.

Sir, I welcome and support this Bill on NUS corporatisation. The corporatisation of NUS will allow it to compete effectively and to excel in this fast-changing and uncertain landscape. I would, however, like this House to consider certain points. And, unfortunately, being the last speaker on this Bill, a few points have already been raised earlier byhonourable Members, but I would still reiterate them.

Point 1: Integrity of university education

First,on the standard and integrity of university education. Sir, in simple terms, corporatisation means that universities are assumed to be very similar to large business organisations and, therefore, capable of being run as businesses. Corporatised universities are expected to raise a much greater proportion of their own revenue, enter into business enterprises, acquire and hold investment portfolios, encourage partnerships with private business firms, compete with other universities in the production and marketing of courses to students who are now seen as customers, and generally engage with the market for higher education.

The corporate university has the predominating characteristics of being an institution that pursues technical excellence and as one that would follow a supplier-and-customer model of the basic educational relationship.

Ina corporatised university, students are seen as customers or clients, a concept which follows logically from the visualisation of a university as a business producing and marketing knowledge in the form of vocationally-oriented courses. While not intrinsically a non-academic procedure, critics of the system have noted that over-use of student evaluations undermines academic standards by creating a need to please and to give ever-higher grades. In addition, there is the consequence that they can be used to undermine the integrity and even existence of disciplines to the extent that there is a threat to the traditional subject of university education.

Point 2: Education becomes a commodity

Second, Sir, with the corporatisation of the universities, and students are now being seen as customers or clients,the university education will become a commodity. Sir, are we running the risk of commercialising the education process, and making university education a privilege of the rich? Sir, this is the question on the minds of many Singaporeans, especially those in the middle-income level and below. Many are worrying that they will no longer be able to provide their children with a university education.

With the corporatisation of these universities, I hope the MOE can share with this House on how it plans to work with the universities to ensure and enhance the quality of education and to prevent university education from being commoditised, to ensure that university education remains accessible and affordable.

Third, technical excellence. As mentioned earlier, the corporate university has the predominating characteristics of being an institution that pursues technical excellence and as one that would follow a customer-and-supplier model of the basic educational relationship.

Technical excellence would appear to be a suitable criterion for the purposes of a university, but the problem that arises is that the use of 'excellence' as an absolute standard has the effect of placing techniques above ends or values. The result of this predominance of techniques over values is the decline of classical disciplines, which Dr Lily Neo has earlier mentioned, which can be seen occurring on a global scale. In the American context, this process has been recounted by many observers and has been repeated in many other universities. In the countries where universities have been corporatised, many classics departments have been eliminated but this has not been restricted to the humanities alone as it is also occurring in the classical science disciplines of chemistry, physics and mathematics, where, again, the pure is giving way to the applied.

The removal of disciplines from university curricula follows automatically from the conception that a university produces a 'product' that can be 'consumed' and, if this particular productive unit has no buyers for its product, then logically it should not continue to exist.

But, Sir, the process of allowing the market to determine academic priorities does bring with it problems of the credibility of standards. So we need to neutralise or minimise these harmful aspects of the corporatisation process by rejecting the idea that a university should follow market trends and reaffirm its special role as an institution dedicated to the pursuit of significant knowledge and lasting values.

Fourth, Sir, national and social responsibility. We only have four universities in Singapore, unlike in USA where there are both state-run and private universities. Our universities are responsible to our Government and Singapore, and they should be training first-class human resources for the country.

With the corporatisation of the universities, it means that the universities have now cut off their apron strings from MOE andthe Government and can now shake off their social responsibility towards Singapore. Sir, does it mean that the corporatised universities can now decide on their own ratio of intake of foreign students to local students? In this respect, can MOE share with this House on what will be the ratio of foreign students to local students intake after the corporatisation, and what are the measures that will be put in place to ensure that any change in this ratio of foreign students to local students intake by the universities will not be at the expense of local students?

Fifth, on university fees, Sir, I have spoken on this topic during the COS debate this year and I would like to bring it up again. After corporatisation, NUS would have the freedom in deciding its own fee structure.In January this year, SMU, a corporatised university, announced that their undergraduate tuition fees will be increased by 15% this August. After the corporatisation of NUS, the most concerned question on the minds of most students is whether the university is going to raise its fees.

Sir, I spoke to a number of students and asked them what is their view of corporatisation with respect to how it affect them, and the most common answer that I received was: "As long as the fees do not increase during my course of study in NUS and the lecturers who teach us are good in their teaching so that we

understand the materials being taught, corporatisation does not really matter a lot to us as we are only with the university for at most three to four years."

Sir, MOE mentioned that after the corporatisation of the universities, they would have the liberty to increase their fees yearly, but capped at 10% over the previous year's fees. I hope that MOE could share with this House on what are the kinds of percentage increases in university fees and the frequency with which the fees will be increased that students can expect after the corporatisation of the university.

If the fee increase is significant and the frequency ofincrease is high, I would urge the Ministry to consider scaling down the percentage of the fee hike allowed and stating that students once admitted into a programme in the university will not be seriously affected by a fee hike during their course of studies and stipulate this clearly in the Policy and Performance Agreement with the universities for avoiding the freedom of fee hike and increased burden on the undergraduates.

Point 6: Review criteria for financial assistance

There are currently a number of scholarships,bonds, loans,bursaries, financial assistance schemes as well as "study while you work" opportunities, to ensure that no qualified students will be denied entrance due to financial constraints. However, many students do not qualify for the bursaries and study loans and have ended up taking commercial loans, such that many of them are actually debt-ridden upon graduation.

Currently, eligibility of bursaries and study loans depends on the combined income of a household. However, the combined income does not represent the true affordability as the older siblings in a family could all be paying back their study loans. As a result, many students could be denied of their financial assistance. Sir, the keywords here are "usable income".

Sir, I hopeMOE and the universities will review the current criteria for eligibility for bursaries and study loans.

Point 7: Concerns of supporting staff in the universities

Lastly, I would like to highlight the general concerns of the supporting staff towards the university corporatisation. Sir, I recall that I attended the very first dialogue session that the university corporatisation committee held with the university staff. This very first session was attended mostly by the support staff with teaching staff forming only a very small percentage. When the Provost opened the session for Question and Answer, the very first question came from a supporting staff and the question was, "Will there be more outsourcing after the university corporatisation?" Other questions from the supporting staff are whether the more senior or mature staff will be retrenched after the corporatisation when it becomes more cost-conscious.

Sir, one main concern of the supporting staff is the likelihood of being retrenched in a cost-conscious corporatised university. Many of the support staff are concerned that the style of management in a corporatised university would differ significantly from that of the traditional universities and move towards a more robust or even cut-throat style, known as managerialism, suchthat senior staff after 30 or 40 years of service to the university, would be retrenched after the corporatisation.

The other main concern of the support staff is the emphasis of a corporatised university on short-term employment leading to a possible increasein outsourcing, where more temporary staffare being hired and used when necessary. Sir, with more temporary staff, it would be difficult to enhance a sense of ownership of these staff which are a stakeholder of the university towards the university. With an increase in outsourcing, this may lead to a drop in the service quality of the university. So I hope that MOE will work with the university to address these concerns of the supporting staff in the university.

Sir, in conclusion, I support this Bill.

5.50 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir,I am not as pessimistic as some of the previous speakers, but I share some of their concerns. Before that, I would like to declare that I am a member of the Board of Trustees of SMU, one of the corporatised universities.

To me, the role of universities is to produce graduates for commerce and industry and, also, to provide thought leadership for the country and the society. It should be a home for ideas, a cradle for creativity and, of course, in today's world, hopefully the home which produces a lot of intellectual property with which our economy will benefit from. We must remember that we have inherited a legacy of state-funded, state-run, and often state-employee kind of university. In that sort of environment, it is understandable that a lot of rigidities andbureaucracy would creep in and have crept in.

I have been a product of NUS or Singapore University. I had seen what it was like. I was a very active student. I have also served on the Board of SMU, a start-up university, starting from borrowed premises and have seen what innovationcan do.Many of you have talked about academic freedom. The Board of Trustees, in essence,has the confidence of MOE and has greatfreedom to innovate and test ideas.

For the next lap, and forusto survive as a people, as a society in a knowledge economy, we face a global competition for talents. I wonder whether people know that we have lost some of our brightest and best over the years to the Ivy League Schools and Oxbridge, and some of them have found jobs, settled down, never to return.We have lost some of these talents and our economy is worse off for it.

How do we have universities that will be innovative and responsive to the demands of society and of the world so that we can offer a good education that our own brightest and best will choose to stay, choose to study here and be trained here, perhaps do their post graduate overseas andreturn to work here, to live here, to sink their roots here? I hope that our universities, when they are empowered through this corporatisation, will enable Singapore to achieve that, perhaps even attract some of the brightest and best from other countries, from the region, and that will improve our talent pool and, some would say, even our DNA pool. We must ensure that our universities are free to compete, free to innovate and be able to respond in whatever way necessary. We should not tie their hands. We must enable the universities to be relevant to society andrelevant to commerce and industry. I am not so sure our state-funded and state run universities have done all that they could. If we were to free them up, I think they can do a lot more.

SMU has experienced a lot of changes in the five years since a group of private sector people who knew very little about professorial matters, but all successful in their private sector businesses, got together and with a lot of common sense and goodwill under the able chairmanship of the Chairman, Mr Ho. I think we have done well. In the first year, we were all very concerned. Nobody needed to tell us. All of us went to meet our grassroots and the students. We had many meetings andlunches to interact with the students. We interacted with the parents. Many of the trustees actually took classes. SMU is the only place where students could meet the likes of Kwek Leng Beng, Simon Israel and many others whom people only read about in the papers, who have been successful business leaders, and they are all better for their experience.

I would suggest that if the Government were to concentrate on appointing the right type of people to the Board, empowering them and giving them freedom to act, select them well-right thinking people, people with a deep sense of responsibility attached to Singapore, people who want to see Singapore do well, then I think these people would be prepared to spend time, and maybe work harder at their volunteer work than their real jobs, to make sure that our NUS and NTU will be excellent universities. And whether it is financial sustainability, academic freedom, staff retention and many, many other issues of a strategic nature, I am sure that a good group of people, Singaporeans, maybe in future the alumni of these universities,would be able to providethe leadership andsolution. I actually think that betting on a Board of maybe 20 Singaporeans with a heart for Singapore is safer than betting on one Education Minister, even one that is as able as the current one, or one Permanent Secretary, or one Vice-Chancellor, or one University President.

I hope the Government will clearly and unstintingly assure Singaporeans, and this is something which I share deeply with my colleague who has spoken earlier, that university education will always be affordable and accessible to as many Singaporeans as possible. We can be creative. We can have partial scholarship, half scholarship, three-quarter-scholarship, or whatever. We can have private scholarship. Many of us in this House, and many of us who have made it in Singapore, have made it because we have got subsidised education.

With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

5.55 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Members who have spoken - Dr Lily Neo, Dr Geh Min,Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim and Dr Loo Choon Yong - for their very useful observations and for their support of the Bill.

Before I address their specific concerns and queries, perhaps I should just make a general pointonthe concerns about what this ogre of a corporate university amounts to, what it implies for product andcommercialisation, and so on. Let me start by saying that the best universities in the world by international acclaim are not corporatised universities, but private universities, much more than corporatised universities. They are private, havetheir Boards of Trustees, are typically not for profit, and entirely autonomous of Government. Whether we will eventually get there or want to get there is something we will decide several years from now. But we are making an intermediate step, a step which may very well be appropriate even for the long term, towards state-funded autonomous universities.

We are borrowing some of the lessons we have observed in the best universities in the world, which are private universities, but putting them in a framework of state-funded universities, publicly fundedandmeritocratic. Afather cannot give a phone call to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees so thathis son gets a place - that is the Singapore system.But we see no reason why we cannot, in a mainstream, publicly funded system, import the best practices of private universities, which are typically from the United States.There is no hint in these private universities, no hint amongst the alumni or students, or faculty, or employers thatthey are producing a commodity, or that they are commoditising their product.If they were to try to do that, their reputation would ebb.They know it will destroy their very attraction and reputation if they will try to commercialise their product. They know that the essence of the university lies in the quality which is difficult to measure, as Dr Geh Min says.They know that.

So we too will strive in various ways - whilst being efficient infinancial processes, whilst having to recover their costs -we strive to maintain that complete focus on quality,of faculty andstudents,teaching and research.We are moving away from an old model which I think has served us very wellfor our first phase of national development, but principally served us in achieving quantitative objectives, producing the technical and managerial manpower required for a rapidly growing economy, moving from that model to one that isgoing to better suit our objectiveof developing quality.As we move fromquantity to quality in education, in this instance,university education, we need a new model of governance. Because achieving that single-minded focus on quality will not be well served by a model in which the universities have to depend on the Government for key decisions and approval on a variety of issues concerning university governance. That is the essence of it.

We are taking a step that is bold enough to be meaningful, but we are not leaping into a yawning chasm. We are going in with our eyes wide open and there are lights along the way.We know this is the right direction to take. And, as we build up confidence, we will see how much further we can go in granting even more autonomy.

It is a process. Dr Lily Neo and Dr Geh Min raised various issues to do with this. Ultimately, many of their questions deal with this balance between accountability and autonomy, and we will evolve that balance. But we must start with the presumption that, as Dr Loo says, there are legacies. There are legacies of depending on Government directions and instructions and, more importantly, internal legacies that come about because of that external relationship between Government and university, and one cannot wish them away on Day One. We have to evolve.

That is why the Minister for Education has to appoint the Board of Trustees, to make sure that the right people are in place. Mr Ho Kwon Ping, Dr Loo and all the other extremely capable and motivated members of the SMU Board of Trusteesare there because we appointed them to their positions. And the same would be the case for NUS and NTU. We retain public trust in this process of evolution in the universities if the Government is appointing the right people to these positions. And I agree fully with Dr Loo that 15 or 20 good people on these Boards of Trustees will do a better job than the Government, either the Minister or a set of bureaucrats. And that is the whole idea.But they are not private universities. They are publicly-funded. So we have to ensure thatthe public trusts that its money is being well spent in the service of the nation.

Dr Lily Neo askedwhether the leadership teams are ready, and whetherthey are up to the task. The short answer is yes. In fact, we would not have made this major move of putting this legislation through Parliament if we did not feel we have good people in place. We have strong and active chairpersons on all our three university boards- Mr Ho Kwon Ping at SMU, Mr Koh Boon Hwee at NTU and Mr Wong Ngit Liong at NUS, all highly respected for their achievements in the corporate sector and as leaders in the general sense of the term. They haveenergetic, enthusiastic and passionate Council members andcapable management teams. One can already sense the buzz in the faculty as wemove into the autonomy phase.The people are in place. But that is not good enough. We need to forge a new culture. There is work to be done within the universities to forge a new internal culture, with the right interplay between top-down strategic initiatives decided on by the top management and the Board of Trustees, and the bottom-up ideas that have to bubble up from the staff or,as Dr Geh Min says, even from students. We have to find that right interplay, and each university will have a different model of the mix between top-down and bottom-up initiatives that will define its own culture. But it takes time to evolve that. And I am confident that the people we have in place are keen to evolve that culture, now that we are freeing them up from the direction of the Ministry.

What are the key components that we will have to look atand craft very carefully in achieving this right balance between autonomy and accountability?

First, the Policy Agreement which sets out the Ministry's strategic vision, overall directions for the development of the university sector, that will guide the universities. It is not there to cramp the universities, otherwise we will just be defeating the whole purpose of this exercise. It is really there to provide signposts for each of the universities, signposts that they would use when they formulate their own strategic goals and objectives. This will make sure that thepath is well lit as they go forward.

MOE will work together with the three universities in articulating the policy parameters in the Policy Agreement within which the universities must operate, such as the admissions framework, tuition fees framework, how MOE will fund the universities both for teaching and research, and so on. The Policy Agreement sets out policy objectives which MOE cannot run away from. The Government cannot run away from this because we are funding the universities 75% of undergraduate education costs. We are not just talking about the private universities, but very few of the state universities internationally, eg, the Australian universities that one or two speakers mentioned, the American state universities, few come anywhere close to receiving 75% state funding. And it puts the responsibility on the Ministry to ensure that this is public money that will achieve national objectives. So, we need this Policy Agreement, and the challenge is to craft it in a way that does not cramp the universities but keeps them focused on our ultimate objectives.

Beyond what we specify in the Policy Agreement, it is for each university to set its own institutional priorities and strategies and, most critically, how it will manage its academic affairs, that someMembers have touched on.Howfaculty members are hired, fired and promoted, whom to collaborate with internationally, both for student exchanges and research, etc. The whole range of academic issues that arethe flesh and blood of a university are really matters for the universities to decide, under this new policy framework. They will also have to decide on operational matters, such as the merits of whether to buy expensive chairs which have a 10-year warranty period versus less expensive chairs that have a shorter warranty period. These are matters for the universities to decide, not matters for the Minister to direct them on. If the Minister were to get into each and every one of these micro matters, then again, we are defeating the whole purpose of the exercise.I am confident that the universitieswill be able to work outa sensibleprotocol, a financial, managementand internal accountability protocol, to make sure that they are on the right track.

The university's performanceis reviewed annually, andthat is, again, good practice. It is not unique to us when we look at some of the small European countries that are moving in the same direction. There is a 5-year Performance Agreement that is set out which gives the universities latitude toforge their own policies and directions, but it is subject to annual review because we are talking about substantial amounts of public money at stake. We fund the universities 1%of GDP. That ismore than most, or any other country I can think of.

We will make sure that the way we craft these agreements on specifics, ie, Policy Agreement as well as the Performance Agreement, will not be cumbersome.I agree with Dr Geh Min that we should not be too focused on a narrow metric. It is useful to have some metrics. We cannot have the whole thing unmeasurable and look for something called an "X-factor" which we have to guess at. We need some measures. But we do not need to beexcessively focused on them, whether it is on publications ornarrow measures of research performance, for instance. We have got to allow for some fuzziness in interpreting the data. I quite agree with that. But we do need to measure some things and need annually to decide how well they are doing relative to the targets which they have set and know whattheir plans are to address gaps or to even go beyond their original targets. That is a useful process.

MOE will not craftthe Performance Agreement on its own. We will do it jointly. In fact, the universities take the first crack. This is what they propose, these are their ambitions, they come to us and we then have to agree to it.It is a joint process and there will be a lot of consultation involved.

The Quality Assurance Framework for Universities (QAFU), which I mentioned earlier, is not something new. It is in place. It is not unique to us. It is in place in the best universities around the world, including state universities. But there are different models, and theAustralian model is somewhat different from what we see in the UK and Europe. And I think we have a workable model in Singapore. It will assure Members for me to say that the universities themselves have found the QAFU process - so far, just NUS and NTU have been assessed or evaluated - to be extremely valuable. It has allowed them to take a step back and look at what they are doing, look at their priorities and the gaps in quality. We usually need someone coming in from outside to take a fresh look at things topoint out whatwe do not notice because we are looking at them every day. The university management and their boards have found this to be a very valuable process, as has the Ministry. So, I am confident that it is working well. Again, we have chosen the people on QAFU ourselves. The Minister appoints the members of QAFU because we wanted to make sure the right people were there - eminent, independent, credible internationally and locally.

It may well be that, some time to come, we could do something like the Australianmodel where the Minister does not appoint the members of QAFU. Let us see how well the process works first, so that we have got enough public trust and confidence in this process of autonomy.At this point, our processes are working quite well.

There is a set of issues which Dr Lily Neo and, to some extent, Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim have raised on access and affordability. I will make the general point that we should notfear this corporatised animal too much. It is not a drive towards commercialisation or commoditisation. In fact, on the contrary, the highest quality in the world is found in the private universities, and what we are doing is borrowing some of those lessons. I am not sure we call it an "X-factor", but there are very useful processes to be borrowed, and to do it in a publicly-funded university framework, which we think we can. But I would assure Dr Lily Neo and this House that the Ministry is committed to ensuring that there are enough university places for all qualified Singaporeans, even as NUS and NTU join SMU in becoming Autonomous Universities. We are committed to that objective, and it will be reflected in our Policy Agreements with the universities.

As for foreign students versus local students, there will be no trade-off, because wewill keep to our commitment to providing sufficient places for all qualified Singaporeans. On top of that, the universities will want to take in foreign students. Why do they do it? Because it has something to do with the "X-factor". It has something to do with the diversity and richness of the student body that is essential to becoming a great university. Our universities are Singapore universities, whose objective is to serve Singaporeans and our national priorities. But in order to do so, they need an international orientation. In order to serve Singapore and Singaporeans, they will need to source for the best faculty and the best students they can find internationally, on top of providing adequate places for all qualified Singaporeans. It is a very important point.

Firstly, if we do not take this international orientation,we willnot be able to attract the best Singapore students to begin with.

Secondly, we will not attract the best faculty, Singaporean or foreign. And if we do not attract the best faculty, our reputation as a university will go down. That is almost a mathematical identity. And if our reputation as a university goes down, the Singaporean students who go to the university will be badly served.

So we have got to open ourselves to the best Asians, the best people from all over the world,eastern Europe, Iran, wherever. So they come in and provide their diversity and richness that benefit the Singapore students, spur them on, attract the best faculty, and give the university something that we think is part of the X-factor that Dr Geh Minspoke about.

I would emphasise also, although it is obvious, that the corporatised universities will be not-for-profit institutions. Their fundamental missions would be unchanged. If you look at MIT, for instance, a private university, its mission is not about making profit butserving the United States. As a private university, they take it upon themselves to serve the interests of the United States. And they do so by attracting the best students from all over the world. That is the way they do it. Our three universities will be not-for-profit institutions, unchanged fundamental mission. And their mission is toserve the public and national interest.

I do not see them having to raise tuition fees excessively. In fact, I do not see a correlation between being corporatised and raising tuition fees. Whether they are corporatised or not, they would have to grapple with natural cost increases that happeninhigher education all over the world. But they willhave to justify their fee increases based on cost increases as well as improvements in quality. And they willnot be able to take in less qualified students who are prepared to donate or pay their way in. This is something that would be enshrined in the Policy Agreement - that admission willbe based on merit.

On financialassistance,we have a whole array of schemes present. In fact, there are about 20 financial schemes presently in our universities for financial assistance. The question was asked about very needy students. They are also served, quite apart from the Tuition Fee Loan scheme which a significant proportion of students,over a third of our students, take advantage of. We also have students who cannot pay the remaining20% -but from next year, we are going to raise the Tuition Fee Loan to 90% of fees sothey only need to pay the remaining 10%- there will be some needy students who do not have the resources to pay that remaining 10% and they can apply for the Study Loan scheme, which allowsthem to fund the remaining 10%.On top of that, we have got bursaries available to students on a means-tested basis.We also haveschemes outside the universities offered by foundations, various professional organisations as well as schemes that operate at the local community level. So we will make sure that there is no lack of financial schemes and resources available for qualified students to be able to further their university education even if their parents cannot afford it.

We are improving some of our processes. Each of the universities is now putting in place a dedicated student financing office to help to look at each student himself or herself, what is the family situation, how can we help them, whether they should do some work in the university to earn a little money while giving them a loan ora bursary. We will look at the package in entirety.This is the way the best universities do it as well- a dedicated student financing office.

Willthe universities be burdened by the servicing of their loans and bond issues, a question which Dr Lily Neo posed. The basic reason why we have moved towards a framework in which the universities, like other statutory boards, go to the capital market to fundcapital expenditures is one of efficient use of capital. It allows Ministries and the statutory boards to take into account the market pricing of the cost of capital, and it leads to a certain discipline. The Ministry will continue to provide a grant for a portion of all the universities’ strategicprojects.40% of the cost of theseprojects will be funded by the Ministry’s grant and the remaining portion they will fund by having to borrow. The universities have embraced this newfunding arrangement and are now adopting good market practice in borrowing tofinance the capital cost of their building and infrastructure projects. But there will not be undue financial burden on them in repaying the loan because MOE will, through our recurrent funding, continue to fund the universities for a substantial portion of the loan repayments and interest charges. So we are subjecting them to the discipline of the capital markets, something which provides us useful information as well, giving them the incentive to get the best possible rates on the market, but a good part of the servicing cost will continue to be funded by the Ministry.

Prof. Ivan Png has askedwhat happens toall the academic governance provisions that are currently in the NUS constitution once we rescind the constitution. Let me just clarify that immediately. The First Schedule of the existing Constitution, which comprises all these academic governance provisions, will be transferred, with some modification, to the M&A of the universities. So we are not getting rid of all these provisions. It is just that there is no need to put them in the new Acts.

Academic governance is a key issue. Dr Geh Min and others talked about it. In fact, this isprobably at the heart of what makes a great university. Having faculty membersthatenjoy interacting with students, including undergraduate students, and are passionate about the work they themselves are doing, is at the heart of a great university.

These will be matters that the universities will have to decide for themselves and find the right internal culture for.There are several key issues. First,what you teach and howyou teach it. These are key issues for the Senate, for the top management, for the Deans and the faculty members to work out. Some universities have decided in a fairly top-down fashion, in others, bottom-up. They have to find their own identity in this respect. But the key issue, which relates to one of the questions that Dr Lily Neo posed, is how do you assess the faculty and how do you promote them.That is a critical success factor in the best universities in the world. If you look at the top American universities, a highly disciplined system of tenure, with considerable selectivity on who gets the tenure, is the source of their reputation andsuccess in attracting good faculty - in motivating young, bright faculty, who know that they are not lookingup at anold seniority-based structure, but one based on merit and merit alone,and in ensuring that they then attract the best students to come because they know that here is a vibrant faculty being renewed - by giving some assurance of stability to the best minds. So developing this disciplined system of tenure is a critical area for the universities to decide and this is an area not just for the Senate,the management and the faculty of the universities, but also for the Board of Trustees.

Thirdly, another very important issue and one where there is no iron law isthe question of whether you develop your own faculty or whether you hire from outside, mid-career.There are different models. If you look at Harvard, it thrivesona model of attracting the best from wherever they come from, mid-career. MITis a very different model. It develops its own junior faculty, hires very bright young people to join its faculty, and then tries to keep them and develop them. Our universities will have to find the right model themselves - this balance between developing their own talent and recruiting mid-careerpeople from other universities.

Prof. Ivan Png mentionedWarwick.Frankly, I would not wring my hands on this issue. Academic governance was not the key issue at all in Warwick’s decision not to respond to EDB’s offer. It was essentially financial issues that they were concerned with. A few faculty in Warwick were worried about academic freedom which of course makes very good noise in the international media.

I would say, quite categorically, that our universities facecompetition for talent. They will not succeed in this competition for talent, for faculty as well as students if they do not respect academic freedom. Because people can move.

How are they doing? Not too badly. Over half of our universities’ faculty are foreigners. And this applies as well to the social sciences whichI think is the area where we have got more of the grey issues that Dr Geh Min referred to, compared to medicine or sciences or engineering. In fact, 62% of NUS’ social sciences faculties comprise foreigners. I dothink the rankings are relevant. Yes, they are not the core of whatwe are trying to achieve. But the rankings cannot be so far divorced from the X-factor. And I think it is really impressive how NUSis amongst the top three universities in Asia, together withBeida and Todai in Japan. It does mean something. In fact, in the social sciences, it ranked number one in Asia.I agree that we donot look at it year by year,and bea bit too fast about the number. But they are doing very well andthey are the top social science university in Asia, ahead of ANU, and University of Tokyo. It must mean something.They willnot be there ifthey did not have academic freedom in the social sciences.

Academic freedom is not about something imposed on the universities,it is not something which the universities urge the Government to accept, but is an obvious essential if we want to make universities great. It is not an absolute. And I say thatquite straightforwardly, without any defensiveness. Race and religion are matters in which we will not want to see either academics or any member of the public stirring up discord. I am not sure we call it an OB marker, butwe have always been very clear about thisand it has not bothered the universities. They have understood that this is a fundamental tenet of Singapore society. It is what allows us to escape the problems we see in more parts of the world than we would have thought possible, and we intend to keep it that way.The universities need not be defensive about respecting these fundamental tenets even as they become Autonomous Universities.

Can we improve? I think we can. I do not think there is enough policy research on economic and social policy issues in Singapore. I think that the quality and calibre of policy research can be improved. It does not require a liberalisation of boundaries or new rights and freedoms to be given to the universities. They have it. I will be very keen to see how we can develop a higher quality of research on policy issues. But they are doing well so far. I really must emphasise that, whether it is in the arts and social sciences, and quite obviously, in the sciences and engineering, they are doing well,and they are internationally recognised as such.

6.28 pm

Order. Mr Tharman, I have to interrupt you to move the exempted business motion.

Resolved,

That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Debate resumed.

Next, the issue of graduateoutput targets and manpower planning. This is a fundamental issue. We have this process of determining the number of students to be admitted to our tertiary institutions, polytechnics, ITEs and universities, in different course disciplines. The National Manpower Council which brings together various Ministries and economic agencies sets these targets.

Let me say why this is necessary, particularly as a small country, and why we are not unique in requiring this. We do not have the large market of competition that the United States has, where you have got hundreds of universities. Without clear Government direction, although at the state level, they have got Government involvement.When you look at the United States as a whole, you have got this large competitive marketplace that is able to throw up a range of talents, specialising in different disciplines. But very few countries have that. If you take the United Kingdom, which is a reasonably large society, it has great difficulty now getting enough scientists and engineers. All the more for a small country- Singapore, Switzerland, Denmark-you cannot leave it to chance. Because if you leave it to chance, in a curious way, you end up having fewer choices in life, you end up not having a manufacturing sector, you end up not having enough high-end manufacturing to be able to provide Singaporeans with real options. Everyone would then become a service economy professional. So we have got to ensure that we maintain this breadth of disciplines in order to ensure that we provide choices for the national economy and choices for Singaporeans. And as a small economy andsociety, we have got to go about it with some degree of planning.

Secondly, as a small economy that wants to make an impact in a knowledge economy, we need to have reasonably deep pools of expertise. We cannot be shallow all round. We cannot just leave itto chance and let our brightest minds study any subject they want or provide subsidised places for them to study any subject they want. We have got to try and gear things so that we do develop deep pools of expertise, otherwise,we are not going to make an impact in the knowledge economy.

So how do we balance these two objectives between wanting to have some breadth and wanting to make sure we have got enough depth of capabilities in five or six areas so that we can really make an impact? That is our challenge, and that is a challenge we apply our minds to, both when we think of manpower planning targets as well as research funding targets. But we cannot run away from it as a small economy. So that is my economist answer to Dr Geh Min.

But I quite agree with Dr Geh Min that we should not be too micro or too strict about these targets.In fact, the National Manpower Council has moved towards looking at broader clusters of disciplines rather than very specific disciplines. We cannot predict future demands with precision, or as Dr Lily Neo says, you always have to provide training, not just for jobs that exist and can be identified by industry, but also jobs which have not yet been created.You really want to produce people who would then create their own jobs and create jobs for others. That is a very important point once you are looking beyond five or eight years, that you want to produce people with a set of traits and specialisations, but they are not quite sure what jobs they are going to do or how they are going to create jobs for others. So we take that into consideration and we have got a lot more fuzziness in the system now. In fact,quite apart from the broad targets we are setting, we also allow them to deviate by 10% for eachcluster.That also explains why NUS is expanding its business intake - because it is deviating from the targets, taking advantage of that 10%. It is not doubling its intake by the way,it is making some increase, but it is not a huge increase.

On humanities, NUS and NTU are not losing sight of it. NUS has built up a tradition in its arts and social sciences faculty. NTU is now starting a new school of humanities andsocial sciences and they take this job very seriously. It is ultimately parents and students whodecide what discipline they want to go into. We are not going to stop providingplaces in history, geography, literature, economics, and in the social sciences more broadly. We think it is essential for the national economy.

Secondly, we think it is going to be more important in future than it has been in the past for engineers and scientists to have a decent dose of exposure in the humanities, particularly as we move up the knowledge curve and as they have to deal with a lot more ambiguity in their jobs,not just existing formula and ruleswhich have to be processed as efficientlyas possible. All the top scientists we havetalked to tell usthat it helps in the grooming of scientists to give them an early dose in the humanities. And we take that seriously starting from school. That is why our new 'A' level curriculum from next year will make it mandatory for every student to take a subject other than his main specialisation.It is a case of planning and intervention to ensure that we achieve our objectives.

We are not as badly off as many other Asian countries. India and China, in fact,aremore skewed. On my last visit to India, I was in Chennai. Maybe Tamil Nadu is more skewed than the rest of India. Every top high school I went to was not offering a single humanities subject in their equivalent of 'A' levels. I asked the principals why. The principals are all very educated people. They said they would love to, but every time they start up a class, they have to close it in six months because there were no takers.

So we are not doing too badly.

We have got our Humanities scheme.We have got the University Scholars Programme at NUS that placesemphasis on the humanities. And we will keep pushing along, particularly in ensuring that students get this cross disciplinary education that we think is very important, regardless of whether you are going to become a scientist or a lawyer. But we have to move with society, and the instincts of parents and students that we have to reshape but we cannot force. We make no apologies, of course, about having a fundamental focus on science and engineering for the reasons I gave earlier. They increase Singapore's choices economically and they, ultimately, provide the jobs that Singaporeans need.

Dr Lily Neo also asked about how we make sure that the corporatised universities are going to be transparent in their dealings, management and in their spending. This is something that we address in the Policy Agreement. The universities are expected, under the Policy Agreement, to exercise good corporate governance. This comes not just under the purview of the management but the Board of Trustees.They will have to put in place appropriate and adequate internal controls and procedures to ensure proper use of funds, and they will have to conduct annual financial audits under this enhanced accountability framework. And, where necessary, the Ministry can request for records relating to financial transactions of the university and even to make them public.

Finally, there were a few specific issues which Dr Neo had also asked. She pointed out that the Bill had not addressed issues concerning the universities holding equity in companies doing research, issues of university royalties and fees for commercialisation of research and related issues. These are not matters we address in the Act. These are important operational issues which the Autonomous Universities will have to deal with, and we do not capture these operational issues in the Act. The universities already have technology transfer offices to manage the patenting and commercialisation of their inventions. They tend to follow best practices. They look at how other top universities are doing this in their relationship with research companies, as well as on what rights the individual faculty member has over the patents and so on and so forth.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think I have addressed most of the main points that have been raised. Let me conclude by saying that we are confidentwe are moving in the right direction. I was quite heartened to hear from Dr Charles Vest who stepped down recently as President of MIT and was recently here as Lee Kuan Yew Distinguished Visitor. He knows our universities well because he was instrumental in the forming of the Singapore-MIT Alliance. His observation at the end of his latest trip, having had intensive discussions with both NUS and NTU, and knowing the Asian and global landscapes well, was that Singapore can create world-class universities in NUS and NTU. He was not addressing his mind to SMU. We are not too small to create world-class universities given the pool of talent we can draw on locally as well as across Asia and internationally.I think that gives us some confidence. Thatheas an independent and very experienced university leaderwas able to tell us that that was his conclusion.

It needs a new culture, particularly a new internal culture within the universities. When you free up the external links, your real intent is to create a new internal culture because it is that internal culture that will make the universities great.

We trust the people we have. We will not cut all strings completely because wehave to retain public trust in the use of substantial public resources in our universities. But we are going to allow these good people to chart the course forward and support them in every way we can in the Ministry.

Sir, I think I have completed my replies to the questions.

Question put, and agreed to.

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