Hansard, 2006-01-16

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2006) To (2006) Mr Ong Kian Min 23 Nov 24 Nov 06 Dec 09 Dec 12 Dec 23 Dec 27 Dec 27 Dec 05 Jan 07 Jan Mr Loh Meng See 25 Nov 26 Nov 15 Dec 22 Dec Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 27 Nov 29 Nov 13 Dec 23 Dec 15 Jan 18 Jan Mr Charles Chong 28 Nov 29 Nov 02 Dec 03 Dec 19 Dec 20 Dec Mr Ong Ah Heng 28 Nov 30 Nov Dr Tan Sze Wee 28 Nov 29 Nov Mr S Iswaran 29 Nov 29 Nov 07 Dec 09 Dec 13 Dec 15 Dec 20 Dec 23 Dec 13 Jan 14 Jan 17 Jan 19 Jan 24 Jan 26 Jan Dr Balaji Sadasivan 30 Nov 02 Dec 22 Dec 28 Dec 06 Jan 10 Jan 17 Jan 18 Jan 20 Jan 25 Jan Miss Penny Low 30 Nov 02 Dec 24 Dec 28 Dec 22 Jan 01 Feb Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng 01 Dec 05 Dec Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman 01 Dec 03 Dec 28 Dec 30 Dec 14 Jan 21 Jan Dr Tan Boon Wan 01 Dec 05 Dec Mr Davinder Singh 02 Dec 06 Dec 16 Jan 23 Jan Dr John Chen Seow Phun 02 Dec 18 Dec Mr Gan Kim Yong 03 Dec 09 Dec 10 Dec 17 Dec 26 Dec 27 Dec Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 03 Dec 11 Dec 15 Dec 25 Dec Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 04 Dec 07 Dec 09 Dec 18 Dec 22 Dec 24 Dec 25 Jan 28 Jan Dr Ong Seh Hong 04 Dec 11 Dec Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed 04 Dec 10 Dec 24 Dec 26 Dec 07 Jan 10 Jan 16 Jan 19 Jan Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen 06 Dec 16 Dec 30 Dec 07 Jan Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang 06 Dec 24 Dec 28 Jan 31 Jan 18 Feb 25 Feb 28 May 09 Jun 06 Jul 12 Jul Mr Teo Chee Hean 07 Dec 07 Dec 25 Dec 26 Dec Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 08 Dec 23 Dec 23 Jan 25 Jan Mr Inderjit Singh 08 Dec 19 Dec Mr Lawrence Leow Chin Hin 08 Dec 09 Dec 23 Dec 24 Dec 18 Jan 27 Jan Mr Lim Hng Kiang 08 Dec 10 Dec 13 Dec 19 Dec 26 Dec 30 Dec Mr Chan Soo Sen 10 Dec 18 Dec 25 Dec 27 Dec 10 Jan 15 Jan Dr Lily Neo 10 Dec 14 Dec Mr Lee Hsien Loong 11 Dec 25 Dec Dr Ng Eng Hen 11 Dec 17 Dec 25 Jan 29 Jan Prof. S Jayakumar 11 Dec 19 Dec 28 Jan 05 Feb 13 Feb 16 Feb Mr Leong Horn Kee 12 Dec 19 Dec 16 Jan 24 Jan 08 Feb 15 Feb 20 Feb 24 Feb Dr Wang Kai Yuen 12 Dec 18 Dec 25 Dec 29 Dec 10 Jan 13 Jan Mr Ang Mong Seng 13 Dec 16 Dec 27 Dec 30 Dec 10 Jan 14 Jan Mr David T E Lim 13 Dec 16 Dec 28 Dec 01 Jan 14 Jan 15 Jan 16 Jan 17 Jan Mr Sin Boon Ann 13 Dec 23 Dec Dr Teo Ho Pin 13 Dec 16 Dec Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani 14 Dec 17 Dec 19 Dec 23 Dec Encik Yatiman Yusof 16 Dec 18 Dec 20 Dec 29 Dec Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 17 Dec 18 Dec Mr Yeo Cheow Tong 17 Dec 19 Dec 11 Jan 18 Jan Mr Othman Haron Eusofe 18 Dec 21 Dec 13 Jan 15 Jan Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung 19 Dec 19 Dec Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M 19 Dec 06 Jan Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 19 Dec 25 Dec 08 Jan 12 Jan Mr Zainudin Nordin 19 Dec 27 Dec 15 Jan 20 Jan Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam 21 Dec 26 Dec Dr Lee Boon Yang 22 Dec 31 Dec Mr Low Thia Khiang 22 Dec 27 Dec Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon 22 Dec 29 Dec Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 23 Dec 24 Dec 11 Jan 13 Jan 17 Jan 20 Jan 26 Jan 02 Feb Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong 23 Dec 26 Dec Mr Seng Han Thong 24 Dec 27 Dec Mr Abdullah Tarmugi 26 Dec 26 Dec Mr Arthur Fong 26 Dec 31 Dec Mr Hawazi Daipi 26 Dec 26 Dec 17 Jan 17 Jan Mdm Cynthia Phua 27 Dec 30 Dec 03 Jan 07 Jan Mr Heng Chee How 27 Dec 28 Dec Mr Chay Wai Chuen 03 Jan 05 Jan Mr Teo Yock Ngee 03 Jan 06 Jan 05 Feb 08 Feb 24 Feb 26 Feb 01 Mar 04 Mar 24 Mar 28 Mar Dr Geh Min 05 Jan 09 Jan Mr Lim Swee Say 07 Jan 08 Jan Mr Khaw Boon Wan 09 Jan 13 Jan 28 Jan 31 Jan Dr Ong Chit Chung 11 Jan 11 Jan Mr Goh Chok Tong 14 Jan 21 Jan Dr Warren Lee 14 Jan 21 Jan Mdm Ho Geok Choo 15 Jan 19 Jan Mr Lee Kuan Yew 15 Jan 18 Jan 18 Jan 24 Jan 24 Jan 26 Jan Ms Indranee Rajah 16 Jan 16 Jan Mr Yeo Guat Kwang 16 Jan 20 Jan Dr Chong Weng Chiew 17 Jan 18 Jan Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim 18 Jan 19 Jan 07 Feb 08 Feb Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan 22 Jan 24 Jan Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 27 Jan 31 Jan

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

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

30th November,2005 (1) Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill (2) Stamp Duties (Amendment No.2) Bill 7th December,2005 (1) The Competition (Amendment) Bill (2) The Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill (3) The Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No 2) Bill (4) The Small Claims Tribunals (Amendment) Bill (5) The Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill (6) The National University of Singapore (Corporatisation) Bill (7) The Nanyang Technological University (Corporatisation) Bill (8) The Singapore Management University (Amendment) Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Defence (a) what has been the range of punishments, including the most and least severe punishments, meted out to National Service (NS) defaulters under the Enlistment Act over the last 20 years; and (b) whether sentencing provisions under the Enlistment Act are sufficient to reflect the seriousness of our NS policy.

2. Mr Arthur Fong asked the Minister for Defence (a) if he will clarify the policy on Singapore citizens who evade National Service (NS) by staying out of the country; and (b) what is the number of Singapore citizens who stayed out of the country to avoid NS, in the last 20 years.

3. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Defence what has prompted the review of the Enlistment Act and when will the review be completed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I intend to make a Ministerial Statement on National Service defaulters following Question Time. For that reason, may I request that I deal with Question Nos 1, 2 and 3 at that point in time?

OK.

4. Dr Chong Weng Chiew asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports in light of the new standards to be introduced to ensure good governance of Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs), whether his Ministry will consider including (i) assistance schemes to help VWOs meet the requirements of financial control and management; and (ii) measures to act on information from, and provide protection to, whistle blowers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Voluntary Welfare Organisations or VWOs are at the heart of the people sector. VWOs have been doing very good work helping the less fortunate in our society, and ought to be commended for their charitable spirit and their commitment to the people they serve. Volunteers who serve in these organisations must also be appreciated for donating their time, expertise, and leadership for committees and boards. Such people with a sense of community and ownership should continue to drive the sector just as they have been doing for the past decades. However, it is not enough to just have good hearts. It is also important for VWOs to be transparent and accountable to the donors and volunteers, just as it is important for them to be effective in serving their beneficiaries.

The Government recognises the crucial role that the boards and management of the VWOs play in leading the sector, and will continue to support them. The Government will put in place regulatory requirements and governance standards that will ensure good service delivery, but without imposing an unnecessary burden on the VWOs. Government agencies will also simplify rules and reporting processes. The Inter-Ministry Committee on Charities and Institutions of a Public Character will announce its preliminary recommendations later this month.

There are multiple schemes and programmes to help VWOs enhance their financial control and management capability. The assistance takes the form of training, as well as funding support. The Social Service Training Institute (SSTI) under the National Council of Social Service, or NCSS, has been providing training to VWOs on governance and financial management issues since 2003. NCSS will also provide customised training to help VWOs to comply with the prevailing governance standards, if necessary. VWO participants can get funding support for such training, through the $30 million VWO Capability Fund or VCF. VWOs can also tap on this fund to engage consultants to advise them on how to upgrade their governance and management systems, or implement info-communication technology initiatives to enhance their financial control, accounting and HR systems.

As for the suggestion on whistle-blowers, I would like to assure the House that my Ministry takes every complaint seriously. MCYS and the NCSS are just a phone call or an email away. We will protect the confidentiality of the complainants' identity during the course of the investigation. We will inform the Commissioner of Charities, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, the Commercial Affairs Department and Police if appropriate for further action. If prosecution in court is necessary, we may require the complainant to be a witness.

I would also urge that we maintain a sense of fairness and responsibility. This open channel should not be abused for frivolous complaints. Furthermore, I would also urge the leadership of the VWOs to also keep an open channel for feedback from public and staff. I am sure most, if not all, VWOs will take the appropriate corrective actions to resolve the problems.

Finally, let us not just focus on surfacing faults or pointing fingers. We need a climate of trust, confidence and openness to constructive criticism. Such feedback and sharing will be beneficial for the sector as a whole. It will also help foster a stronger learning culture within the social service sector.

Sir, in many countries, whistle-blowing has been a major source of discovery of many fraud cases. Could the public have a clearer understanding of the exact protocol and processes in which complaints can be made and also subsequently on what grounds would such complaints be further investigated, that is to say, what information the public must offer in order to kick-start a significant level of investigation?

Sir, like I said just now, the current system has worked well and to put in place such a system may cause distrust within the sector. Moreover, protection of whistle-blowers is a much larger issue that goes beyond the charity sector. I think Mdm Halimah also asked the Prime Minister about MAS and the Companies Act which has implication on the criminal law in general. Even the UK and US have implemented some sort of protection but at this moment they cannot prove whether it has really worked well. We should wait and see. We are quite happy with the present arrangement.

As I said, in this society, we can use email and give a phone call, and MCYS, NCSS and the various Ministries are very open to any complaint or feedback. If a person is prepared to give feedback, he must be prepared to stand by what he has complained about. When we investigate we do not reveal the identity of the person. But if the evidence proves that it is positive and we need to go to court, then the complainant must be prepared to be called up for justification or clarification.

Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the explanation. I also think that just because legislation does not work in other countries, that does not mean that we should not consider, review and look at what aspects of the legislation that is useful to us and we can then apply our situation in connection with the earlier point about the need for legislation on whistle-blowing. We have reached a certain turning point where obviously the existing framework is not sufficient to protect whistle-blowers.

What is your question, Mdm Halimah?

My question is: will the Ministry still consider a whistle-blowing legislation, Sir?

Sir, at this moment, the important thing is that we wait for the IMC report. We should put in place some very basic regulatory framework and make sure that VWOs and the charitable organisations carry out their tasks stringently, such as auditing of accounts and convening of board meetings and general meetings. All these should be properly conducted. We still want to put the responsibility on the boards and the volunteers. We must have this internal control system in place.

At this moment, the problem is more on the execution and the leadership. We should make sure that the boards and volunteers of VWOs take their responsibility seriously and carry out what is required of them by the Commissioner of Charities, MCYS, NCSS or the various Ministries. We will then observe and see what is the response of this new regulatory exercise. So internal control and leadership are very important. We should give the VWOs some time to go through training to respond to the new requirements. We will have an open mind to see what is best for us.

5. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) how many cases of young girls were referred to the Ministry for child protection from January 2005 as compared to the whole of 2004; (b) who referred these cases to the Ministry; and (c) what actions, if any, were taken against those who exploited these girls.

Sir, I would like to thank Mdm Cynthia Phua for her concern on child abuse. In 2004, there were 102 cases of girls below 16 years old referred to the Ministry for child protection. In comparison, 2005, saw 104 of such cases.

Most of these referrals were made by schools, hospitals, Police and social workers.

All referrals for child protection are investigated, and each child is given specialised help depending on the assessment by a multi-disciplinary team of professionals. Such a team comprises pediatricians, psychologists and senior child protection officers. MCYS will also apply for a Care and Protection Order for the child at the Juvenile Court. Perpetrators may be prosecuted in court for the criminal acts. If found guilty, they can be sentenced to a fine or imprisonment, or both. The Court may also order them to undergo mandatory counselling, psychotherapy and other rehabilitation programmes.

Sir, in the light of the recent reports of young girls offering sex for money to buy luxury goods, what is the Ministry going to highlight to any like-minded girls that they should seek help and counselling? Is it at the school level or beyond the school level?

The second question is whether the Minister will consider giving more exposure to the Ministry's counselling service, if there is, on the website or through other public education media.

Thank you for the suggestion. I would like to inform the Member that the Ministry, the VWOs, Police and schools have a multi-agency counselling team to help these girls. So far, they have held a lot of seminars for the professionals, especially for the teachers, police and counsellors of family service centres. They also conduct a lot of training courses in schools. Last year, they even published a Child-at-Risk booklet and also to let the children know their rights. The teachers are also trained on how to observe all these problems.

We also encourage some of the counsellors of family service centres and grassroots leaders that if they want to go for further training on how to help these children they can come forward to learn from the various VWOs. I am sure that the Member also knows that in 2001 the Children and Young Persons Act was amended to include emotional and psychological abuse, and not just physical and sexual abuse. I think there are enough channels for the children to seek help. But this is a two-way approach. It is not just encouraging the kids to know their rights and where to go for help but we also encourage the professionals to observe and keep a close eye on the children's development.

6. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Health whether Singapore will (i) join the United Nations, United States of America and World Bank in the surveillance and early detection of bird flu to prevent a possible human flu pandemic; and (ii) offer to be the regional centre for the various agencies to be based here, in view of our strategic location in Southeast Asia and proximity to countries affected by bird flu.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a small but active player in the global fight against a possible human flu pandemic. In this fight, the best strategy is to try to prevent one from happening at all.

First, we need to persuade countries to reform their farming practices and raise the hygiene standard of their wet markets. Calls for reform are now increasingly being heard at international forums like the WHO (World Health Organisation) and APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation). We have been adding our voices to such calls.

Second, countries must enhance their surveillance and early detection systems, for both bird flu and human flu. This requires strong international collaboration so that essential information can be shared in a timely manner. Some countries will require assistance in expertise and extra resources.

Our resources are limited but where we can make a meaningful contribution to global public health, we will. We do this at several levels.

Bilaterally, we have been working with our neighbours, to share expertise and experience. For example, we have a collaborative project with Indonesia.

This was discussed last year by and agreed to between Prime Minister Lee and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. We are providing Indonesia with training, laboratory testing support, equipment and medical supplies to help them build capacity to deal with this common challenge.

At the multilateral level, we work through the WHO and the OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) to promote early detection and greater transparency.

Third, when an outbreak of human flu pandemic occurs anywhere in the world, we need rapid response to investigate the outbreak and if possible, to isolate it. This requires prompt and effective intervention. That is why Singapore decided to join a network called the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN). This network was set up in 2000 to pool together the technical resources of member partners to respond to outbreaks. It provides another useful platform for international collaboration. Last month, we hosted the GOARN Steering Committee Meeting in Singapore, and had a very good meeting.

Apart from these activities, a recent initiative is worth highlighting. At the last APEC Summit in South Korea, Prime Minister Lee, President Yudhoyono and President Bush decided to start a pilot project in Indonesia on the control of bird flu. This is still at the planning stage but the objective is to see how we can execute, within a defined area in Indonesia, all the measures recommended by the expert agencies such as the WHO and the OIE. The project can then be a model of preventive and control strategies, which can be extended to the rest of Indonesia. I think the experience should be of value to other countries. We are involving other countries and other partners such as the World Bank, the WHO and the OIE to contribute both resources and expertise.

And as pointed out by Dr Lily Neo, our location in Southeast Asia in proximity to many bird flu-infected countries makes us a natural partner in such regional collaborative activities. We certainly welcome international organisations to base themselves in Singapore where it is beneficial for them to do so.

One example is the Regional Emerging Diseases Intervention (REDI) Centre at Biopolis. This was jointly established by Singapore and the US, to serve as a regional node for research and coordinating efforts to deal with emerging transnational diseases. In the area of bird flu, the REDI Centre has been tasked by APEC last year to draw up a list of resources and experts that could be called upon to respond to an emergency outbreak situation. The REDI Centre will also play a role in the Indonesian pilot project that I mentioned earlier.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister mentioned earlier the Singapore-Jakarta project to control bird flu. May I ask him when will this pilot surveillance system start? Do we have other partners like the United States and World Health Organisation? And will this surveillance system be expanded to neighbouring places like Batam and Bintan? Lastly, may I also ask the Minister when will he decide on the investment of our vaccine production facility in our preparedness against flu pandemic and how long does this take to set up?

Mr Speaker, the pilot bird flu project with Indonesia, as I have said, was agreed to last November at the APEC meeting. And we have moved very quickly. A few days after the APEC meeting, I went over to Jakarta, met up with my counterpart and Vice-President, Yusuf Kalla because President Yudhoyono happened to be overseas at that point in time. We have managed to get the working people together. They have already had two working meetings, one in Jakarta and one in Batam. And the third meeting has already been scheduled. We are hoping to start a trilateral meeting with US early next month, probably during the first week, soon after Chinese New Year, and then progressively, we will involve other partners. It is a massive international project. We want to involve as many partners as possible. US has already come on board but there are many interested neighbours who are keen to join in - Australia, Japan and the other international agencies like World Bank would like to help out too. So it is something that we are working very actively on. We have already identified the province because Indonesia is a very large place. We have decided on one province near Jakarta with a population of about 1.5 million people for us to put in systems and to test them out and whatever work there, we can quickly roll out to the rest of Indonesia.

Batam and Bintan would certainly be involved because they are closest to us and also we got to know the people there very well, particularly after the tsunami, when we helped them actively and built up a very strong network of friendship and the experts are all at first-name telephone contact level, which is essential in any public health response system.

As for Singapore's vaccine manufacturing plant, we have been working on this for two years now, but you cannot rush it as these are multinationals. It must make economic sense for them to want to set up a plant here. We will try to make it sensible for them to want to set up something here but it is something you cannot rush, and I remain hopeful that eventually, we will see a vaccine plant in Singapore.

7. Mr Ang Mong Seng asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources if there is any concern about Singapore's risk from a potential tsunami in the near future and, if so, what precautions, such as (i) early warning systems; (ii) building and infrastructural reinforcements; and (iii) public education measures, will be put in place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a tsunami can travel swiftly across deep oceans without losing much energy, but in shallow waters, the energy would be dissipated through frictional losses. Our geographical position and the relatively shallow waters in the Straits of Malacca and South China Sea make it highly unlikely that Singapore will be affected by a tsunami caused by an earthquake.

Sir, there are no records that Singapore has ever been hit by a tsunami in the past. In the 26th December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Singapore was also not affected. Simulations conducted by renowned research institutes and agencies in the US, France, Denmark and Japan on that tsunami incidence have verified that the Straits of Malacca is not deep enough to sustain tsunamis for long distances. Therefore, even if future earthquakes move northwards of the epicenter of the 26th December 2004 earthquake, as recently postulated by Dr Smith Dharmasaroja (retired Chief of Thailand Meteorological Department), who warned that this would provide a more direct route for tsunamis to hit Singapore through the Straits of Malacca, the energy of any tsunamis generated is likely to be similarly dissipated in the shallow waters of the Straits of Malacca. Overseas and local experts like Professor Roger Bilham (Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado) and Professor Pan Tso-Chien (Dean of School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Nanyang Technological University) have supported the view that Singapore is unlikely to be hit by a tsunami caused by an earthquake in the Northern Andaman Sea.

Notwithstanding the low probability of being hit by a tsunami, the Meteorological Services Division (MSD) of the National Environment Agency (NEA) has been developing a system for tsunami monitoring and early warning as part of the Indian Ocean tsunami warning system for the region. This effort started soon after the 26th December 2004 tsunami. MSD is enhancing the local monitoring systems for timely detection of earthquakes. MSD is also working with MPA to enhance the local tidal gauge network to provide real-time information on the tidal levels.

Sir, to complement the local monitoring networks, MSD has established links with the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre (PTWC) and Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), to receive warnings and advisories from both centres. At the regional level, MSD is working closely with its ASEAN counterparts to share both earthquake and sea-level monitoring data. These arrangements will allow us to be promptly notified of any probable tsunamis affecting the region and provide some lead-time for emergency measures, if necessary. MSD will be setting up a 24-hour warning centre covering tsunami and earthquake by end-2006.

In terms of public education, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) has incorporated advisories on the warning signs of tsunamis and what the public should do in the event of a tsunami in its latest edition of the Civil Defence Emergency Handbook, which is available free-of-charge at Community Clubs, Neighbourhood Police Centres and various SCDF facilities. The information is also available on the SCDF website. In addition, tsunami-related public education materials such as pamphlets are distributed and exhibition posters are displayed during SCDF public outreach activities held at residential heartlands across the country.

Sir, the Minister has said that the risk of a tsunami affecting Singapore is low but, despite that, we are taking precautions as the Singapore Government has a reputation of doing.

It has been shown in the recent tsunami that countries or areas who had retained mangroves and coral reefs were to a large extent protected and conversely, those countries which had destroyed their ecosystems were most severely affected. Is anything being done in Singapore to preserve our mangroves and coral ecosystems, not just against tsunamis but against other natural disasters, for example, land erosion? In those areas which they have been destroyed, how about regrowing them? I know that Semakau is a very good example of good environmental practices but there are other areas in Singapore which are not such good examples.

Sir, as I have mentioned in my reply, because the probability of being hit by a tsunami is very low, we are actually not doing anything about it. We are part of the Indian Ocean warning system and we are beefing up our local capability to play that role.

On the Member's suggestion of whether we want to do something with mangroves because it is proven to be a natural barrier, I think she is aware that we work together with the Nature Society and other NGOs to preserve as much as possible what we have as natural habitats within Singapore and she has cited the good example of Semakau. As and when we see the need to do so, we will continue to do so.

8. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in light of the four National Taps having been effectively set up and potable water no longer a limited and scarce resource, will the Government consider removing, or at least reducing, the water conservation and tariff tax on the household utilities bill.

Sir, for Singapore, water will always be a strategic resource. We have diversified our sources of water through the four National Taps strategy to ensure the long-term reliability and sustainability of our water supply. But even so, we cannot assume that water has now become an inexhaustible gift of nature. Water remains for us a limited and scarce resource, which we must economise and use wisely. This is why in addition to having the four National Taps, we also encourage Singaporeans to conserve water. One of the mechanisms to do this is the Water Conservation Tax (WCT). The WCT and the water tariff are put in place, firstly, to enable PUB to recover the full cost of production and distribution, and secondly, to ensure that the total price to consumers reflects the marginal cost of the next available source of drinking water, which is desalinated water. On this basis, we have set the WCT and tariff such that most households today pay a total price of $1.52 per cubic metre. This is approximately the cost of producing and delivering desalinated water to households.

The price of potable water is benchmarked against the cost of desalinated water, and not NEWater. This is because NEWater is not supplied directly to homes - only a small amount is pumped into the reservoirs for indirect potable use. Most of the NEWater today is supplied to industries and commercial buildings for non-potable use, for which WCT is not levied.

With advances in technology and improved energy efficiency, the cost of desalination may come down in the future. Sir, we will continue to monitor this, and review water prices accordingly.

A point of clarification, Sir. I am a bit confused. In the first place, the Government says that we have four National Taps and that water is no longer a limited resource. On the other hand, we are told that it is still a limited and scarce resource because we are still not fully sufficient. Are we or are we not fully sufficient since we have the ability to recycle used water into NEWater

and we can convert sea water into drinking water? Should we not remove this conservation tax and impose market price for water according to how much we charge?

Sir, to the best of my knowledge, no Member of this Government has ever said that water is no longer a limited resource. We have always said that water is a limited resource, and we must use it wisely.

Secondly, NEWater is not used for drinking. So we cannot assume that we now have NEWater and therefore we can do away with the water conservation tax. We have always benchmarked this against desalination because that is the next available drinking water. And as I mentioned in my reply, we are not standing still. We will continue to review the situation to see whether there is a case to be made to review the prices.

Sir, at the end of the day, the message to Singaporeans is that we now have the four National Taps. We are able to provide diversified sources of water, but it does not mean that we can now take a liberal approach and use water without any regard for conservation. I think it is important to remind Singaporeans that water is a scarce resource and we must use it wisely. But I agree with the Member that we should review the situation and see whether we can do away with the water conservation tax, and that is what my Ministry will continue to do.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that the Government increased the water conservation tax a few years ago when we had problems with Malaysia on the signing of a new water agreement and in anticipation that the price of water would go up quite tremendously. One of the purposes of imposing a higher water conservation tax was to get Singaporeans to get used to it. So, in view of the current situation and since we probably could get cheaper water resources compared to the price that Malaysia had demanded in the past, does the Minister feel that Government should review the water conservation tax rate now? Because the Minister said that he is going to review the tax. Can we know when, and what is the likelihood of the review? Reviewing the tax can be up or can be down. Can he let us know?

Sir, I would like to ask the Member which source of water is much cheaper. He says there are now much cheaper sources of water.

I suppose the cost of NEWater and desalinated water is cheaper. With the advancement of technology and depending on how one looks at it, compared to what Malaysia had demanded in the past, I think we probably have cheaper water sources.

Sir, first of all, we are not going to drink NEWater and, secondly, the cost of desalination is still much higher, even though the technology has improved. So we will continue to monitor the technology and see whether we can bring down the cost. That we will do in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans. But, meanwhile, the water conservation tax will remain because there is still a strong message that we have to send to Singaporeans - that we need to conserve and use water wisely. As I mentioned earlier in my reply, we will continue to review the situation. As to when, we will keep the Member informed, Sir.

Sir, another clarification as I am getting confused. Since we are not drinking NEWater, why is the Government bottling NEWater and distributing it for people to drink? Why are we pumping NEWater into the reservoirs if we are not drinking NEWater? Why are we doing this?

To educate the Member!

Sir, as DPM has replied on my behalf, it is to educate the Member.

The purpose of bottling NEWater is really to get Singaporeans used to the idea of NEWater. We have mentioned this before in Parliament. The former Minister for the Environment had mentioned that we added only a small amount to our reservoir, because no country in the world drink it directly. So, at the end of the day, this is a practice to get Singaporeans ready. And as Members can see, during major occasions such as National Day, Singaporeans show that if we have to, we will drink it. But I think the more important message is that we get Singaporeans comfortable with the idea of NEWater.

Prof. Ong, last question.

Sir, with the recent mention of new R&D emphasis on water and environmental technology, can the Minister share with this House and the public on what are some of the new technologies that the Ministry, together with the R&D agencies, is exploring to diversify our sources of water supply?

Sir, I do not think I should pre-empt the NRF. They are still looking into it. I think at a good time, Dr Tan will reveal to the public what are the research areas.

The following Questions stood in the names of Ms Indranee Rajah, Mr Ong Kian Min and Mdm Ho Geok Choo respectively -

9. To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) will take steps to deal with the traffic jams at the Causeway and Second Link during festive periods, when there are significantly higher volumes of vehicular traffic, so as to achieve quicker checkpoint clearance.

10. To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the causes of the long queues at the Causeway and Second Link; (b) if he will provide a breakdown of the types and numbers of breaches and offences detected at the Causeway and Second Link immigration/customs checkpoints for the years 2004 and 2005; and (c) if there are plans to ease the jams while maintaining effective security checks.

11. To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how will the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority resolve the traffic jam at the Causeway; (b) whether there is a special reason for not adopting the Changi Airport immigration clearance procedures at the Causeway and Second Link; (c) what is the cause for the recent jam other than higher volume of traffic.

Question No. 9, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I have your permission to take Question Nos. 9 to 11 together as they are related?

Yes, you may.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our borders are our first line of defence in safeguarding Singapore's security against penetration by terrorists. After the 11th September 2001 attacks and the arrest of Jemaah Islamiyah arrests in December 2001, we stepped up security checks at all our checkpoints. We now conduct 100% checks on persons, cargo and conveyances that pass through our checkpoints. These security checks are critical to our nation's security, especially since terrorism remains a clear and present threat to Singapore. We have to remain vigilant, as would-be offenders, including possible terrorists, may try and bring unlawful goods into Singapore, or slip into Singapore to perpetrate criminal or terrorist acts.

Reasons for congestion at the land checkpoints

Stepped-up security checks

Sir, these enhanced security checks have been effective in helping to detect cases of smuggling of contraband, illegal goods and illegal immigrants. Mr Ong Kian Min asked for a breakdown of the types and numbers of breaches and offences detected at our land checkpoints. In 2005, the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) detected about 8,100 cases of contraband at the land checkpoints compared to 8,400 cases in 2004. Notably, these included 245 attempts in 2005 to smuggle in controlled and prohibited items such as stun guns, air guns and daggers, an increase of 92 cases compared to 2004.

In addition, 250 cases of foreigners trying to enter Singapore with forged or tampered travel documents at the land checkpoints were detected, an increase of 70 cases compared to the 180 cases in 2004.

Since the introduction of the Biometric Database for Immigration Clearance in June 2005, ICA detected more than 220 ex-immigration offenders and other persons on record who attempted to gain entry using false identities. In addition, ICA arrested 56 travellers for attempting to use another person's passport to gain entry in 2005 compared to 33 travellers in 2004.

Increased traffic volume

Sir, whilst enhanced security is one reason for congestion at the land checkpoints, a more fundamental reason is that the traffic volume at our land checkpoints has increased quite significantly.

For example, comparing 2004 and 2005, in the month of December, during the recent school holidays, the number of travellers in cars increased by some 7%. Indeed, over the 17th and 18th December weekend, car travellers passing through Tuas Checkpoint more than doubled compared to a typical weekday. That weekend, Tuas Checkpoint also saw 38% more bus travellers, which translates into about 270 more buses.

Changes in traffic patterns

Sir, the situation is exacerbated by changes in traffic patterns which have resulted in the peak periods for both arrival and departure traffic overlapping during the late afternoon to evening periods. This has hampered ICA's flexibility in deploying the necessary manpower to deal with any traffic build-up. Previously, when these peaks did not coincide, ICA had greater flexibility in redeploying officers from less congested areas to man counters where the traffic was heavy.

Motorists' inconsiderate behaviour

On top of these two reasons, the lack of lane discipline displayed by impatient motorists switching lanes indiscriminately has further worsened congestion at the land checkpoints.

Measures taken to ease congestion at the land checkpoints

Sir, having stated the reasons for congestion at our land checkpoints, let me assure Members that MHA has noted recent feedback on the situation and has taken measures to alleviate it, but without compromising security.

Increasing manpower

Thus, more ICA officers have been put to work over-time and more off-duty officers have been recalled to help clear travellers during the peak periods. Officers are also being redeployed from other checkpoints to man more counters, where possible. In addition, we are deploying more Traffic Police and CISCO officers to ensure that motorists maintain lane discipline as well as to conduct security checks. Moving forward, we will increase ICA's manpower so that more officers can be deployed at the land checkpoints. This is in progress and time is needed to train new recruits. Meanwhile, we are exploring other initiatives where practicable, for example, employing retired officers on flexi-hours and contract terms. I understand that, with the rolling out of these measures, the ground situation has improved.

Leveraging on technology

Besides manpower adjustments, we will also continue to leverage on technology to ease congestion. For example, ICA has in place an Integrated Cargo Inspection System (ICIS) to conduct non-intrusive scanning of cargo vehicles. Besides speeding up the process, this has enabled ICA to re-deploy officers to perform other duties.

ICA also intends to implement the Enhanced-Immigration Automated Clearance System (E-IACS) and the Biometrics Identification of Motor Bikers System (BIKES) middle of this year. These systems will automate and expedite immigration clearance of Singapore citizens, permanent residents and long-term pass-holders.

Changi Airport immigration clearance procedures

Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked if it is possible to adopt Changi Airport immigration clearance procedures at the land checkpoints. Conditions at Changi Airport are very different from the land checkpoints. Traffic patterns at the Airport are more predictable as aircraft arrivals and departures are scheduled. Also, clearance is mainly for passengers, unlike the land checkpoints which face a free flow of travellers in different vehicle types.

Playing a part - travellers

Sir, travellers can also play a part in helping to ease congestion at the land checkpoints. They can help to minimise the congestion by maintaining lane discipline. They can also help by adjusting their travel plans and avoiding peak periods as far as possible. Also, travellers can call the traffic information hotline at 6863-0117 or tune in to TrafficWatch on the radio to find out the latest traffic conditions at the land checkpoints.

Furthermore, they can make sure that they do not bring unlawful or prohibited goods into Singapore as this would affect clearance efficiency and cause inconvenience to other travellers. The list of controlled and prohibited items is set out on the ICA's website.

In summary, Sir, ICA will continue to take the necessary measures to improve clearance efficiency as much as possible without compromising security. But the context is that we cannot afford to relax our security checks as it is no longer just a problem of failing to detect contraband like cigarettes or illegal immigrants looking for work. In the current security environment, any lapse could mean a terrorist slipping into Singapore and setting off a bomb. As our borders are the first line of defence against terrorist penetration, ICA will continue to take the necessary measures to help keep Singapore safe and secure. Whilst MHA agencies will do what they can to alleviate congestion at our land checkpoints, some congestion will be inevitable during peak hours and festive periods. I hope Singaporeans will be understanding.

Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State about the security checks, not the immigration and passport controls. Why do passengers travelling by bus have to alight with all their luggage for scanning, whereas the Police and Customs Officers generally conduct only a cursory check on people travelling in private cars by asking the driver to open the boot of the car. Why is there such a great disparity between these two modes of transport? Are these security checks effective and water-tight? Because if someone wants to smuggle in a small parcel, there are actually a multitude of places in the car that he could hide such a small parcel.

Sir, no checks will be foolproof, but I think we must do whatever we can to prevent any terrorist or goods that will harm Singapore from slipping through.

For bus passengers, the procedure is that when the buses come in, all the passengers will get down with their goods, and they go through the terminal and are checked by using various devices. The checking process is speeded up, eg, by X-ray machines and other equipment that are being used. After that, when they have finished with the checks, they will await at the other side of the hall, not for the bus that they came on but any other bus that is available. So this expedites the process. Otherwise, the passenger will have to look for the bus that he came on and that will clog up the efficiency. That is why the passengers will have to get down with their luggage, do the checks and then catch the next available bus to carry on with their journey.

But for cars, with the 100% checks, all the cars are checked. Of course, the extent will depend on the need to carry out more extensive checks. So some cars are directed to secondary check areas for greater checks. I think the system has worked. It may cause some congestion. But, as I said, the main point is that we have noted this and we are doing our best to speed up efficiency but without compromising security.

Sir, I agree with him that the issue is having more manpower. So I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State how much more manpower does the ICA need to resolve this congestion problem once and for all, and when will that be resolved.

I am not sure we can expect once-and-for-all solution because, as I said, traffic volume has built up. So we will solve the situation that has arisen. We will engage more manpower. Currently, I am told that because of the measures we have taken arising from the big jams on the 17th and 18th December period, ICA has, for example, gotten more of their personnel who are off duty to perform extra duties. Some have been asked to stay back to do longer hours. So, in terms of bodies of people, about 130 bodies have been added. They are monitoring this. From there, they will assess how many more new people they will need to engage. But, of course, it takes time also to engage and to train them. The point is that currently we have done what is necessary and, I think, those of you who follow the media will know the situation has indeed improved.

12. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there is an increasing trend of flat owners purchasing their flats using bank loans; (b) what is their profile; (c) how many of them had previously been given concessionary loans and are now refinancing their loans with the banks; and (d) with rising bank interest rates, whether there is cause for concern that many will not be able to service their loans.

13. Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani asked the Minister for National Development in view of the rule that third-time HDB buyers must borrow from banks, from January 2004 to September 2005 (a) how many requests did the Ministry or HDB receive from such buyers to borrow from the HDB; (b) how many of the above were undischarged bankrupts and whether the Ministry knows how many buyers were unable to borrow from banks for other reasons; (c) how many of such buyers intended to buy smaller flats; and (d) what happened to those whose requests were turned down by the HDB.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 12 and 13 together, as they are related?

Yes.

Thank you. First, let me explain that the majority of HDB flat-buyers can get concessionary loans. This includes all eligible first-time buyers, and those who are upgrading. The few groups who need to obtain a bank loan include households with monthly incomes exceeding $8,000, private property owners, Singapore Permanent Residents, those who have already enjoyed two HDB concessionary loans, and those who have enjoyed one concessionary loan and are buying a similar-sized or smaller HDB flat.

Let me now provide some numbers in response to the Members' questions. Mdm Halimah asked what is the trend for bank loan cases. In 2005, the number of HDB flat buyers who purchased their HDB flats using bank loans was about 18,000. This number was comparable to the 17,000 bank loan cases in 2003, but lower than the 23,000 cases in 2004. So, it went up from 2003 to 2004, and it came down in 2005.

In terms of profile, nearly all the bank loan cases were for the purchase of resale flats. 22% were Singapore Permanent Resident (SPR) households, 27% had already previously enjoyed two concessionary loans, while 19% were downgraders who did not qualify for another concessionary loan. 24% were eligible for a HDB concessionary loan but chose to take a bank loan instead. The number of flat owners who refinanced their HDB concessionary loans with bank loans has been generally small. Around 700 households have done so since bank origination started.

Next, in response to Mr Ahmad Khalis, in the 24 months from January 2004 to December 2005, HDB received about 1,700 appeals for a third or subsequent concessionary loan. Of these, two-thirds were buying smaller flat types. Among the appellants, 190 were undischarged bankrupts and ex-bankrupts. As for the other appellants, the main reasons they were unable to obtain a bank loan were:

They did not have a regular income or their income did not meet the banks' requirement;

They were unable to substantiate their income;

They had poor credit records; or

They had legal suits filed against them.

Following HDB's assessment of their cases, 280 appeals (or 16%) were successful. Those whose appeals for a third or subsequent HDB concessionary loan were rejected can consider other forms of accommodation such as renting a room or a flat, or staying with their relatives. Households in severe financial hardship may also apply to HDB for subsidised rental housing.

Finally, Mdm Halimah asked whether there is cause for concern that many will not be able to service their bank loans. There are some who have not been able to do so. But these numbers are not significant at the moment. However, we are monitoring the situation. Meanwhile, I emphasise again that a HDB flat is a long-term financial commitment. All flat-buyers need to exercise financial prudence in their flat purchase. They should consider buying a flat only if it is within their means, after taking into account possible changes in their household income and the mortgage loan interest rate.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, for those who are facing difficulties, what kind of assistance will be rendered by the HDB in servicing their bank loans.

Secondly, there is a concern that the banks are using hard-sell tactics in order to get HDB buyers to take loans from them. What can be done in order to prevent HDB buyers from succumbing to such hard-sell tactics?

Thirdly, the Minister mentioned that about 19% of downgraders who are not eligible for HDB loans are getting bank loans. I think there is a concern with the increasing bank loan rates. HDB flat owners who are on bank loans will face difficulties, particularly for downgraders who are actually already facing difficulties. They are downgrading because of financial reasons and so on. Will the HDB review its policies in not granting HDB flat downgraders from getting a concessionary loan from the HDB?

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, on the question of helping those who have difficulties servicing their bank loans. I stress that these are financial transactions between two private parties. In other words, when buyers go to the banks to take a loan, they have to face the consequences if they subsequently default on their loan repayments. So, I always emphasise and stress this repeatedly that when they go to the bank to take a loan, they must be aware of the commitment that they are undertaking and they should exercise extreme prudence and not go into something that they are unable to afford later on. Having said that, as usual, if there are people who come to us, who appeal to the HDB, and they are in severe financial difficulties, we will look at their cases and where they are justified, we will try to help them on a case-by-case basis, either with a subsidised rental flat or through some other means.

As for hard-sell tactics by the banks, I think this is really something that buyers have to be aware of. We are not able to prevent somebody from making decisions which are not wise ones. What we can do is to educate and to caution. But having done so, it is finally really up to the individuals to make that decision. Sir, the whole idea of allowing the banks to give bank loans is to give more choices to people. In this respect, those who have gone to the banks for loans, the overwhelming majority do not have any difficulty servicing their loans. As a result of this move, they have been able to enjoy different loan packages from the banks and they have also been able to enjoy the relaxation of some of the rules which allow them to sublet or resell their flats, eg, a reduction of their minimum occupation period. Given this additional responsibility, I think it is important for people to exercise it responsibly. Once they have made their decision, it is difficult for us to go in and help them if things go wrong. So, the message must always be to exercise this responsibility carefully.

Finally, on whether we will review the policy of downgraders, most of the people whose loans have been rejected - those who came to appeal - have been those whom we have found to be not really in serious difficulty. The 19% of successful cases that I mentioned earlier are those who have been identified to have some genuine difficulties, and HDB has been very flexible with them. For the other cases, including those who have sold their flats or had their flats repossessed, some have been able to look for alternative arrangements. Others, we will help on a case-by-case basis. I do not think it is necessary for us to make a change in the policy.

Sir, I find that the approval process of appeal for providing HDB loans seems not to be transparent. As it is based on a case-by-case basis, I think many a time people wonder on what basis it is granted approval. For instance, the Minister mentioned about serious financial difficulties. So, is there any guideline to say how "serious" is serious which will warrant the HDB to look at the application seriously? My question, Sir, is whether or not the HDB can make the whole approval process of appeal for giving HDB loans more transparent, especially for those who are bankrupt or those who are in financial difficulty or those who have less income, which the bank will not give them a loan because of their income. Then, where should they go? What are the alternatives?

I would also like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that under the current policy, people who face difficulty financially, if they sell the flat in the open market, they are not allowed to rent an HDB flat. The Minister said just now that the alternative is to rent a flat. How do they rent a flat - from the public, from the private or what other alternatives?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy is clear that those who are no longer eligible for a concessionary loan would have to go to the bank for a loan. Who are these people? These people come from various categories. Some are from high income households, so they would not be eligible for a HDB concessionary loan in the first place. Are these people in financial difficulty? The answer is no. So, they would go to a bank for a loan. Having gone to the bank for a loan, they run into difficulty. What do we do? Surely, we cannot be helping them. Then there are the Permanent Residents. They also are not eligible for concessionary loans. They go to the bank for a loan; they have difficulties. They come to HDB for help. Should we help them? Again, the answer is no. Then there are those who have already received two loans, and they are now going for a third loan. And here we do help such cases. As I explained in my answer to Mr Ahmad Khalis, even those who come to us for a third loan and a subsequent loan (a fourth loan), we look at each case carefully, and where such cases are deserving, we help them. It is not possible for us to have all these rules fully transparent. In fact, HDB takes a lot of trouble and effort to go through each case - then put up its views to a Committee, who looks at the merits of the case and then makes a decision. There are no hard-and-fast rules but where there is genuine difficulty, then certainly these cases will be looked at very flexibly.

There are many cases of appeals who come to us and many a time, we find that they are not really having serious financial difficulties. They may have sold the flat and received a large sum of money from their flat. For such people, there are alternatives. They can either buy a smaller flat, they can rent a flat from the market or they can rent a flat from people who are eligible to sub-let their flat. There may be others who are able to take a bank loan but prefer not to, and we have such cases. Such appeals are not acceded to. Last but not least, there are other avenues such as staying with friends or relatives. We have often emphasised that where there are alternatives, like staying with your friends or relatives, or your family, look at those alternatives first before you come to HDB.

So each case is processed very thoroughly. It is not a frivolous decision. Each case is looked at very closely, submitted to a committee to look at again before it is finally approved. But the record shows that and this is what I would like to inform the House, where there is severe financial difficulty, HDB has been very, very flexible.

14. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider providing rental flats which are not as highly subsidised as the present HDB rental flats but yet are lower in rental compared to the private rental flats, so as to provide more options to lower income Singaporeans who find it difficult to purchase their own homes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, low-income Singaporean families who cannot afford to buy HDB flats can rent subsidised 1- and 2-room flats from HDB. The qualifying monthly income ceiling for the HDB Public Rental Scheme was raised from $800 to $1,500 with effect from 1st October 2003.

Current rentals are very affordable and are pegged according to the income of the household. For households with monthly income of up to $800, the average rent is about $30 for a 1-room flat and $60 for a 2-room flat. For those with monthly incomes between $801 and $1,500, the rentals are $110 for a 1-room flat and $140 for a 2-room flat.

The current income ceiling of $1,500 corresponds roughly to the 23rd household income percentile. In other words, about one in four households can qualify for subsidised HDB rental housing. As for higher-income households, they have other housing options. Nevertheless, requests for subsidised rental housing from households with monthly income exceeding $1,500 but are in financial hardship can still be considered on a case-by-case basis. We will also continue to closely monitor the housing needs of Singaporeans and we will review our policies accordingly if necessary.

15. Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang asked the Minister for Transport what are the commercial arrangements for the provision of aviation fuel at Changi Airport, and in particular (i) who are the concessionaires (ii) how are the concessions awarded; (iii) the duration of the concessions; and (iv) the pricing and conditions of service.

Sir, there are currently six aviation fuel suppliers at Changi Airport, namely, Air Total, BP, Caltex, Exxonmobil, Shell and SPC. To avoid duplication of infrastructure at the airport, these suppliers formed a company called Changi Airport Fuel Hydrant Installation Pte Ltd, in short "CAFHI", to construct and operate a single set of fuel hydrant system at Changi Airport. The fuel hydrant system includes the fuel jetty, storage tanks, underground pipelines and other infrastructures which are shared by these fuel suppliers to store and deliver aviation fuel to their respective airline customers.

Although the fuel suppliers share a common infrastructure, they compete independently. Pricing and services provided to airlines by each fuel supplier is contracted separately and airlines are free to engage any one of the six suppliers.

When Changi Airport opened in 1981, CAAS issued CAFHI a 30-year operating licence to operate in Changi Airport. Under this operating licence, which expires in 2011, the consortium is required to ensure the quality of aviation fuel from the fuel suppliers, as well as adhere to the performance standards in the supply of aviation fuel.

Although major fuel companies like Shell, Exxonmobil, BP are already represented in Changi Airport, CAAS welcomes competition and any new oil company interested in doing business at Changi can do so by joining this consortium. The admission criteria for new entrants are spelt out in the CAFHI's Heads of Agreement. Any reputable oil company that can meet the admission criteria will be eligible to join the consortium by buying over an equity shareholding from the existing shareholders.

Would the Minister please remark on whether the consortium would be a way by which the existing members can cartelise the business in Changi Airport?

Sir, perhaps, I can provide the following information to address the perception of a lack of market access or price control. We should note that CAFHI is structured as a consortium where the six fuel companies supplying fuel are shareholders and new suppliers interested in supplying fuel at Changi Airport are open to joining this consortium as a shareholder. The list of entry requirements is made available to anyone that is interested to apply as a shareholder. In addition, the consortium will provide its reasons to the applicant in the event that its application is rejected. There has not been a case where a new fuel supplier applying to join the consortium was rejected. The last interested applicant was actually Kuwait Petroleum in 1993, but it withdrew its application before the consortium could send it the list of entry requirements. Another non-fuel trading company, Cosco Feoso, merely verbally expressed its interest in joining the consortium in 1998 but had never formally applied. All said, Sir, we need not fear that the present arrangement is actually causing any artificial inflation of fuel prices at Changi Airport, as our prices are the lowest in Asia.

16. Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the provisions for rail and bus transport between Terminals 1 and 2 and the future Terminal 3 at Changi Airport; (b) what will be the waiting time and travel time between each pair of terminals; and (c) what are the provisions for disabled passengers and passengers with heavy luggage.

Sir, Terminals 1 and 2 and the future Terminal 3 will be linked by an elevated light rail system which is similar to the system installed at Sengkang and Punggol New Town.

There will be a total of seven point-to-point rail lines linking Terminals 1, 2 and 3. These lines would serve passengers and staff in the transit areas, as well as the airport visitors and staff in the public areas.

In the event of a breakdown to any of these rail lines, buses will be deployed to ferry the passengers between the terminals. However, passengers in the transit areas can still make use of travellators to commute between the terminals.

As for travel and waiting times, the distances between Terminals 1, 2 and 3 are all different. Each trip will not take long at all - ranging between a little over a minute at the shortest to two-and-a-half minutes for the longest. Waiting time on the platforms will range from two-and-a-half minutes to three and a half minutes.

Prof. Ivan Png has also asked about the provisions for disabled passengers and passengers with heavy luggage. For the light rail systems, there will be a wheelchair ramp at each station. In the light rail vehicles themselves, there will be designated spaces for wheelchairs and passengers with trolleys.

I would like to assure the Member that each of the terminal buildings also has wheelchair ramps at the arrival and departure kerbsides, as well as lifts and toilets for the disabled. The airlines also provide assistance to passengers with disabilities. Passengers with heavy luggage can avail themselves of the porter service at the terminals.

17. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is his Ministry's response to Warwick University's decision to abort plans to open a campus in Singapore because of the alleged lack of academic freedom here; and (b) will this affect the Ministry's agenda in attracting world-class universities to open campuses in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to date, we have attracted 16 leading universities from all over the world in a diverse range of disciplines to establish a presence in Singapore. These include the University of Chicago, MIT, INSEAD, the Technical University of Munich, and Waseda University. The University of New South Wales' plan to set up a comprehensive university is progressing well. When interviewed by the Australian press, Prof. Greg Whittred, President of the University of New South Wales' Singapore Campus, had expressed that they were extremely confident that academic freedom is not going to be an issue here.

In the case of the University of Warwick, its Vice Chancellor, in a letter to the Straits Times on 21st October 2005, said that many in Warwick's academic community would like the University to continue discussions with the EDB which he expected would end up with Warwick having a significant presence in Singapore. In the same letter, however, he said that the academic community in Warwick was concerned with the governance and financial structures being considered for the Singapore campus. EDB will continue to work with Warwick and we welcome them as before. However, Warwick will have to assess for itself and decide for itself whether a Singapore campus fits into their plans.

Warwick's decision has not affected our plans to attract leading foreign universities to establish a presence in Singapore. The EDB is in discussion with other renowned universities in the world to set up their presence in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister whether there are out of bound markers that the campuses here must abide by and what are they, eg, are students allowed to hold protests here, and so on, and should such a marker be spelt out clearly and explained why they should be there?

Mr Speaker, Sir, our policy on academic freedom and our policy to encourage rigorous policy debate and to encourage a spirit of questioning in Singapore, ie, in schools and universities, I think that is well known. Our OB markers, especially on race and religion, are also well known. Students who want to stage protests will have to follow the laws of the land.

18. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether there are policies and regulations to restrict (i) retailers and non-regulated entities from offering deferred credit terms and unsecured credit to consumers, especially the lower income group; and (ii) non-MAS regulated institutions from offering relatively higher credit facilities to those in the lower income group.

Mr Speaker, Sir, retailers who offer goods to consumers on deferred credit terms or hire-purchase are governed by the Hire-Purchase Act. The Act requires such retailers to provide material information for consumers to make informed choices. These minimally should include the effective interest rate, method of calculating balance upon early settlement and administrative charges. The Hire-Purchase Act does not restrict who the retailers can offer deferred credit or hire-purchase to. It is left to the retailers to exercise their own commercial judgement on the credit-worthiness of their customers.

Similarly, the Moneylenders Act does not dictate the loan quantum that can be extended to borrowers. Commercial lenders will have to make their own risk assessment of their clients.

Sir, is there a regulation for these retailers and non-regulated entities to check the credit reports of these applicants before issuing this facility to them?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned in my answer, it is left to the retailers to exercise their own procedure and to make their own commercial judgement on the credit-worthiness of their customers.

19. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Senior Minister in respect of credit card companies, (a) what are the measures to (i) curb over-aggressive marketing campaigns; (ii) regulate the ready availability of easy credit; (iii) curb the aggressive tactics employed by their debt collectors; and (b) whether there are any reviews of the current insolvency practices to include mandated intermediation as part of the legal process before bankruptcy.

The Government has instituted several rules to curb the easy availability of credit. Under MAS' requirements, credit card issuers are only allowed to issue unsecured credit cards to individuals who satisfy a minimum income requirement. The maximum credit extended is also capped at twice the individual's monthly income. Except for existing credit customers, card issuers are not allowed to send credit cards to persons who have not requested for them in writing. They are also not allowed to receive applications for credit cards at temporary sales booths.

Dr Ong also asked about debt collectors with respect to unpaid credit card debts. MAS expects the banks to perform due diligence and assess the track record, reputation and capability of external debt collecting agencies that the banks engage. Banks must oversee and be responsible for the debt collecting work contracted out to these agencies, including managing any risks arising from the tactics employed by these agencies.

On a matter of insolvency practices, the Insolvency and Public Trustee Office has been carrying out pre-bankruptcy mediation since 2002 through its Pre-bankruptcy Advisory and Mediation Centre so as to help debtors' bankruptcy where possible. Officers from the centre help to explain the bankruptcy procedures to debtors and provide advice on alternatives to bankruptcy. Trained mediators also facilitate mediation sessions between creditors and debtors to assist them to reach an amicable settlement. A fair number of individuals have benefited from the service. Last year, some 1,700 individuals approached the centre for assistance. To advise borrowers with serious debt problems, Credit Counselling Singapore (CCS), a non-profit organisation, was launched in October 2004. CCS counsels the debtors and often helps them to work out a debt repayment plan and, again, here, a fair number of individuals have benefited from CCS' assistance.

So there are credit counselling schemes in place. MoneySENSE, the national financial education programme, is also stepping up

its education programmes. But, ultimately, the key to their problems is for consumers to take personal responsibility for managing their finances and to plan for the long term.

Sir, the Consumer Credit Bureau of Singapore actually issues credit reports of the applicants which show the last 12 months' status of all the credit facilities of the applicants. My first question is: do these banks or credit facilities companies thoroughly check the credit reports of the applicants? If yes, how do they evaluate these credit reports of the applicants, instead of just issuing new cards to these applicants, making their actual credit limits to be two times of their income multiplied by the number of credit cards that they actually hold?

The next question I have is that there is a practice of banks issuing easy credit or ready credit to applicants for them to transfer the entire amount from a credit card into an easy credit or a ready credit at a lower interest. So what is the Minister's view on this?

On the first question, it is good banking practice for our banks to check with the Consumer Credit Bureau for debtors' credit history with other banks. As a matter of fact, this is done. I call tell Prof. Ong that amongst the major banks in Singapore, those that account for the bulk of consumer credit, it is done as a matter of course, ie, close to 100% of the applications they get are first checked with the Consumer Credit Bureau. And we have to leave it to the banks to make their own credit judgment as to whether they think the credit of the individual is sound and whether they are willing to extend a credit card to an individual. Of course, from time to time, MAS will have a look at the banks' procedures to make sure that they are robust.

On the second matter, there are some innovations in the credit market, some blurring of the lines between credit cards and other unsecured credit schemes. There are separate limits that are set, however, for these things. In other words, for credit cards, we have the two-month income limit. We have a separate two-month income limit on any other form of unsecured credit. So it is still constrained. At the end of the day, you cannot lend more than four months no matter how you play around with the distinction between these different instruments. So there is a limit of four months of income ultimately on the sum total of credit you can get as a consumer from the bank.

Sir, there have been reports of many Singaporeans suffering from credit card debts, some holding as many as eight to 10 cards with a total debt of $40,000-$90,000, and that is many times of their monthly income. So I would like the Minister to share with this House on what is the percentage of this group of people who are suffering from credit card debts.

The other question I have is that, looking at the 12-month history of the credit report of an applicant, the banks know that the applicant is already rolling over every month and yet, they still chose to give them ready credit, ie, to transfer the entire balance into the ready credit, knowing well that they will not be able to pay up. What is the Minister's view on this?

I do not have precise data on the number of individuals who have large amounts of unpaid debt. But the problem on the whole is not a serious one. The amount of bad debt, as a percentage of total receivables, has come down over the last few years. It has come down from about 7% three years ago to less than 3% currently. That is in fact a more favourable figure than many other countries, such as the United States.

On the Member's second point, we have to leave it to the banks to make their judgements. The banks will not lend to someone whom they think is at risk of not repaying. It does not make sense for the banks. So it is a question of the banks setting up a risk assessment system. MAS is quite satisfied that they have the system in place. From time to time, we have to check and we have to remind their management to keep an eye on these things. But it is not a serious problem overall.

20. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the procedure for allocation of rally sites during General Elections will be reviewed to ensure a more equitable distribution of sites among political parties.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Police has put in place a fair and transparent system for allocating rally sites. It is on a first-come, first-served basis. As the number of rally sites in each constituency is finite, it would not be always possible to grant the applicant the requested site at a specific time if another applicant has already applied and obtained approval for the same site earlier. This could happen to any political party at any constituency.

As in previous General Elections (GE), Police will pre-designate certain sites as election rally sites. Following the announcement of the General Elections, Police will provide information on the particulars of the Police Liaison Officer (Election), the location of his office, the process for the application to use rally sites as well as the operational hours of the Liaison Office.

Sir, I would like to ask the DPM whether he is aware that during the last election and the previous one, under the current system of so-called "first-come, first-served" basis, it allowed the PAP to queue up at the station, which was supposed to be open only at 8.00 am, 24 hours from Nomination Day. And the end result was that many times, the Opposition was not able to get a rally site. For instance, at the last election, both rally sites available at Nee Soon East and Hougang were all booked by the PAP, and as a result of which, we did not have any rally sites available on the eve of Polling Day.

If I recall correctly, in the previous election in 1997, there were cases where -

Mr Low, can you make your questions short? What is your question?

Sir, I am asking the DPM whether he is aware of the situation. It is a supplementary question but I have to describe the situation to him.

Make it short, please.

At the 1997 election, there were cases where the PAP booked all the rally sites and had them withdrawn in the afternoon, so as to make sure that the Opposition election agents who were there in the morning were not able to get their rally sites.

My next supplementary question is whether or not the DPM is satisfied with the outcome of the current system of a first-come, first-served basis, and whether this is a desirable outcome which the Government wishes to see, ie, the consequential effect to deny the Opposition a rally site and a chance to engage and tell the voters what we have to say.

Sir, it looks like Mr Low is very familiar with the queuing system and, surely, the PAP cannot have the monopoly of queuing in front all the time. Since the Opposition is aware that allocation is on a first-come, first-served basis, then they go there and queue. I suppose that is the most transparent of all the systems. The Police is not in a position to decide whether it is desirable or not desirable. It has made available the facilities. It has made available to all concerned who want to contest the timing for the issue of the permit. At the same time, everyone is familiar with what is required to apply for such a permit to hold an election rally. So I am sure that political parties, being ingenious as they are, will know what to do to deal with the situation in order to cope with the competition that they face. I think that is the best for all. And if Mr Low thinks he has been done in, then it is time that he be better prepared.

So the DPM is saying that whoever is interested to contest or wants a rally site, he would have to be there on Nomination Day as the PAP and keep on queuing up 24 hours, providing whatever resources he has in order to have -

Order. I must insist that you ask your question.

That is a question.

That is not a question. That is a statement.

I think it is a question. I am asking the DPM whether or not he means that an Opposition party or the PAP would have to be there on the first day of nomination to queue up. Secondly, I am asking whether or not he deems the outcome, as what I have described earlier on, ie, denying an Opposition to speak to the voters, especially on the eve of Polling Day, is a desirable outcome of the policy and the system that the Government designs.

Sir, I do not think it is the Police's job to decide who chooses it first. The system is there for people to see and Mr Low knows how it is done and it is for him to work it out himself. Surely, the rally is not the only occasion for the political parties to reach out to the people. The PAP does it all the time, so does the Workers' Party, and so do, I believe, all the other political parties that have an interest to contest in an election. If he thinks that the only time for him to get to the ground is through the rally, maybe he has not worked hard enough. But I think the Workers' Party has worked very hard. So do not be diffident about this.

Last question, Mr Low.

First of all, I thank the DPM for his comments on the Workers' Party. But having said that, I am sure that the DPM, being a veteran politician himself, is fully aware that a rally is an important channel for the Opposition to communicate with the voters, given the fact that the media is going to cover more of the PAP than the Opposition. I would like to ask the DPM whether or not he is prepared to review the system to make it more civilised and more convenient, rather than getting the election agents or people to queue 24 hours overnight from Nomination Day till the end of nine days.

The Police will look at all ways and means to make it easier and transparent for the people. At the same time, they must also be seen to be fair. Whether people queue for two hours, five hours or 24 hours, I think that is very much left to the initiative of the individuals.

The following Question stood in the name of Mdm Ho Geok Choo-

21. To ask the Minister for Manpower, in view of Singapore's switch to high value added manufacturing industries (a) what is the percentage shift in the number of diploma and degree holders employed in this sector in 2004 and 2005 as compared to 1995; and (b) what is the trend in the labour productivity output in the manufacturing sector.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo is not here*.

* Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), the answer is reproduced in the Appendix (Cols. 2107-2108).

22. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports whether his Ministry will introduce laws to regulate the activities of matchmaking agencies which bring in foreign brides for marriage to local men so that there are safeguards to protect these women from exploitation or abuse or falling prey to bogus or scam marriages.

Sir, there is existing legislation such as the Penal Code to protect persons against exploitation or abuse or falling prey to scams. The Women's Charter also has provisions to protect women against trafficking, prostitution and family violence. If any matchmaking agencies or individuals break any of these laws, the Government will not hesitate to take them to task.

In many countries, including the US, UK and Japan, the provision of matchmaking services is treated as a business arrangement between willing parties. They are not regulated by the Government. We have adopted a similar approach in Singapore. There is, however, scope for matchmaking agencies to put in place certain good practices, so as to raise their standard of service. For example, agencies could conduct background checks on their clients. This could include checking their clients' particulars against the marriage databases maintained by the Registry of Marriages (ROM) and Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM). Matchmaking agencies dealing in foreign brides could also request for the marriage certificate to be produced, before allowing the bride to follow the man home. I would like to encourage matchmaking agencies in Singapore to seriously consider putting in place such best practices.

As matchmaking is an activity that singles, whether Singaporean or foreigner, voluntarily take part in, participating individuals must play their part to prevent being exploited or abused. They should exercise care in selecting the matchmaking agency that they use. It is also prudent to get to know your partner well, before entering into any engagement or marriage.

Mdm Halimah, you have one minute.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether she agrees that the current laissez-faire approach in dealing with such issues is sufficient in the light of the recent high profile case where a person was convicted for luring a young Vietnamese girl into marriage when it was a sham one. Would the Minister of State please comment on that?

Mrs Yu-Foo, you have half a minute.

Sir, we do not take a laissez-faire approach. Like I have mentioned, there is existing legislation, such as the Penal Code and the Women's Charter, to protect persons against criminal offences or abuse. Like the hon. Member mentioned about the recent case, such an example is a case of a marriage and sex scam, perpetrated by a 64-year-old cobbler who was charged and convicted for cheating by personation under sections 417 and 419 respectively of the Penal Code. I think he was sentenced to jail for 18 months.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 21, 24-29 and 31 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Questions Nos. 23, 30 and 32-33 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 17th January 2006.]

* Cols. 2107-2118.

Defence)

Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been significant public interest recently in the issue of National Service defaulters arising from the case of Melvyn Tan. Members of the House have also submitted questions on MINDEF's policy on NS defaulters, the punishments meted out to them, and whether the punishments provided for in the Enlistment Act are adequate.

Need for National Service

National Service was introduced 38 years ago in 1967, soon after we became independent. National Service fulfilled a critical need - we had to defend ourselves. It was a matter of survival. As a small country with a small population, the only way we could build a force of sufficient size to defend ourselves was through conscription. It was a decision not taken lightly given the significant impact that conscription would have on every Singaporean. But there was no alternative.

Over the past four decades, the need for National Service has been reaffirmed. With National Service, we have built up the SAF into a capable and credible force. The SAF deters aggression, protects our sovereignty and territorial integrity, and allows us to pursue our national interests without yielding to external threats or pressure. In addition, the SAF now also has to deal with a wider spectrum of threats which can derail our peace and prosperity, threats such as transnational terrorism and maritime security. The need for National Service therefore continues to be as critical as ever.

National Service and our committed National Servicemen form the backbone of the SAF. It is not an exaggeration to say that the peace and prosperity that Singapore and Singaporeans have enjoyed over the past four decades are built upon the dedication of NSmen who have dutifully served their country. 700,000 have served. More than 300,000 are currently doing their full-time NS or are active operationally ready national servicemen being called up annually for their in-camp training and standby duties. Another 400,000 have done their duty and completed their operationally ready national service cycle. Sons now follow in the footsteps of their fathers, as a second generation of Singaporeans serves our country through National Service.

National Service, both full-time and during operationally ready service, requires significant sacrifice on the part of our NSmen. The sacrifice is shared by their families; and their employers bear inconveniences as well. The Government acknowledges this, and has over the years introduced initiatives to recognise the efforts and sacrifices of our NSmen. But these initiatives can never fully compensate our NSmen for their sacrifice and the effort they commit to serving the nation.

Principles of National Service

Our National Service policy is underpinned by three fundamental principles. The first is that National Service must be for meeting a critical national need - for it requires considerable cost both to the individual and to the nation. That critical need is national security and our survival. This is why NSmen are deployed only in the Singapore Armed Forces, the Singapore Police Force and the Singapore Civil Defence Force, where they contribute directly to the security and defence of Singapore.

Once in a while, there are suggestions that Singaporeans should be allowed different forms of National Service. For example, a recent commentary by Ms Ong Soh Chin of The Straits Times advocated a rethink of the scope of National Service. She suggested that it be extended to include other forms of non-combat service, such as in the social sector or in the arts. MINDEF does not think this is appropriate. We are clear that if we require our people to perform National Service, it must be to fulfil a critical national need. Otherwise there is insufficient reason to compel a person to serve.

The second fundamental principle of our National Service is universality. All young Singaporean males who are fit to serve are conscripted. If we have a system in which some are conscripted but others are not, there will be strong feelings of unfairness which will undermine the commitment of our NSmen. This is not unique to Singapore. This was a problem that the US faced during the Vietnam War. Not everyone was conscripted. Some exploited loopholes and technicalities to avoid being drafted. There were exemptions, deferments and alternative forms of service. This affected morale and the will to fight among those who were drafted, and it also affected the American people's support for conscription and the war. MINDEF has always been very clear that National Service must be universal - all who are fit to serve National Service must serve.

The third fundamental principle of our National Service is equity. Everyone has to be treated in the same way, regardless of background or status. His deployment in NS is determined by where he is most needed to meet the needs of the national defence.

NS defaulters

In line with these three principles, MINDEF has consistently taken a tough stand against those who default on their National Service obligations. We have introduced various measures over the years to prevent such persons from evading National Service. For example, the Constitution was amended in 1979 so that those who refused to serve could not escape their National Service obligation by simply renouncing their citizenship. Only those who have emigrated at a young age and have not enjoyed substantial socio-economic benefits are allowed to renounce their citizenship without serving National Service.

Since 1970, we have required pre-enlistees who are going overseas for an extended period to post a bond as a promise that they will return to fulfil their National Service obligation. The bond quantum was $20,000 in 1970 and it has been increased over the years. Since 1992, the bond quantum has been set at $75,000 or half the combined annual income of the parents, whichever is higher. The bond is however not a substitute for National Service. If a pre-enlistee fails to return to serve his National Service, not only has he broken his bond but, more importantly, he has broken his promise and broken the law by not returning to fulfil his National Service obligation. The bond quantum that is forfeited is the penalty he has to pay for breaking the bond. It is not redemption and not a substitute for National Service. He still has to face the law for failing to comply with his National Service obligations under the Enlistment Act; and he still remains liable for National Service.

There is strong support for National Service among Singaporeans. Every year only a small number, about 0.5% of those liable for NS each year, or on average 100 unresolved cases of NS defaulters a year over the past five years, fail to register or enlist for National Service, or fail to return after their exit permits expired. The vast majority of these defaulters are overseas.

An average of 12 NS defaulters a year were charged in Court for failing to comply with the Enlistment Act. The offences carry a sentence of up to three years imprisonment, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. The sentence is decided by the Court based on the circumstances of each case. Besides answering to the Court, NS defaulters who are still Singaporeans and below the age of 40 will have to serve National Service.

Melvyn Tan

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me now to touch on the specifics of the case of Melvyn Tan. Much has been said about his case and many Singaporeans have expressed strong views. I discern two key concerns in the public debate.

The first was that the punishment meted out to NS defaulters was insufficient and not proportionate with the seriousness of the offence. There were many indignant voices who argued that a $3,000 fine was too light considering that other Singaporeans had to diligently serve 2 or 2½ years of full-time National Service and many more years of in-camp training. Such feelings are understandable and I will address this concern later in my statement.

The second concern expressed was whether Melvyn Tan had been given special treatment; whether different rules for National Service applied to different people. I would like to assure the House that this was not the case. Melvyn Tan was treated no differently from other NS defaulters in similar situations.

Melvyn Tan left Singapore at age 12 in 1969 to study music at the Yehudi Menuhin School in England. In 1974, when he was 17, he won a Foundation Scholarship, jointly funded by the Straits Times Press, Nanyang Siang Pau and the Lee Foundation, to further his music studies at the Royal College of Music. As the course would take him beyond the enlistment age of 18, he applied for and was granted deferment from National Service for three years, after his parents furnished a bond of $30,000.

However, Melvyn Tan failed to return after his deferment period ended. Instead, he requested further deferment to pursue a Masters degree in music. The request was rejected, as we did not allow further deferment for postgraduate studies. When Melvyn Tan failed to enlist for full-time National Service after his deferment period was over and his exit permit had expired, the bond his parents furnished was forfeited and he was gazetted as an NS defaulter.

Melvyn Tan subsequently took up British citizenship in 1978 and applied to renounce his Singapore citizenship. He was allowed to renounce his citizenship based on the prevailing policy at that time. That policy was subsequently tightened, and someone in a similar situation today would not be allowed to renounce his citizenship and would remain liable for National Service.

Over the years, Melvyn Tan made a number of appeals, including one to the Prime Minister in 1995, to be allowed to return to Singapore without being charged for his National Service offences. MINDEF rejected all of his appeals. MINDEF's position was that while he was free to return to Singapore, he would have to answer for his National Service offence in Court, like all other NS defaulters.

In April last year, Melvyn Tan decided to return to Singapore to face the Court. He stated that he wanted to return in order to be with his ageing parents. He pleaded guilty in Court and was sentenced to a fine of $3,000. His sentence was similar to that imposed on other NS defaulters under similar circumstances. As Melvyn was no longer a Singaporean and was in any case over 40 years old, he was no longer liable for National Service and could not be made to serve his National Service.

Penalties for NS defaulters

Sir, let me now touch on the issue of punishment for NS defaulters. The legal framework for National Service is contained in two pieces of legislation - the Enlistment Act and the Singapore Armed Forces Act.

The Enlistment Act applies to all Singaporeans and Permanent Residents from age 16½ to 40, or age 50 in the case of officers. The Act provides for the registration and enlistment of those liable for National Service, and also for the requirement to apply for an Exit Permit or to notify MINDEF when going overseas. Those who fail to comply with the provisions of the Enlistment Act are dealt with in the civil courts regardless of whether they are pre-enlistees, full-time NSmen or Operationally Ready NSmen. On conviction, they can be sentenced to a jail term of up to three years, or a fine of up to $5,000, or both.

The Singapore Armed Forces Act deals with those in the service of the SAF and contains provisions pertaining to their conduct and discipline. Those in the service of the SAF comprise regulars, full-time NSmen, and Operationally Ready NSmen who have been served an order to report for service. Pre-enlistees are not subject to the Singapore Armed Forces Act as they are not yet in the service of the SAF.

Servicemen who commit offences under the Singapore Armed Forces Act are dealt with either in the Subordinate Military Court or by SAF disciplinary officers.

NS defaulters are dealt with under the Enlistment Act as they have failed to respond to orders to register or enlist for National Service, or failed to comply with Exit Permit requirements. MINDEF's approach in dealing with NS defaulters has been to charge them in Court for Enlistment Act offences and let the Court impose an appropriate sentence based on the circumstances of each case and the provisions of the Enlistment Act.

Over the past 20 years, 185 NS defaulters have been convicted in Court for Enlistment Act offences. Of these, 43 received jail sentences, 140 were fined and two were punished in connection with other civil offences. Of the 140 who were fined, 35 were ultimately jailed when they did not pay their fines.

Of the 185 convicted defaulters, 127 were enlisted or are awaiting enlistment for National Service following their convictions. Two were supposed to enlist but defaulted again prior to their enlistment. 33 were not drafted as they were unsuitable for enlistment for security or medical reasons - they would not have been enlisted in any case even if they had not defaulted on NS. The remaining 23 were not drafted because they were either above the statutory age limit or no longer Singaporeans.

Of note is that the High Court had, in a 1993 case, reduced the sentences of two NS defaulters - two brothers - from eight months' imprisonment to a fine of $3,000 on appeal. This was an unusual case where it could be said that there were mitigating circumstances. Since then the Subordinate Courts have been using this case as a guideline, and not imposed a jail sentence on single-instance defaulters, no matter how long the default period was. The courts have imposed jail sentence on single instance defaulters only in cases where there are aggravating factors, such as repeated Enlistment Act offences, past criminal records, concurrent charges of other civil offences, and absconding during investigation.

It is for the Court to decide on the appropriate punishment for individual cases of NS defaulters. MINDEF had not been pressing for custodial sentences, nor had it appealed for heavier sentences. The majority of cases so far have been those who returned at a relatively young age and were still able to fulfil their National Service obligations. Half of those charged in Court over the past 20 years returned at age 21 or younger, and 80% returned at age 28 or younger. A fine for such NS defaulters was not inappropriate as they were still able to serve their National Service obligations in full.

However, Melvyn Tan's case has highlighted an inadequacy in penalties for those who have defaulted for so many years that they are no longer able to discharge their National Service obligations in full. Since the appeal case in the High Court in 1993, besides Melvyn Tan, there have been 13 other cases of convicted defaulters who were sentenced only to a fine and who were not subsequently enlisted because they were already over 40 or almost 40. This is something that we need to look into more closely, especially as there may now be more defaulters who are 40 or older coming before the courts with the passing of time.

Review of Enlistment Act

Sir, in the middle of last year, MINDEF embarked on a periodic review of the Enlistment Act and the Singapore Armed Forces Act. This review focused on the penalty regimes in the Acts. The review of the penalty regime in the Singapore Armed Forces Act was completed in November last year and a Bill to amend the Singapore Armed Forces Act is up for Second Reading now before the House. The proposal is to increase the maximum fine quantum provided for in the SAF Act.

The review of the Enlistment Act has taken longer because, in addition to reviewing the penalty regime, MINDEF is also studying how to modify the exit control measures to take into account the impending introduction of the biometric passport. I will provide details of the changes in the exit control measures at a later sitting when I move the Bill to amend the Enlistment Act.

Let me deal with the issues regarding the penalty regime. MINDEF considered whether, in the context of current conditions and the number of NS defaulters, it is necessary to change the nature and scale of punishments in the Enlistment Act. In particular, we looked at whether the maximum jail sentence of three years is adequate, whether we should specify a mandatory minimum jail sentence, and whether the maximum fine that can be imposed is adequate.

MINDEF will be proposing to the House to increase the maximum fine provided for in the Enlistment Act from the current $5,000 to $10,000. This will be in line with the amendment to the Singapore Armed Forces Act which is now before the House. While the maximum fine will be higher, it is important to note that the fine, like the bond, is not a substitute for serving National Service. The fine is a penalty for failing to fulfil his obligations under the Enlistment Act, and the defaulter remains liable for National Service.

MINDEF has concluded that the maximum jail sentence of three years is adequate, as it is longer than the current full-time National Service duration of two years. Whether or not a particular offence merits the maximum punishment of three years' imprisonment would be a matter for the Court to decide based on the facts of each case.

MINDEF does not consider it necessary at this time to seek a minimum mandatory jail sentence for Enlistment Act offences, as the circumstances of the cases vary widely. However, from now on, MINDEF will ask the prosecutor to press for a jail sentence in serious cases of NS defaulters, and explain why we consider a jail sentence appropriate in a particular case. Serious cases include those who default on their full-time National Service responsibilities for two years or longer from the time they were required to register or enlist, or from the time their exit permits expired for those granted deferment, whichever is later. We believe that it is in the public interest that such NS defaulters face a jail sentence, unless there are mitigating circumstances.

I would like to provide some illustrations of what MINDEF considers to be sentences appropriate to the nature of the offence or commensurate with its gravity:

Where the default period exceeds two years but the defaulter is young enough to serve his full-time and operationally ready NS duties in full, MINDEF will press for a short jail sentence.

Where the defaulter has reached an age when he cannot serve his full-time NS in a combat vocation or fulfil his operationally ready NS obligations in full, a longer jail sentence to reflect the period of NS he has evaded may be appropriate.

Where the defaulter has reached an age when he cannot be called up for NS at all, a jail sentence up to the maximum of three years may be appropriate. In all instances, we expect that the Court will take into account whatever aggravating or mitigating circumstances there may be in each case to determine the appropriate sentence.

Commitment is key

Mr Speaker, Sir, we need the appropriate laws and regulations, the fines, bonds and penalties to maintain our principles of universality and equity for National Service. But what is more important is having committed NSmen who are willing to serve, and who believe that they have something to fight for and to die for, if necessary. As Mr Ivan Michael Pung wrote in his letter to The Straits Times on 1st December last year, and I quote "the reason why we answer the call-up is not to enjoy the rewards cited, like HDB concessionary loans, IPPT monetary awards and New Singapore Shares. We all serve National Service so that our parents, siblings and loved ones will sleep well each and every night. We know that we must defend what belongs to us."

Mr Pung is not alone in his commitment. Singaporeans can sleep well knowing that there are many others like him who are committed to the security and defence of our country. I recently met a young man at my meet-the-people session. He came to see me about his National Service call-up. It was a heart-warming meeting. MINDEF had exempted him from National Service on medical grounds, but he wanted to serve and felt that he could contribute despite his medical condition. He told me that National Service is something all Singaporean men had to do and he wanted to do his National Service too. I was most impressed by his determination to live a normal life and to serve our country in any way he can, in spite of his illness. This young man is still studying in a post-secondary institution, and MINDEF will review his case when he has completed his studies. If it is appropriate, we will enlist him and deploy him to serve in a role that is compatible with his medical condition.

Sir, ours is a compulsory National Service system. Singaporeans do not have a choice whether or not to serve National Service. Yet there is a strong commitment to National Service among our NSmen and a belief in the importance of National Service. In a survey of NSmen conducted last year, an overwhelming majority indicated that they will defend Singapore if it should come under threat (96%), and that they will risk their lives to fight for Singapore in a war (92%). The survey findings are supported by what MINDEF has observed of NSmen during their in-camp training. They take their training seriously and many are keen to offer suggestions on how training and operating procedures can be improved.

While we continuously seek to upgrade the SAF's hardware and software, we know that it is very important not to lose sight of the heart-ware. MINDEF and the SAF have therefore been working at eliciting higher levels of commitment and ownership in our nation's defence. To cement the bonds of commitment of our people, the Army has embarked on the Army Culture and Experience, or ACE movement. The aim is to shape a positive army experience for all NSmen and to build a strong culture that will inspire confidence and commitment to collectively defend our country. May I request the Clerk to distribute some brochures describing the ACE programme. [Copies of brochure distributed to hon. Members.]

Sir, we have come a long way since National Service was introduced 38 years ago. MINDEF is greatly heartened by the commitment of our NSmen and Singaporeans' support for National Service. The Government will continue to give recognition to the commitment and contributions of NSmen to the defence of our nation. The RECORD IV committee chaired by Dr Ng Eng Hen will soon be announcing its recommendations on ways to further recognise and enhance the contributions of NSmen to Total Defence. The Government looks forward to the recommendations of the RECORD IV committee.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, Sir, the response to Melvyn Tan's case has highlighted that Singaporeans feel strongly that defaulting on National Service is wrong and defaulters should face serious consequences. The Government agrees with this view. NS defaulters must face the Court to answer for their offences, and thereafter must discharge their National Service liabilities. Whether such NS defaulters, who have answered for their offences in Court and paid the penalty, should be eventually accepted back into our fold, is not something that MINDEF can determine. It is for society to decide. And society will also look at whether such individuals, apart from having paid a penalty, are sincerely contrite for having failed to serve our nation, and whether they have attempted to make amends.

Mr Speaker, Sir, National Service remains critical for our national survival. Singaporeans serve willingly out of a sense of duty, and also a sense that the system is fair. Every citizen does his part, and nobody can dodge his responsibility to serve without severe legal and social sanctions. The Government will strenuously uphold the National Service system, and preserve its fairness and equity. This is essential to maintain the commitment that Singaporeans have shown over four decades of National Service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, pursuant to Standing Order No. 44, I beg to move that the Ministerial Statement on National Service be considered by Parliament.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.33 pm until 3.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm

Debate resumed.

Sir, I welcome the Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Defence. It provides clarifications on an important and heated topic among the public recently.

I agree with the Minister that NS forms a critical component of our national security and has helped in our nation building programme.

Sir, National Service enjoys strong support among Singaporeans because it is a fair and open system. Whether it is the Prime Minister's son or a business magnate's son or a hawker's son, everyone is treated the same. NS is seen as a social equalizer and all enlistees are subject to the same training and operational regime. Everyone knows and has experienced that it is implemented in an open, transparent and fair manner. The public trust in the Government in its NS policy and implementation is impeccable. We know because we have seen it, experienced it and supported it.

Hence, when some individuals avoid doing NS for their own reasons, there is a sense of unfairness and inequity. If MINDEF treats the matter with laxity, it will undermine the whole regime of NS. Hence, the Enlistment Act is very hard on every enlistee.

It must be so. If one is enlisted into the SAF and runs away during wartime, it is treason and attracts the maximum sentence of death penalty. Under the SAF Act, if one is absent without leave (AWOL), he can be subject to a Military Court martial and given a serious sentence of imprisonment, and there have been several past cases. Considering the strong deterrent that we have in place to prevent desertion, AWOL and other offences against enlistees, it is equally important to have a strong deterrent and punishment regime for anyone who evades National Service at the pre-enlistment and enlistment stage. It is because we have such a vigilant and vigorous system in place that the actual number of defaulters remains small when compared to many other countries. MINDEF should be complimented in managing NS as a trusted, equitable and well-regulated set-up.

Sir, every male Singaporean is required to enlist and serve his National Service unless exempted. Yet we do have some who default. There are several categories of male Singaporeans who default on National Service and also PRs who try to take advantage of loopholes in the system. Let me first highlight these categories. First, there are some who leave the country before the age of 16 1/2 years for overseas and due to parental choice never return back in time to do their National Service. In such instances, the person may blame his parents for putting them in a difficult situation. They remain Singapore citizens and when they turn 21 years of age, they wish to return and serve their National Service. I urge leniency for them as they are only able to exercise their freedom of choice when they turn 21 years old. So long as they agree to do National Service and do so, MINDEF should not press for a custodial sentence unless there are good reasons. The Minister, in his statement, highlighted that for those who default for a short period, he would ask for a short prison sentence. I would urge the Minister that, in such instances, where such young men come back to do National Service, not to press for custodial sentence but to just ask for a fine instead of pressing for a custodial sentence.

Sir, the present practice of forfeiting the security bond of $75,000 should continue and I endorse the review to subject the parents to further legislative monetary penalty if they choose to send their children away before they are due for NS.

Sir, the second group is where they leave the country before they are 16 1/2 years old and return after they turn 40 years of age. They cannot be enlisted due to their age but they want to come back and reside here. They are still loyal citizens and want to remain as Singaporeans and want to enjoy the perks of citizenship. We have no choice but to be hard on them and impose a custodial sentence as they have bypassed 2 1/2 years of National Service.

There is a third category in cases like Melvyn Tan where they default on NS and subsequently take up citizenship in another country. They are at times unable to give up their citizenship as under Article 128 of the Constitution, the Singapore Government can withhold the registration of their renunciation of citizenship if they have not served their NS liabilities. They are also above the age of 40 and cannot be enlisted into NS. In such instances, they owe no loyalty to Singapore and it does not make sense to make a foreign national to do NS in our SAF or Home Team. In addition, they may not have taken any benefits as a Singaporean since leaving Singapore nor do they intend to take up residence in Singapore. The only benefit they may have taken is when, as a child, they were living in Singapore. Even this may not be much if, as a child, they have resided outside Singapore throughout their childhood. I would support a custodial sentence on such individuals as they deliberately evaded National Service and continued to do so after reaching 21 years of age. And in this instance, if the Minister feels that they should get a full three-year imprisonment sentence, I have no qualms in supporting it, Sir.

Sir, the fourth category is a recent category, but it is an important category. Sir, there are first generation Permanent Residents who do not do National Service but their children are required to do National Service when they turn 18 years of age. Some have sent their children out of the country before they turn 16 1/2 years by giving up their PR and then when their children have finished their studies, they attempt to bring their children to work in Singapore, again under the PR scheme or on a Work Pass. Sir, this smacks of an attempt to bypass our National Service policy and we have to be strict in these cases, particularly when the person has enjoyed the benefits of Singapore as a PR before he has turned 16 1/2 years old. We must not grant PR or a Work Pass in Singapore for such individuals. I urge MINDEF to work closely with the Immigration Authority and the Ministry of Manpower to ensure that this loophole is not exploited by Permanent Residents in Singapore.

Sir, let me now just highlight the present sentencing regime. I agree with the Minister that the existing sentence of a maximum of three years' imprisonment or $5,000 fine or both is adequate. It is the actual sentence that is being imposed by the courts that the public is dissatisfied with. In the case of Melvyn Tan, the Minister has explained that due to a judicial precedent in 1993, the sentence imposed was within the present sentencing norms. I understand and accept the rationale and I am quite sure that the Minister's explanation will dispel the public's misunderstanding that Melvyn Tan was given special treatment because of his accomplishments and achievements. Sir, I further agree with the Minister that the discretion must be left with the courts to decide on the appropriate sentence and I will explain why it must be so.

Sir, there will always be a sad case where a custodial sentence may not be in order. If there is a only male child who needs to travel overseas to look after his aged parents at the age of 16 and is unable to leave his parents and return to serve National Service until he is 23 or 24 years old, should we imprison him if the evidence shows that indeed his parents are old, destitute and in need of constant medical care? He may have applied for exemption and it may have been turned down. He has no intention to default on NS. He may in fact come back and serve his National Service. There will always be such sad cases and we should leave the sentencing discretion to the courts in such instances and not require the courts to impose a minimum sentence.

Sir, I would urge MINDEF to work closely with the Attorney-General's Chambers to ensure that where the circumstances merit, a deterrent sentence is pressed for, for example, in the case of Melvyn Tan.

I support MINDEF's policy to press for a custodial sentence if the NS defaulter has defaulted for two years or more. Here again, I would urge some discretion and some leniency in cases where they go on to serve NS as against a person who does not do NS at all. Sir, the unhappiness amongst Singaporeans is not against persons who default and go on and do their NS but against those who default on NS and do not go on to do their NS.

Sir, the big plus over the recent debate on the Melvyn Tan's case was the tremendous understanding of the role of National Service by all Singaporeans and the spirited defence of it by many. That it emanated such vigorous debate and feedback clearly shows that many Singaporeans are patriotic, passionate and endorse National Service as important for nation-building and the defence of Singapore. This is something all of us should be proud of.

4.06 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. First, I commend the Minister for his succinct and comprehensive statement on National Service and his clarifications on Melvyn Tan's case.

Sir, generations of Singaporeans have contributed to National Service, directly as participants in active service and subsequently, through regular commitment as reservists. Likewise, whole families have also contributed to NS, indirectly as parents, spouses and children through family support and sacrifice.

I believe NS has been and continues to be the bedrock of our nation. As part of the psyche and the collective make-up of our society, NS has become an essential component of rights, obligations and commitments of being a Singapore citizen. In this regard, Sir, the disquiet amongst many Singaporeans over the issue of what is perceived as a "negligible" fine imposed on Melvyn Tan upon his return to Singapore, having not fulfilled his NS obligations in an earlier stage of his life, did not come as a surprise to many.

I join my fellow MPs in arguing that NS is very important and the need for NS and its role in Singapore as a nation remain as important today as it has been since independence in 1965. The amount of full-time training and the functions that are fulfilled by our civilian army of reservists and family support may have evolved over time as our military embraced technology and innovations.

The shortening of NS period to two years is commendable in itself and is certainly welcomed. However, that does not and should not dilute the importance of NS and those that have contributed and continue to do so.

It is therefore understandable, Sir, that many Singaporeans have had strong views on the issue of what ought to be the penalties for not fulfilling one's obligation to our country but also what ought to be the right approach in the light of our stringent NS policy in enabling the continual introduction of talent, whether Singaporean-born or foreign-born to Singapore, the merits of which have been well articulated.

The arguments for and against are plenty. Many proposals have been put forward in the media, on online forums and by community leaders on what could be the solution or approach to take to represent either interests or try to balance between them.

To me, the debate is around the pursuit of rational national interest in the long-term in attracting talents versus the emotive force behind many of the proposals for harsher punishment. I will not repeat those arguments given the constraint of time.

Sir, however, I believe the recent unhappiness over the Melvyn Tan's case is partly caused by the lack of clarity and transparency on the part of MINDEF on its policies and rules regarding NS, particularly as they apply to Singaporeans and PRs living abroad. If MINDEF had been more transparent over the interpretation of its various rules and criteria such as who is allowed back into Singapore, under what circumstances and grounds, with what residual obligations, and what are the exception processes if so desirable for appeal, if any, it would shed light on the matter and thereby, I believe, satisfy the majority of Singaporeans and potential Singaporeans alike who seek better understanding and clarity on our NS policies and fairness in its application.

If guidelines are clearly communicated and justice can be seen to be evenly applied, then the perception of inequity amongst Singaporeans, which often is a key complaint here, can be avoided. I would suggest that the policies and guidelines be clearly spelt out to all potential Singaporeans and PRs so that informed choices can be made by them for their children at an early age.

On this, I would like to elaborate on an example that is increasingly commonplace nowadays. Many children of Permanent Residents are sent overseas before NS age for studies. They subsequently become very well-qualified individuals with knowledge and skills, who can contribute greatly to Singapore. They, however, cannot return to Singapore or seek employment opportunities as MINDEF has rejected their appeals, even as, in some cases, they are happy to fulfil, as a condition of their return, their NS obligations, ie, to serve full-time NS albeit at a much older age.

Sir, this has brought some distress to families who may not be fully aware of the consequences of the choices they made earlier on for their children when they were young. This could be avoided if MINDEF has been more transparent and upfront in the policies and criteria on NS for PRs and potential Singaporeans.

In summary, Sir, I believe that we should make an effort to communicate our NS policies in as transparent a manner as possible and redress the perception gaps amongst our citizens who take NS very seriously. We should also consider clearly promulgating the criteria with regard to specific circumstances under which flexibility to our strict policy on NS may be allowed.

Finally, the NS obligations of potential Singaporeans and PRs should also be made transparent to them so that they will be fully aware of the consequences of the choices they make.

4.12 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to commend the Minister who spoke in great detail and his understanding of Singaporeans' concern of the light penalty on Melvyn Tan's case. So I have cut three quarters of my speech as well as my comments.

I would just like to say that no man can bring greater glory to himself and his family than by being prepared to lay down his life to honour and protect the sovereignty of his country. I see this as a wife and a mother of two growing sons. I strongly hold the view that as citizens, we must be prepared to stand up and be counted even in peacetime. Let us just take a determined stand on the side of all serving National Servicemen in our Armed Forces so that they know that we are solidly behind them.

We appreciate their contributions and their service to the nation. Still, others serve with their lives. Let not these service sacrifices of all our servicemen go in vain if we allow others to look for a shunpike to avoid their service obligation for various reasons.

Many families and parents have acknowledged the importance of National Service for the country's security and survival but have not seen it as a sacrifice but as a duty of a citizen and happy to fulfil their duties. Two years of National Service and 13 years of specialist liability is a long time and the $3,000 fine is definitely inadequate.

I would like to urge the Minister to review the appropriate penalty for the NS dodger, irregardless of age, and suitability for active service. However, on the other hand, is the jail sentence appropriate at that age? Would MINDEF look into other appropriate penalties as well, for example, a certain period of compulsory community service in the community to serve the society?

4.14 pm

Sir, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to say a few words about MINDEF's deferment policy. I understand that Melvyn Tan failed to get a second deferment from National Service to further his studies at the Royal College of Music. He decided to renounce his Singapore citizenship to pursue his dreams. For that, he paid a heavy price, not just the $3,000 that he was fined recently, not just the $30,000 bond that his parents have to forgo, but he was for 39 years unable to return to the homeland where he was born and grew up in the first 12 years of his life.

Sir, there are others who take the same route as Melvyn Tan. There are, however, many more who choose not to take this route.

MINDEF does not allow them further deferments to complete their studies - sometimes these are extended courses - and therefore they return to complete their National Service obligations, unhappy though they may be. These are the ones who, quite rightly, have put the needs of the nation before their own self interests. But this does lead me to wonder if we could not tweak our deferment policy to allow further flexibility.

As MPs, we have, from time to time, come across young men who just need a little time more - sometimes just a few months - for them to complete their academic pursuits, but MINDEF gives them a flat no. I know that there are, of course, those who when given an inch will ask for a yard or even a mile. But my feeling is that we could be more accommodating to those who can furnish good reasons to ask for an extension of their deferment for a short period, because the completion of their academic courses does not coincide with the date their National Service obligations begin.

Recently, I came across a case of a young man who had his National Service disrupted so that he could complete a degree course abroad - well and good. Subsequently, he was allowed a further deferment to obtain a Master's degree - again, well and good. But because of the way his Master's degree course was structured, he could not complete his course by the time the deferment period ended. Having come so far, he did not want to lose his opportunity for a Master's degree. So he pleaded desperately for just another six months, but he was rejected.

Every time MINDEF turns down a request for deferment, in all probability, a young man returns because he has no options left. But he is probably frustrated or even bitter that his request could not be met, and that his long-term career prospects might have been compromised. And needless to say, Sir, an unhappy soldier makes a bad soldier.

I am not saying that if Melvyn Tan had been given the further deferment that he wanted, he could have come back. But I hope that we will not be bound by rigid rules that fail to take into consideration certain specific needs.

We all know that our Armed Forces is an organisation where discipline and strict regulations have to be respected and adhered to for the common good of all. But in today's global economy and where opportunities abound for our young people, we cannot afford to lose precious talent, even if it is a small number each year. Every single one lost is a loss for the country. Increasing the fines and the penalties for defaulters may give us satisfaction and a greater sense of fairness and justice, but it does not necessarily bring the man back. And there are many who are not running away from their obligations. They are not quitters. They are committed to Singapore and they want to do their National Service, but they just want MINDEF to exercise flexibility when they request for deferments.

Mr Speaker, recently, MINDEF granted a deferment of three months to one Mr Stanley Aw to allow him to participate in the Singapore finals of the World Cyber Games. Mind you, Sir, it was not the World Games itself. It was just the Singapore round. It was a laudable decision as it showed MINDEF can be flexible if it wants to. But I am not sure if Mr Stanley Aw's participation in the Cyber Games would have been pivotal to his long-term career as much as that of others who need that little extra time to complete their academic pursuits. Yes, I know it was a deferment of only three months for Mr Stanley Aw. But is the World Cyber Games more important than the pursuit of a higher degree?

Sir, I hope that the Minister will look into the possibility of fine-tuning further MINDEF's deferment policy.

4.20 pm

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

Sir, 40 years ago, Singapore separated from Malaysia and became an independent nation. It was the most difficult of times. If we had failed, we would have had to go back to Malaysia on bended knees. We struggled, we persevered, and we were determined to succeed. Failure was not in our vocabulary.

Sir, to succeed as an independent nation, we had to establish a credible defence force from scratch. We cannot depend on foreigners to defend our own country, like we had relied on the British in World War II, and everybody knew it was a disaster. What we cannot defend and hold will not be ours. Singaporeans must therefore bear arms to defend our own homeland. There is no choice.

Sir, can we defend Singapore by raising an armed forces comprising solely of regulars? Obviously not. It will be almost impossible to recruit and retain a significant armed force of regulars and keep it young and relevant and representative of our population. Hence, National Service was introduced.

Inherent and enshrined in National Service is the principle of universality of service and sacrifice. All eligible male Singaporeans serve two years full time - whether you are rich or poor, privileged or ordinary, a university graduate or a school drop-out. And, indeed, some sacrificed their lives, as there were fatal casualties in training. We have debated many times in this House about safety in training and casualties. We all know this. I remember vividly when two National Servicemen from my son's artillery batallion died in an exercise in New Zealand many years ago.

Sir, over the years, National Service has become accepted as part of the Singaporean's way of life. I have done my National Service. My two sons have done their National Service.

When Melvyn Tan's case hit the headlines, many Singaporeans who have done National Service asked, "Was Melvyn Tan given special consideration because he was famous, rich and talented?" If so, this clearly violates the principle of universality of service and sacrifice. Many who have done National Service cried foul. They asked, and rightfully so, if the sacrifices of National Service are only worth the paltry sum of $3,000. Does it mean that one can get away and abscond from National Service with the mere payment of $3,000? It would be manifestly unfair to those who have done their National Service and served the nation with honour and pride. Should there not be a mandatory jail sentence for those who have absconded for a number of years? Where is the sense of fair play and fairness?

Sir, I wish to make a comparison. Those who dutifully enlisted for National Service but thereafter go AWOL for some reason or other, are liable to be sentenced to jail in detention barracks, which I understand to be tougher than a civilian prison. On the other hand, the public's impression following Melvyn Tan's case is that those who do not even bother to enlist for NS can escape with a fine.

Sir, there are about 100 unresolved cases of NS defaulters a year. This is worrisome. I therefore urge MINDEF to address this issue, especially the universality of service and sacrifice in National Service, and plug the obvious loophole. National Service is an institution too important to be undermined. I urge our Government to press for custodial jail sentence for those NS defaulters who abscond for more than two years. Otherwise, we will lose the support of our National Servicemen, and without the commitment and sacrifices of our National Servicemen, we will not be able to defend Singapore. It will really be a sad case.

4.25 pm

Sir, the Melvyn Tan episode raises deeper questions about the Singapore society and us as a nation if we care to look further. At the heart of the matter is the universality of National Service and it being fairly and equitably applied to all. Sure, for the many male Singaporeans, myself included, who sweated it out over the two to two-and-a-half years in green army fatigues, sacrificing many weekends often to chase amorphous enemies, it does seem unfair that one could get away with such a light fine for defaulting on enlistment. In this case, insult was further added to the injury when it was perceived that Melvyn has had a privileged upbringing beyond the reach of an overwhelming majority of Singaporeans.

Against the deluge of angry public sentiments over the light-handed handling of Melvyn Tan's case, it would not be possible for our Government to agree with the present sentencing policy without running the risk of undermining the institution of National Service in Singapore. If we want to ensure the security of our country, it would not be possible to run a National Service where the servicemen felt that the Government practises favouritism. At the moment, it does seem that the public's anger will not be appeased unless and until an NS defaulter is sent to jail as punishment for his crime. In other words, there will not be any satisfaction until the pound of flesh is exacted.

When the dust of the matter is settled, we should perhaps re-examine the issue and ask ourselves some honest questions. In pressing for a person in Melvyn Tan's position to be sent to jail, are we better off as a society? We seem to operate on the belief that equity and fairness will only prevail if the jail sentence is imposed on the person who in the eyes of the society has committed a wrong. Such a punishment must apply, irrespective of the mitigating circumstances that may surround the case. In Melvyn Tan's case, does it matter that he has stayed away for more than 30 years through self-imposed exile from the country of his birth? Does it matter that he is not able to enjoy the ability to spend as much time freely with his frail and ageing parents in the final stretches of their lives? And does it matter if the forces that determined his decision to remain in the United Kingdom were not entirely within his control - being parental influence and perhaps the rare opportunity to pursue a path of excellence in music which may otherwise disappear if he came home at that point in time to do his National Service?

Sir, we aspire to be a world class city. To be a world class city, we must, at the same time, be a world class city of values and generosity. We have the generosity of spirit. Singapore has and will continue the march of progress on the foundation laid by the enlightened minds that guide us. Our progress as a society was greatly served when we decided to permanently remove certain criminals from public record. We did it because we believe that a person with a checkered past should be given a chance to start life anew on a clean slate. Indeed, our spirits cheered greatly when we embraced HIV sufferers as part of the larger Singapore family by facilitating easier access to medical treatment. So why can we not have the same generosity of spirit extended to Melvyn Tan or to other Singaporeans in a similar circumstance?

Sir, as we mature as a society to become more gracious, we must learn that the world is not always cast in black and white. There is a whole spectrum of colours out there that we have to live with. This is a three-dimensional and not two-dimensional world. Let us reconsider this issue. What if the defaulter in this instance was Einstein or Stephen Hawking? Can we honestly say that we would also insist that he should equally go to jail simply because he defaulted on his National Service obligations? Alternatively, what if the defaulter was Bill Gates who has the potential to invest substantially in our economy and bring employment to thousands of Singaporeans? Will our position be different?

The question we should be asking ourselves, Sir, is whether the interest of Singapore will be better served by insisting on a custodial sentence. To insist on a custodial sentence will only result in one certainty - the likes of Einstein

and Bill Gates will never return to our shores. Will we be a richer society and nation for this, or will we be poorer? Honestly speaking, a majority of Singaporeans will find it very difficult to say no to these gentlemen and stop them from coming home by insisting on the full penalty.

Sir, if we accept that such sons or even daughters ought to be exempted from the full application of the law, how then are we going to reconcile this with the principle of the new policy of pressing for a custodial sentence in respect of defaulters? Quite obviously, we run the risk of having double standards if we fail to maintain a consistent application of the new policy. In this regard, I maintain that to now openly have a policy of pressing for a custodial sentence for defaulters may unnecessarily push the Government to a corner which it may find difficult to get out of.

Justice must always be tempered with mercy. In our case, I do not believe for a moment that Singaporeans do not have it in them to embrace a more compassionate solution that would be acceptable to all. Let me be clear at the onset that I firmly believe in the principle of universality of National Service and that for nearly all of Singaporean males, there is no alternative to National Service. Let me also be clear that I firmly agree that we should press hardest for a custodial sentence in cases where the defaulters took flight from the country and his National Service obligations on the account of some criminal acts or flagrant irresponsibility. However, there are very strong mitigating factors that warrant an exception to the policy, and I would urge the Government to be open to this possibility and not close its mind to it.

To my mind, there are two-pronged tests that one should adopt in deciding this issue. First, are there very special circumstances in the case that would warrant an exception to the policy of pressing for a custodial sentence; and secondly, to address the issue of the fundamental obligation of every citizen to perform his duty to his country, can an alternative way, if he is beyond National Service capability because of age, be found to discharge his national duty?

Sir, I believe an argument can and should be allowed for exceptions to be made for very special circumstances, and I would repeat, very special circumstances, if we do not want to paint ourselves to a corner. In certain cases, we may have to honestly ask ourselves whether justice will indeed be served by inflicting punishment on the defaulter. I can think of many who went away when they were young and whose decision to remain overseas was determined by their parents. Should a custodial sentence be imposed on the defaulter should he now want to come home and perform his National Service? Also, we should consider very special circumstances to include considerations of whether the larger interest of Singapore would be served by allowing the defaulter to return. In this regard, I would consider people who are brilliant scientists, highly successful entrepreneurs and world class performing artists to meet the description. I would consider Melvyn Tan to fall within this category.

Against the broad canvas of our society, Sir, we must accept that some will be thinkers and others will be doers. It would not be possible to fit everyone into the same mould much as our sense of fair play may dictate. Our bonding as a nation must be forged out of the self-evident proposition that everyone must play his part in service to his country, no matter how difficult or different the circumstances may be. And we must accept and respect that there are others who would always be treated differently from the majority of the population. Be that as it may, our different circumstances as individual citizens should not permit us to derogate from our basic duty to our country. However, such services need not and do not always have to be uniformed services. Such services can be broadened to include the sciences, the arts and services to the economy. The underlying consideration must really be whether Singapore will be a better place for their service. Applying this principle, it could be that a person such as Melvyn, who is too old for uniformed service, can be permitted to perform his national obligation to Singapore. So to satisfy the obligation of service to the country, National Service for people like Melvyn could and should perhaps take other forms that would benefit the wider society. Let me be clear that this is only an exception. The privilege of an alternative service should only be restricted to a person like Melvyn Tan or people in the situation, as to extend it to others outside the category would undermine our long established policy of maintaining a citizen's armed forces which is vital to the security of our country.

Sir, I am not saying that a defaulter should not be punished, neither am I saying that he should be released from his obligations to serve his country. What I am saying here is that the punishment must commensurate with his wrongdoing and it need not always be a jail sentence, and National Service, in some cases, need not always be in the form of uniformed service. Justice is never served by blind insistence on punishment. As our society matures, let us be prepared to broaden our minds to accept that there are those among us who may not be like us, and let us reconcile the different ways that Singaporeans can contribute to society. For if we can accept this as a starting point in this debate, there will be less angst and unhappiness over the Melvyn Tan episode. Let us learn to be a more generous society by rising above our basic instincts by being more giving and forgiving. We have gone far down the road of refinement as a society in the last 40 years. Let us, Sir, not make the mistake of taking one step forward and two steps back.

4.36 pm

Sir, I thank the Defence Minister for assuring the House that the Government takes a serious view of NS defaulters and there is no special treatment for those who default, whatever their status in life or their background. This bears repeating because I find it hard to agree with my colleague, much as I respect his views, that we should make exceptions for those who default based on their talent. I think this signal will unravel all the importance that we have placed on National Service, and we should be careful to seek exemption for defaulters.

We should take a tough line on serious NS defaulters, and push for a jail sentence for serious cases to send a strong signal that this is a major offence. Hence, I support the Minister's announcement that MINDEF will press for custodial sentences for serious defaulters.

Sir, the nature of the military's task - where men are expected to defend the country and, if necessary, to pay the ultimate sacrifice of the country - necessitates the transfer of individual interests to those of the group, and requires the maintenance of particularly high levels of morale and discipline.

When our young men got to know that the British pianist Melvyn Tan was only fined $3,000 for defaulting NS, some felt demoralised and asked: why bother to serve? One can say that this is a natural emotional reaction, but that question would not be answered with only harsher sentences for defaulters, or a mandatory jail sentence that does not distinguish the circumstances of one defaulter from another.

We can find countries with very harsh penalties for defaulting but still find low morale and discipline a problem among conscripts, with many still wanting to evade NS. If I may name one example: Eritrea, which has compulsory NS since the war with Ethiopia in 1998-2000. According to an international human rights report, many young people have tried to evade military service and thousands have fled the country or deserted after being conscripted. There are reports that the usual punishment for evading or escaping from military service is torture by beatings and being tied in painful contorted positions for days and indefinite detention without charge or trial. But, still, many continue to evade NS.

Sir, to return to the question that our NSmen who were angry with Melvyn Tan's case posed: why bother to serve? Before answering this question, I will touch on three inter-related themes. First, the impact of globalisation on society's attitude towards NS and how this has contributed towards the rise in the number of defaulters in Singapore. Second, on the evolving concept of the link between National Service and citizenship for men. And, finally, on the worth of National Service.

First, globalisation. Sir, we have about 100 cases of NS defaulters a year over the past five years. Although, in percentage terms, they form a very small percentage (0.5%) of those enlisted a year, the numbers seem to be on the rise if you take a longer term view. In 1991, it was reported that only 10 out of more than 20,000 who were enlisted each year did not show up. So, if you take that as a marker, in 14 years the number has gone up about ten-fold.

So, what had happened? In a word, globalisation. Most of the defaulters, over the last five years, are overseas and most come from families who have migrated. Sir, the fact is that, in this increasingly globalised world, more and more Singaporean families are going overseas to work and live. More Singaporean students go overseas to study and to seek and seize new opportunities to develop their different talents.

Singapore society itself is also changing very rapidly. We have been telling our residents to pursue their dreams, to take risks, to get out of their comfort zone and to try new paths to become successful. There is a change in societal values as we move towards a society that celebrates individual excellence and the pursuit of individual dreams. In many ways, Singapore is no different from other small countries, attempting to define and maintain for themselves a place in the world that is increasingly becoming globally integrated.

But with this change, the supporting framework for core military values of sacrifice, honour and duty, is challenged by the more individualistic and consumeristic values that are on the ascendant. This shift can also be seen in the Israeli soldiers who enlist in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF). The IDF is considered one of the strongest military forces in the Middle East and ranks among the most battle-trained armed forces in the world, having had to defend the country in five major wars.

Surveys conducted in 1980, 1984 and 1988 in Israel indicated that some 90% of the Jewish Israeli 18-year olds looked forward to their enlistment and expressed a willingness to serve even if the conscription was to be made voluntary. However, there have since been random media reports indicating an erosion in the "stigma" once attached to non-enlistment among some segments of Israeli youth. They reflect a subtle shift in priorities. According to several reports, for a growing number of young Israeli recruits, considerations of personal satisfaction (assessed in terms of either future job prospects or immediate gratification) now take precedence over a sense of patriotic pride. Influenced by the values pervading the society of which they feel a part, few now express a willingness to subordinate personal considerations, as measured in terms of the market place, to the collective good.

Sir, by the standards of all previous portraits of the IDF soldier, that constitutes a shift of seismic proportions. In Singapore, we cannot be insulated from these global forces. But can we find a way to achieve some sort of balance between, on the one hand, the need to subordinate individual needs to the collective good as a Singaporean soldier and, on the other hand, the desire for individual fulfillment as a civilian? Perhaps one way is to review our deferment policy to be more flexible on requests for temporary deferment for enlistment - on a case-by-case basis - even as we get tougher on serious defaulters. And this I echo the views made by my colleague, Mr Tan Soo Khoon. This does not necessarily mean that we compromise on the principle of universality which demands that all men who are fit must be conscripted. They will be conscripted. It is a matter of when. There is a difference between those who default and those who seek to defer their service. The defaulters have no intention of serving their NS and are running away from their obligations. Those who seek deferment want to serve NS and want to return to fulfil their obligations. This distinction must be appreciated.

If we are too rigid on deferments, these men who want to serve but could not at that point in time will then, by default, become defaulters. And if we press for a jail sentence - as we intend to do so for serious defaulters - it is as good as saying, don't come back. We should look instead at providing more re-entry points for those who seek deferment and not turn them into defaulters. As the Minister has said earlier in his Ministerial Statement, half of the NS defaulters charged in court returned at age 21 or younger, while 80% returned at age 28 or younger. I would hazard a guess that not a few might have earlier sought for deferments or further deferments but were rejected. Hence, they fall into the category of defaulters. And this is what happened to Melvyn Tan.

Sir, I would urge MINDEF to review its deferment policy and perhaps allow it within a certain timeframe, or a specific age limit on case-by-case basis.

As it is, Singaporeans generally already accept the need for deferment for specific cases. Mr Tan Soo Khoon mentioned the case of Stanley Aw. He was allowed to defer his NS by about three months to compete in the World Cyber Games. If you contrast that with the reaction to the Melvyn Tan's case, those who have heard about the Stanley Aw's case generally were largely positive, and they saw this as a sign of a more "enlightened" defence policy.

This specific deferment case also led to an op-ed piece by columnist Thomas Friedman in New York Times, which was published on 16th September last year. Headlined, "Still Eating Our Lunch", he wrote: "Last week, its Ministry of Defence granted a deferment for the country's compulsory NS to a Singaporean teenager so he could finish competing in the finals of the World Cyber Games." He continued: "Being a tiny city-state of four million, Singapore is obsessed with

nurturing every ounce of talent of every single citizen ... Its government understands that in a flattening world, where more and more jobs can go anywhere, it's not enough to just stay ahead of its neighbours. It has to stay ahead of everyone." This was in the op-ed piece by Thomas Friedman based on the deferment given to Stanley Aw.

Sir, many Singaporeans also understand that we are in a flattening world, and they wonder if they can have the best of both worlds: National Service that fosters a sense of civic obligation and duty while allowing citizens to pursue their chosen course as much as possible. There are examples of countries where deferments for enlistment have been given more generously without causing great grievance among the people or affecting operational readiness or undermining the conscription system. They also claim to have a universal system.

According to a paper published by Tel Aviv University on the Israeli Defence Forces, about 3.5% of the conscription pool receive deferments each year because they are living abroad. In Turkey, which also has the conscription system and has been at war, students may postpone their military service up to the age of 29, or up to the age of 36 in the case of postgraduate students. Different military service regulations apply for Turkish citizens who are living abroad. They can then postpone their service up to the age of 38, for a period of three years at a time. Another example is Egypt, which also has a battle-tested conscription system. There, NS lasts three years, postponement is possible for students for the duration of their studies or until they are 28, or for various domestic reasons.

I am not saying that we should be as generous. Indeed, I would caution against blanket or automatic deferments. I am urging for more flexibility on a case-by-case basis, including for postgraduate studies, especially for outstanding athletes and musicians whose most crucial stages of development are often in their youth.

Sir, my second point is on the evolving concept of the link between NS and citizenship for men. Sir, a common way of understanding citizenship is in terms of rights and obligations. Another is in terms of patriotism, as a deep commitment to one's country and fellow citizens. It is essential to reaffirm the tradition of the citizen soldier that service on behalf of the nation-state is a mark of good citizenship.

Sir, throughout history, scores of examples exist of both mandatory and voluntary service to the nation. Service to one's king or nation has been thought of as an honour. In ancient Sparta, the classical military state, although there was no mandatory military service for citizens, young men were most often shamed into service by their family and peers if they did not submit freely. Soldiers were taught to come back from battle with their shields on their shoulders or come back dead upon them. After the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC, Sparta's first military defeat in battle, the women of the surviving soldiers mourned the return of their men because they had disgraced their families, while the women who were related to the dead soldiers, who were carried back on their shields, were happy because their men had maintained the honour of their families.

Sir, we do not need to go that far. But my point is that it is important for society, including the women, to support NS and the men who do NS, and to equally castigate those who seek to evade it. It is a matter of honour. I am pleased to know that MINDEF would be engaging young women under the National Youth Achievement Award Scheme to host young women to the SAF units to explain the NS thinking, to help them to understand the sacrifices that NSmen make. This is important to make sure that there is no gender divide over the issue of NS. Sir, whenever I am the Reviewing Officer for the passing-out parade, I always feel a sense of great pride when I see our young men standing there in the sun and being proud as Singaporeans and being proud that they have done NS. And this is the spirit that we want to maintain.

Lastly, Sir, on valuing NS and its sacredness as a form of obligation as a citizen. I feel that we should have a paradigm shift where it comes to the law where we almost frame NS as a punishment for renouncing one's citizenship, the law that disallows a Singaporean to renounce his citizenship without first serving his NS. I can understand what must be the thinking behind this policy - it is probably designed to prevent men from thinking that they can run away from NS just by renouncing their citizenship. We should have greater faith in our men and in the value placed on being a Singaporean. Those who would give up their citizenship just to evade NS may not be worth keeping as Singaporeans, and I would say good riddance to them. Instead, we should put in place a system, like in Turkey, where Singaporeans can also have their citizenship withdrawn if they live abroad and do not return to perform military service within a certain time limit. Those who have lost their citizenship this way may apply to get their citizenship restored, but their applications may only be accepted if they complete their military service. In other words, to keep your Singaporean citizenship, do your NS. Not the other way round, to renounce your citizenship, do your NS, almost like the form of punishment. This will reinforce the point that Singaporean citizenship is precious and that, for a man, it is tied inextricably to NS.

Finally, Sir, on the value of NS. How do we place a value on NS? It epitomises national solidarity and self-sacrifice. I know the RECORD IV Committee would be making their recommendations on this, and I look forward to that. But perhaps more than that, we should also look at the social values placed on it, the symbolic values placed on it. Recently, I was in UK and it happened to be a Remembrance Day. It was to honour those who have died for the country in the two World Wars and to salute those who survived them. I was there on the streets and I observed a strong sense of national identity and common history being expressed on the lapels of many ordinary British in the form of an artificial red poppy. The entire London city stood still as the Big Ben struck, and two minutes of silence were observed wherever the people were, on the streets, in the offices, in the cafes. It was a powerful moment. I walked to witness the proud parade of war veterans, some of them in walking sticks, in wheelchairs, and they passed by to loud applause from the ordinary British lining the roads. It struck me that this national ritual is a means of reminding themselves of where they came from and what they aspire to be. Equally striking: many young people were also wearing the poppies with pride.

Whilst visiting the memorial for those who fought in Singapore and Malaya to pay my respects, I found a poignant poem placed at the site, probably by a veteran. It was dedicated to those who died in the foreign lands of Malaya and Singapore. An excerpt:

"You left the shore of your lands, young lads in your teens;

You hadn't started living life, you hadn't filled your dreams.

Britons, Anzacs, Gurkhas, you all served side by side;

Foreign ground marked with your blood where you fought and died ...

We ask now was it worth it? Of course it was you see,

You helped to right a wrong and set a people free."

Sir, in the end, National Service is all about ideals and defending them. We have much to defend in Singapore, not only the land, not only our economic achievements, but our values, our way of life, the spirit of the people. That Singapore spirit, I hope, is large enough to welcome back those who have paid their penalties for defaulting, whatever their sentences were. They would include Melvyn Tan. He has paid his dues. The court has so decided. We should welcome him back and allow him to perform to applause. In some developed democracies, draft dodgers, while they may be criticised, can still become the President of the country and lead the nation to war.

Sir, I hope that in that spirit, in the larger Singapore spirit, we will welcome defaulters who have paid their dues back and make them feel proud to be with us as part of the Singapore family.

4.55 pm

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. The Minister has stated very clearly that the purpose of National Service is to fulfil the critical need to provide us with national security. He has also stated that this has been implemented fairly, not to be implemented fairly but to be seen to be implemented fairly, because of the significant sacrifice that it entails on the individuals, on their families and on the nation. I fully endorse all this. I am also very, very encouraged to hear him say that, beyond the importance of this, it is the commitment of the individual National Serviceman that is important and that MINDEF has recognised this by doing a census which he (if I remember the figure correctly, 92%) said that they will risk their lives for the country.

I feel that we could raise this to 100%. I do not think this is going to be raised by increasing fines and penalties. While I do not contest the need for increasing fines and penalties, I think that this must be matched with increasing flexibility as to how the law is implemented. I agree that you cannot be too creative that playing a piano is not going to count as a form of National Service. But I would like to suggest that it is not so much how we implement it, but when it is implemented. I would plead for more flexibility, as some of the other Members have, on when an individual serves his National Service. There must be an element of trust between the State and the individual. When a young man asks for deferment, even repeated deferments, it should not be assumed that he is intended to default. I think that, in this globalised knowledge-based economy, where a basic degree is really just the beginning, many more people will be going for postgraduate studies, they will not be able to take time off or, at least, if they take time off in between the undergraduate and the postgraduate degrees, it would be at great personal sacrifice, and I believe also great sacrifice to the nation.

I am not asking for special treatment for any particularly talented or privileged individuals. This is a principle that should apply to all. But I think if Singapore wants to be more globalised, we want to enter into a knowledge-based economy, we have to recognise that a postgraduate degree is considered by many as something that is sine qua non of their education. Therefore, I do not think that we should put the individuals, if we can, in a position where they have to choose between personal development and National Service. Where possible, we should try and create a win-win situation where they can have both. As has been pointed out by other Members of the House, I think you will get more commitment to the nation if you do this rather than less. I consider that so far, the Melvyn Tan's case, although the court has decided already, has been a no-win situation because he has not felt that he is welcomed back to Singapore. I would like to make a special plea for Melvyn Tan, not because of his talent which is of course considerable, but because of his age. I belong to that same generation and I would like to ask those who feel outraged by what they see as a privileged treatment to put themselves in his shoes and take a historical perspective.

When Melvyn Tan left, Singapore was a fledgling nation and, in fact, National Service had not been started. So I am very happy that National Servicemen now feel that this is such an entrenched practice and that there is a high level of commitment now. But this level of commitment has taken 40 years of independence to develop. It was not there then and Melvyn Tan and many other people in his shoes would probably, I feel, have behaved differently in present circumstances. Whatever the pros and cons may be, let me conclude

by saying that in Singapore now, we consider National Service a practice which is an act of commitment and from what has been said by the Minister and some of the Members in the House, it is not considered a chore but it is considered an honour by most Singaporeans. So let us continue this happy state and increase it by combining the penalties with increased flexibility.

Mr Speaker, Sir, up to a short while ago, the feeling of many, especially those who have served NS, in the light of the sentence that Mr Melvyn Tan had received, was disappointment, disgust and a sense that their two or two-and-a-half years in National Service counted little.

5.02 pm

The hue and cry and furore that followed had cast a shadow over the importance of NS. Singaporeans, I am sure, many of the 700,000 who had served NS, had expressed their stand on the responsibility of every Singaporean in our nation's defence in the press and in the blog sphere.

Listening to the Minister for Defence's statement, I applaud the upcoming changes to the SAF Act and the Enlistment Act. The Minister had also explained clearly the circumstances in Mr Tan's case and has assured us that Mr Tan had not been given special treatment. As far as the perceived disparity in treatment between the average serviceman who goes on AWOL and the defaulter similar to Mr Tan's case, I am happy to note that the review will increase the fines and align both Acts and will also push for a deterrent custodial sentence for serious cases for NS defaulters.

Sir, whether the young man's finger coiled round the trigger of a M16 rifle, or a parachute control line, or placed on a keyboard as a company clerk or round the steering of a swimming Bronco, he has served his country first in NS.

Sir, for many Singaporeans, NS is an important aspect of a life of a citizen. Let me relate to the House a case of a friend's son. This friend of mine came to Singapore from Hong Kong and became a Singaporean about 15 years ago. I met his son about 12 years ago when he was in Primary Six/Secondary One. Throughout his secondary school life, he had been convincing his mother that he is a Singaporean and National Service was very important and he had to do his part. Being mothers, they are very concerned about their sons going to National Service. He successfully convinced his mum about his role as a Singaporean in the National Service.

This young man contracted meningitis some time during his NS and he was supposed to start medical school at NUS. That is not a possibility now. But this young man has been given a deferred entrance to NUS to do another programme. But the signal to this young man is that, just as important as the signal of this young man to his mother, the Government is sending a strong signal to Singaporeans, to people who want to default or who have defaulted, that NS is an obligation that they must serve. That is why it is so important to all Singaporeans to know that NS is a national duty. It is important that the Government has dispelled the impression that those with special talents or with special circumstances can be given an easy way out or should they default on NS. Singaporean men, and whatever family background they happen to come from, all will be treated the same.

I thank the Minister for his responses in his statement, sending a clear signal to Singaporeans that their contributions are not taken lightly.

5.05 pm

Sir, I confess that I am a "debataholic" and always relish taking on an issue in Parliament. But in this instance, I took quite a while to decide that I would participate in this debate on the issue of National Service and draft dodgers. As a woman who has never had to go through what many would consider as the rite of passage for Singaporean males, I am painfully aware that I do not exactly have the moral authority to speak on this issue.

My only locus standi is that I have a 15-year-old son who would be going to NS in about three years' time and who had recently posed me this question, "Why must all boys in Singapore go for NS?"

Indeed, Sir, this is the heart of the matter.

On hindsight, that the case of Melvyn Tan, unknown to the public until the Straits Times blew the cover on it, so to speak, has stirred so much controversy, should come as no surprise. All my male grassroots leaders felt offended by the seeming injustice of it all.

Men in green who go on AWOL are charged and sentenced to detention barracks - period. There is no "either a fine not exceeding $5,000 or a jail term not exceeding three years" in the sentencing.

Indeed, we are given to understand that for many years now, and as the Minister has explained in his statement earlier, since 1993, the Subordinate Courts have imposed only fines on all draft dodgers. The Subordinate Courts had relied on two cases whose jail sentences were commuted to fines by the High Court in 1993.

Many of my male friends and my husband asked quite indignantly, "Is not this an anomaly, when a civilian who escapes NS gets away with a mere $3,000 fine, while someone enlisted, and is already serving, but who is being disciplined, receives much harsher treatment?"

Surely, the two to two-and-a-half years of tough, regimented training, 5.00 am stand-by beds, night topography exercises, being food to hordes of mosquitoes in the jungle, 20-kilometre route marches in full battle order - surely, this cannot be worth a mere $3,000.

However, under the guiding pen of some press writers, the debate took on a life of its own, shape shifting into various larger issues. It became a debate on foreign talent or, more precisely, foreign local talent - that the vitriolic public reaction was really another expression of gripes at how this Government readily rolls out the red carpet to able non-Singaporeans while local workers are left to mire in their insecurity.

It also became a debate on the politics of envy, of the reality of fault lines in our society, of a class divide, between the rich - because Melvyn Tan's parents could afford to pose the then princely sum of $30,000 as bond - and the poor. It became an issue of privilege and partiality, that the talented and the wealthy could get away with what would otherwise be applied forcefully on ordinary people.

In some ways, it echoed the white horse controversies some years ago about alleged special treatment of children of VIPs in the army. It also became a debate on whether and how we should expand the notion of NS in this globalised world where it is viewed that the battle for talent surpasses in intensity and importance, the battle for geographical territory.

Sir, I think the case may be overstated by some of these writers.

Being a small country, expanding the scope of National Service to include civilian jobs or humanitarian assistance locally and overseas, is a luxury we can ill-afford, at least in the foreseeable future. In fact, it is precisely because we are a small nation that National Service for the defence of a country is compulsory for all able-bodied men in Singapore so that we would be able to get a respectably sized fighting force if the need should ever arise. A 3G army still needs 3G soldiers even if technology can reduce casualties and the need for manpower.

Sir, the idea of allowing our top talents to serve NS in other areas outside the uniformed groups so as not to discourage even more amongst the Singapore diaspora from coming home is also flawed. The suspicion that there is inequity in the system, that Melvyn Tan has been given special treatment due to his fame and talent is, in fact, one of the main factors fuelling the controversy.

Nonetheless, I do agree with the writers that we should never let up our efforts to heal the rifts under the surface so that they do not erupt.

Sir, we need to affirm the basics of NS, that it is a sacred, necessary and noble institution because it underpins the defence of our country. That it is also a rite of passage for every young man to instill in him discipline, commitment and sacrifice of his personal preferences for a larger national purpose. That undergoing NS is also a measure of loyalty to the country and that its rigour should be applied to all, regardless of rank, ability or parentage.

Hence, I fully support MINDEF's decision to amend the Enlistment Act to impose more deterrent sentence on those who dodge the draft to reflect the tremendous sacrifice of our men who dutifully heed the call to National Service. I agree that MINDEF should press for jail sentence for serious NS evasion cases, commensurate with the length of default and whether the defaulter is able to serve NS, unless there are mitigating circumstances.

At the same time, MINDEF also shows that it has a heart when it decides not to put in place a minimum mandatory jail sentence so that whilst we demonstrate the value and critical importance we place on NS, we allow the courts to exercise compassion where this is generally warranted under extenuating circumstances. Sir, I do, however, agree with some of my parliamentary colleagues that we should review the deferment policies, not just for enlistment but also for reservists' training.

Sir, whilst introducing flexibility into the system, we would also want to see more clear policies regarding deferment so that there would not be any perception of inequity involved.

Sir, I do feel sorry for Melvyn Tan because of all the flak he has received, whether one thinks this is deserved or not.

Lin Chun Long, one Straits Times Forum writer rightly says that we should forgive the man and embrace him. And we should do so, not because of his talent, however prodigious, but because he was a son of Singapore whose elderly parents are still living on our soil.

But we need to use Chun Long's words, the moral clarity to realise that what he did cannot be justified, and we should therefore reinforce the law to send this message clearly to our young men upon whose shoulders and loyalty, the defence of our nation rests.

Then, I can tell my son in reply to his question on why all boys must go to NS, that it is every Singaporean man's duty to defend the country, that it is not a choice, but an obligation and that it is not about sacrifice but about commitment and honour.

Sir, I support the proposal to amend the Enlistment Act to stiffen the penalties for draft dodgers.

5.10 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. I did my NS training under the Israelis, so I know what it is like. It was really tough.

NS is a citizen's obligation to his nation. It is the willing sacrifice of 2.5 years, and now reduced to two years, of full-time service plus, lest we forget, one to two decades of intermittent reservist duty. Almost half a lifespan is set aside for a great and noble cause to undertake the role of a defender of Singapore. We demand this commitment for male Singaporeans because a day we do without it, we will cease to become an independent self-reliant republic. The Melvyn Tan's saga has inflamed the sentiments of many Singaporeans, especially the men. It has escalated into a national issue - the questions, the sufficiency of punishment for defaulter evading NS.

Whilst I understand the intensity of the public backlash, we, as a nation, must always make room to forgive. Where possible, Singapore must never reject a returning son. We must try to understand why some young Singaporeans are not returning. Putting aside emotions, let me try to look at this issue. I am mindful that some defaulters may have no say in remaining overseas in the first place. Many are children of parents who chose to migrate to Australia or Canada. They left Singapore at a very young age. Being obedient kids, they really have no choice but to follow their parents. Therefore, the question is, should the law take to task a boy who was taken overseas by his parents and decided to stay there? This same question was posed in one of the articles in the Straits Times on 14th January 2006.

While overseas, most of them do very well and some achieve fame in fields of science, technology and arts. I know and met some overseas Singaporeans in such situations and they are very talented. If they wish to bring their talent back to Singapore, we must not make it prohibitive

that they fear to return unless we are prepared to write them off as Singaporeans. Nobody will want to come back if they face the prospect of jail. We have been told, time and again, that every Singaporean is valuable and talent is important, because we are a small nation and need each other. So, why is it that in this situation, suddenly talent is not valued?

Sir, can a 17½-year old boy decide whether to come back to do NS or not? Some may. But at 17½ years, the reality of the situation is that his parents decide whether he should continue with his studies or come back to serve, and he will probably, being of Asian upbringing, follow his parents. Even the Government does not think that a 17½-year old boy can make good decisions and therefore does not allow him to vote until he reaches 21.

Perhaps we should study this issue from the parents' end. Take a look again at the security bond. Is $75,000 adequate now or should we up it to a much higher figure? I think the MINDEF people can decide - even to $¼ million if they think it is not high enough. Or if half of the total income of the parents is still not enough, then they can take a look and decide on what they want. I am sure a high security bond would dissuade parents from preventing their children to come back.

I am not in favour of mandatory imprisonment for such cases - and I am glad the Minister has told us so - or pressing for custodial sentences for all cases. Because, according to the Minister, the majority of them do come back before they are 21. Each case is different and I think Mr Sin Boon Ann gave a wonderful discourse just now on why there should be flexibility. May I therefore urge MINDEF, the Ministry of Law and the Attorney-General's Chambers to consider the use of community sentencing as a form of punishment, perhaps in addition to a fine. I think there should be a fine because when the child is older and when he comes of age, he must take some responsibility. The defaulter can then perform an extended period of community service as a means of rehabilitating and reintegrating into our society. So someone like Melvyn Tan can be asked to contribute a part of his expertise to the community in the form of free music lessons or perform a series of concerts for charities. We need to expand our idea of what National Service is, including returning defaulters.

As Singapore goes global, many get posted overseas and when they bring their children along, we can expect the numbers to increase over the years. So we must not be captured by our past ideas of NS. We must take a look again and see whether we can expand our idea of NS to include some of the ways that Members of this House have articulated well.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, performing full-time National Service is a life long commitment Singapore expects of its native sons. This commitment of time and effort could not be measured in monetary terms, in particular, when this commitment occurs at an age when the young man is poised to take on adulthood and is preparing himself for a future career. Everyone has to defer his plan and some would miss out on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Thus, when Melvyn Tan received only a $3,000 fine for defaulting on his National Service obligation, it is understandable that it caused a major outpour of passionate debate regarding the disparity of penalty versus obligations.

In his statement, the Minister has outlined some of the steps MINDEF intends to take to enhance the penalties for National Service defaulters. I support some of those measures. I support his proposal to amend the Enlistment Act to increase the maximum fine to $10,000. However, for those who have passed the age of enlistment, such as Melvyn Tan, the Minister intends to seek mandatory or minimum custodial jail sentences as a punishment, and he mentioned that MINDEF will seek the maximum jail sentence of three years in certain cases. This is a departure from existing practice where MINDEF presses only for a fine. Presumably, the Minister decided that the jail sentence is necessary because even the maximum fine of $10,000 will be an insufficient punishment, in particular, when the returnee has achieved fame and fortune by then.

I am disturbed by this declared intent to seek a jail sentence for similar defaulters. In seeking such a jail sentence, we will, in effect, deter anyone in similar circumstances from returning to Singapore. In all probability, someone like Melvyn Tan will not return. Thus, we are sending a message, "Defaulters, thou shall not return to Singapore." Is that a correct message to send?

Further, I think we are also presented with a logical impasse as, currently, the Singapore Government has denied such defaulters from renouncing their citizenship. On one hand, in the eyes of the Government, these defaulters are still Singaporeans, even though some of them have acquired foreign citizenship. On the other hand, we are saying, "Don't you come back. If you do, we are going to jail you."

Should Singapore be so harsh to its sons? Yes, these people made a mistake when they were young. Some maybe made their own decisions and some at the urge of their parents. However, Sir, everyone made mistakes when they were young and brash. I think if we look back, some of us also made mistakes. By seeking a jail sentence on NS defaulters, we are indeed slamming the door shut for their return. Similar to Mr Sin Boon Ann and also Dr Tan, could we be a more gracious society by leaving the door open for such people to return? Several questions come to mind. Firstly, is Singapore worse off with such people returning? Take Melvyn Tan. Did his return encourage more people to follow his example to default and later pay a fine of a few thousand dollars? Secondly, is Singapore better off with such returnees regardless of whether they are rich, famous, talented or just an ordinary man-on-the-street? Are we better off with them coming back to Singapore?

Take Melvyn Tan again. Mr Tan expressed his desire to come back to spend time with his parents who are ageing and no longer able to travel. So, regardless of how we view Mr Tan for giving up his citizenship and defaulting on his obligations to serve NS, he did retain a certain value system we all advocate, the value system to put the care of his parents high up in his priority - high enough to come back to Singapore and face the music. His return is an affirmation of his family upbringing and his early childhood education, including part of it in our school. Even though, of course, his value system did not include service to the nation, his commitment to his parents should at least deserve our sympathy. Even if Melvyn Tan were just an ordinary man, I believe his return would still be a positive example for Singapore for this particular reason alone. Indeed, we could point to him and say that for all future young men who want to default in their National Service, beware because one of these days, you might want to come back to Singapore. If, as a result of this episode, we increase the penalty to a point that there will be no returnees in future, I think it will be a loss for Singapore.

Sir, ultimately, the willingness to perform NS is a matter of the heart. Yes, defaulting on NS is a very serious matter. But by insisting that people who could no longer perform their NS upon their return to spend time in jail, are we seeking just punishment or vengeance? For those people who have served NS, they feel so strongly that they are seeking a pound of flesh.

Why would NS defaulters want to return to Singapore after so many years overseas? That is the question we should ask ourselves. Everyone has his own personal reasons. Perhaps, speaking from an older man's point of view, it is a matter of the homing instincts - a matter of returning to one's roots as one gets older. Like the salmon returning to the stream where it was spawned, what draws it home to the same stream is an instinct. Perhaps for those who are seeking to return to Singapore, their instinct that they are tied to Singapore is still very strong.

Sir, the world view of a man changes with time. As one gets closer to meeting his maker, his perspective changes. Maybe he would like to come back to breathe the air in his old neighbourhood, to touch the trees, to see the buildings that are familiar to him as he grew up as a child. Yes, Sir, this is a matter of the heart. It is the same expression of the heart as our commitment to serve National Service. Our willingness to serve National Service and also our willingness to die rest on the same emotion of the heart. I believe we should allow a man this option to find expression of this matter of the heart.

Could we address the parity of punishment without resorting to a jail sentence? Could we come up with another process that achieves the same deterrent effect without jail sentences? Perhaps we could take a cue from the USA's treatment of Sergeant Charles Jenkins, the 64-year old US deserter who defected to North Korea in 1965. Sergeant Jenkins turned himself to the US military authorities at a US base in Tokyo on 11th September 2004, two months after he had left Korea to seek medical treatment in Japan.

Jenkins pleaded guilty at a court martial to desertion and for aiding the enemy in the 1980s. The guilty plea was apparently part of a plea bargain process with US military officials for a lighter sentence in exchange for providing information on other US or South Korean deserters to North Korea. He was eventually sentenced to 30 days in confinement in a military prison and a dishonourable discharge - when he was facing charges that carry a potential jail sentence of live imprisonment.

Sir, his sentence met both the needs to maintain military discipline in the US armed forces as well as to show compassion to an old man who has returned from the wilderness, to atone for his mistake or decision made when he was a young man.

I would not suggest how Singapore could adopt a similar process since MINDEF can look into it.

But, perhaps, our defaulters could be inducted into national service upon their return, given the mandatory crew cut of whatever hairs they have left and put on the uniform. Depending on their age, the returnees could serve NS like everyone else, or for those who no longer could be inducted to serve their full-time service, they could be given a dishonourable discharge after a certain length of confinement in barracks. Perhaps the same deterrent effect could be achieved.

Sir, the $3,000 fine meted out in Melvyn Tan's case highlighted that the Enlistment Act needs a review to bring the penalty up to date. However, I would plead with the Minister that while we increase the penalty for NS defaulters, we should not slam the door shut for such lost sons of Singapore. Basically, the desire of the defaulters to return home comes from the same emotional mother lode of emotional ties that Singapore taps into to compel our young men to perform National Service. And these are the bonds of the families and friends, the bond of the land where we are born.

5.31 pm

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since National Service was implemented in 1967, Singaporeans have moved from the initial resistance to general acceptance for this institution, because we realise the importance of National Service to our survival and the positive role it plays in our national defence. All Singapore citizens upon reaching the age of 18 will gallantly "drop everything" for the time being, shave their hair and contribute two or two-and-a-half years of their precious youth to the nation. After serving full-time National Service, they will also return to the army camps to fulfil their obligations as operationally-ready servicemen.

Although National Service has caused inconvenience to our studies, our career and our family life, we have no regrets and we want to fulfil our obligations. Why? Because we know that by doing so, our parents, our family members, our friends and all Singaporeans can have comfort and they could sleep peacefully every night, just as the Minister mentioned a while ago. Likewise, after we have served our term in the National Service, like all other male citizens, we will still fulfil our obligations to defend our nation when the need arises.

As such, when a famous pianist, who has defaulted National Service for more than 30 years, returned to Singapore and was let off by a mere fine of $3,000, many Singaporeans were very unhappy. The Minister told Parliament just now that, since 1993, many who had defaulted National Service were only fined and not jailed. Understandably, many Singaporeans who have served National Service, and their family members, are unhappy. They cannot help asking: is all the hard work they have put in during their National Service worth just $3,000?

Sir, we know that when a National Serviceman who is absent without leave for just one day will be punished by being detained in the detention barracks. Yet a defaulter who has not even spent one day in the army is just let off with a fine. Is this fair? The fine of $3,000 is even lesser than the accused who was found guilty of public disorderly behaviour by quarrelling with his neighbours.

The Minister said that even after the amendment to the Enlistment Act, there would not be mandatory jail sentence for defaulters. I believe many Singaporeans will be unhappy about it. This is an insult to the sanctity of our institution of National Service. If we do not press for deterrent sentence, it will not reflect the severity of the crime of defaulting.

In order to reflect the Government's concern for ill-treatment of foreign maids by our local employers, we enhanced the sentence on such cases. Likewise, Singapore citizens who defaulted in National Service should also be punished severely. All Singapore male citizens who are physically and mentally fit should serve their duty in National Service. If they fail to do so, they shall be punished. The Minister said that he would not be asking for mandatory jail sentence on the amendment to the Enlistment Act. I think many Singaporeans will be unhappy about it. If that is the case, then anyone who has defaulted will not necessarily be sentenced to imprisonment. I think this will create a loophole. Those who ask for deferment or disruption will make use of this loophole to ask for deferments infinitely and even default on enlistment to continue their studies or to do whatever thing they wish to do.

We must understand that for the institution of National Service to be complete, there must be some limit to the period of deferment allowed. We could not allow people to keep on deferring their National Service indefinitely. For those who are well-to-do and can afford it, paying a fine is nothing to them. Accordingly, they will let their children continue their studies or to do what they want before they come back to Singapore. If they know that they do not have to go to prison, they will be prepared to pay and ignore the enlistment order and pay the fine for defaulting later on. I hope that the Minister will look into this and make sure that it will not become a loophole.

Just now, some Members suggested that those who were talented should be allowed to serve their National Service in other ways. I do not agree because this will create a loophole and people will make use of this loophole to escape National Service. To punish the deserters, I think it is not just a question of tempering justice with mercy. Our National Service is compulsory for all male Singapore citizens.. We must, first of all, put national interest ahead of personal interest. This is the major premise. As a small nation, we could not afford to sustain a large army to defend ourselves. So, we must depend on National Service so that we could have a credible military force when necessary. If we were to give special concessions to some people, this will tantamount to unfair treatment to others, and this will create a lot of unhappiness among the people. We must look at serving in National Service as a sacrifice for the nation. We must look at national interest and be prepared to make sacrifices. We all know that if there is no nation, there is no home. If the person is a genius or a prodigy, his talent will not go away just because he has to lay-off for two years to serve National Service.

In the National Day Rally in 2002, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong mentioned about the "stayers" and "quitters". I think we should be accountable to all these stayers who are prepared to stay and defend our nation. One day, if we are faced with a major crisis, it will be the stayers who are going to defend us, and not those quitters who will just run away for their own interest.

5.43 pm

Sir, the Minister has enunciated MINDEF's stance on the matter and I thank him for it. And I would like to equally state upfront where I stand on this issue.

Let me, first, state for the record that I have nothing personal against Mr Melvyn Tan, nor should any Singaporean feel the need to personalise this debate. Indeed, Mr Melvyn Tan has done the right thing. He has subjected himself to due process in Singapore. He has had his day in court and paid his fine. And as the Minister has pointed out, his case was no different to many others at the same time, so he did not get any special treatment. It is unfortunate that his case has become a lightning rod for this debate. But we should move, wish him well, and certainly not vilify him or make him unwelcome in Singapore.

Secondly, I am against mandatory custodial sentences. And I agree with the Minister's stance on this score. The court should be allowed to take into account the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of each case in deciding what punishment is to be meted out. At the same time, our courts and prosecuting agencies should be in no doubt as to the importance we in this House and the public at large attach to the institution of National Service and that defaulters, particularly the egregious cases, will be dealt with the full force of the law. If we expect our young men to bear arms, sacrifice two years of their lives and fight, perhaps die, for their country, we must be able to tell them with total and utter conviction that we fully respect and value their sacrifice and, as part of their conviction, we will deal vigorously with those who default or dodge their obligations. And that leads me to my third point, which is that I am for vigorous prosecution of those who default or dodge their National Service obligations.

Sir, increasing the quantum of fine is perhaps a step in the right direction. But, really, if a $3,000 fine puts a derisory value on the service and sacrifice our National Servicemen have made, together with their families and even their employers, then is a $10,000 fine any different? It is not that the vast majority of NSmen need to know that defaulters will be jailed or fined heavily before they will pick up a rifle. That demeans their commitment and patriotism, and I think that does them a great disservice. What is important, however, is that we must send a profound signal to all Singaporeans as to how seriously we take this institution of National Service which, as the Minister described, serves a critical need of national security and survival. It is a basic duty of every son of Singapore, and all Singaporeans and would-be Singaporeans must be fully aware of it.

Many of my parliamentary colleagues here have tried to cast this debate in terms of talent and its retention or attraction. I think that is a red herring. I think this debate is about duty to the country, honour and commitment. We attract talent from all over the world. Many people choose to become Singaporeans. They come from many countries where there is no National Service obligation. They choose to commit, knowing that their sons will have to serve National Service. Why do they do that? And the question is asked: what message do we send to defaulters? In fact, Dr Wang asked the question: are we telling them, don't come back, the door is shut? I suppose I would put a reverse question: what message are we sending to the Singaporeans who have faithfully fulfilled their obligations? And I think we need to keep that in mind when we debate this issue and talk about what is the appropriate action that is to be taken.

I would like

to seek three things, going forward, in dealing with the matter of this importance. The first is that the penalties we legislate and seek to enforce must be of sufficient gravity to reflect the importance we attach to this institution. In my view, the present legislation, with the enhanced fine or otherwise, is adequate. I believe what is needed is clearer and more forceful, vigorous enforcement. If enforcement is there, the message will be clear.

Secondly, there must be consistency in the application of the law. The unfortunate consequence of this case, as the Minister has raised, is whether our system is equitable, or are there a privileged few. We must debunk this. In fact, if anything, the logic must be perverse or the opposite. The French have the notion of noblesse oblige where the privileged have the first duty to serve, and indeed if you are one of the beneficiaries of our system then you must step out and serve first, not seek to extend your obligations beyond or serve later, but lead by example.

So MINDEF must be vigorous and consistent in the way action is taken against defaulters. I hope this debate and the public sentiment outside and any other debate we have with respect to an amendment of the Enlistment Act will communicate the sentiment to our courts and prosecuting agency as well so that they are mindful of this when deciding on cases of this nature.

Thirdly, we have to be transparent in our rules. Today, the Minister's speech has clarified several points on how MINDEF will go about seeking redress when there are defaulters. I have met many Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, and I think all Members of this House have as well, who are often wondering what are the rules, what options there are, what are the consequences, and so on. We need to put it up there clearly, unapologetically that this is the rule, this is the expectation and this is what the consequences are, and then people will decide. I say that if someone, who is going to be a great pianist, chooses not to live in Singapore because of wanting to avoid National Service, then it is a sad loss but a loss that Singapore must live with.

There have been many calls for flexibility in this House in the way NS is administered. I would like to echo those sentiments to a point which is that, I believe, yes, within the context of individual aspirations for education against the needs in the army, we need to find ways to accommodate more of our young and talented people who want to go overseas to study. But at the same time, I would like to cite two examples of young men whom I had met in the last year. So these are not dated examples, just to illustrate the point. One who is a resident in Singapore all his life and another who is living overseas. The first is a young man whose mother is a Singaporean and father is a PR. He is actually a foreign citizen but a PR. He did his entire education in the foreign education system in Singapore. But when he came to the age of 18, he had to enlist whilst all his foreign friends went to universities overseas. You can imagine how traumatic it was for this young man because his friends kept telling him how enjoyable university life was and all the things they were doing, and he in the meantime was running up and down hills, sweating it out and also being the butt of jokes because he had an accent and he was trying to fit in. His parents wanted him to serve, asked him to fulfil his duty, and they asked me to talk to him. The other example was a young man whose family has actually migrated to Perth. They are all Australian PRs, but they have asked him to come back and serve his National Service. He was actually alone in Singapore serving his NS, although the parents kept coming back to visit him. His point was also, "Why am I doing this?" I tried to explain to him the need to be committed, his duty as a Singaporean and as a beneficiary of the system. But I could see the doubt in his eyes.

Sir, I do not know whether these two young men or, for that matter, any of the others are going to go on and become world-class concert pianists or world-beating entrepreneurs. But I do know this: I want to be able to look these men and others in the eyes and say to them, "We know you are making a sacrifice. We apply the rules impartially. We respect your sacrifice in service and we will never forget it." I think our laws and the way we enforce them must evidence that and match our words and commitment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was called up for the first batch of NS 38 years ago when I was a student. And I must commend the Minister for reaffirming this principle of universality of conscription. I think it is one of the non-negotiable items, invaluable principle in Singapore. He has also clarified the circumstances surrounding Melvyn Tan's case, and it is quite unfortunate there have been changes of the law and he has been affected. But the point is made that there is no special treatment for anybody, and the public must know this. Not only when it comes to enlistment, it is also when it comes to how people are treated when their children are in NS. There have been adequate explanations about the "white horse" regime. But I must commend the Prime Minister recently when he went to Pulau Tekong. It was noticed by other parents that nobody is treated differently. The Prime Minister was there as a parent - his son was going for NS - he was a parent like everybody else. I hope the leaders will set an example so that all the people will continue to have faith in this national institution. Like hon. Member Iswaran said, we must be able to look at the young people in the eyes when we ask them to serve.

I also want to ask for flexibility because I am afraid that all of us harden our position and put those fellows into jail. There are many, many ways we can serve. If, because of circumstances, you are a dodger, when you come back, over and above the fine, why is it not possible to re-enlist the person even if he was 40, 50 years old? He is not going to help the army very much. In the old days, I do not know whether it is still here, for those who came back from institutions of higher learning, some of them served part-time in the Police National Service, Vigilante Corp, but the total amount is equitably calculated. So I think we must not extract our pound of flesh, especially for those who have served.

Singapore needs everybody. I think the talent argument is a fairly compelling one. But more importantly is that we have got 18,000 Singaporeans currently studying and working overseas, we should actually welcome them back, provided that they now serve. In other words, they come and make a deal with MINDEF and say, "How much time do I have to serve?" so that it will be equitable to my colleagues, my comrades, who have served previously.

I would also like to ask the Minister to reconsider the question of going for imprisonment, a custodial sentence. I know there will be cases where they finally use loopholes to evade the draft, and I can understand there will be such a necessity. But I argue that these cases must be very few and far between. I would therefore urge that we welcome errant citizens, who in their youth have not been serving, to come back and if they want to serve, I do not think we have lost anything as a society.

Above all, the service must be real, tangible and equitable, not necessarily 2 1/2 years or 3 years, but it must be something that MINDEF feels is just and fair for the other people who have served.

Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to participate in this debate. Sir, I just want to speak for the record that I support the proposals as laid out by the Minister for Defence. I disagree with Dr Tan and Dr Wang's comments to be gentle to the defaulting Singaporean talents that are overseas.

As what the Minister said, NS must be universal for all young male Singaporean citizens. It must also be equitable to all - past, present and future enlistees. We must not favour the defaulting talents overseas, just because they are talents, at the expense of our local talents who stay behind to fulfil their duties, as Mr Iswaran had rightly pointed out. They must not be favoured. Nobody must be able to exploit the loopholes to escape National Service. The law must be clear and consistent for all. If the defaulting citizens want to come back, they can come back after they have finished whatever they are studying and they can come back within the timeframe when they have not expired their service age. But if they have the intention to come back, they should have done that. Otherwise, they would not want to come back in the first place at all.

As such, I support the Minister's decision to press for the maximum jail sentence of three years for all draft dodgers who have passed that service age. But if they have not passed that service age, then the fine for those who are still liable to serve National Service will suffice.

Sir, I am only wondering why did it take such a high profile Mr Melvyn Tan's case for this debate and for MINDEF to review the enlistment policy. According to the Minister's message earlier, there had been 13 other convicted defaulters who were fined but not subsequently drafted in the past. Why did the Government have to get such a big hoo-ha and outcry from the people and the Internet community, especially this Melvyn Tan's high profile case, to act and tighten this loophole? I hope the Ministry and the people in MINDEF can be more on the ball and forward-looking to ensure that any loophole in the law should be immediately tightened once they have identified a case, and not wait until a big hoo-ha comes out at our national conscious level, a lot of debate and argument before the Ministry takes action to address such an injustice.

Sir, at this time, I also like to take the opportunity to request that the RECORD IV Committee propose a higher compensation allowance for our conscripted boys serving their National Service for fulfilling their duties to our nation and thus missing out on their personal development opportunities too.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me thank Members of the House for sharing their views and comments on this very important issue of National Service.

Sir, I am heartened to hear Members of the House expressing their very strong support for National Service and to hear that their support is shared by their constituents. Indeed, it is such support for National Service and the commitment shown by our NSmen that make our nation's defence work. As I said, 700,000 Singaporeans have served National Service or are serving National Service and, without their commitment, we will not have

the modern thriving Singapore that we have today.

6.00 pm

Sir, let me address now some of the specific issues that Members have raised. One is alternative forms of National Service. As I have explained earlier, National Service has served a critical need and that is, in my view, the first principle of National Service. Firstly, criticality, secondly, universality, and thirdly, equity. That critical need is national defence and we should not be trading that off against other forms of service, whether it is in the social sector, in the arts or in sports, because they do not rank in the same way as that necessity for national defence.

MINDEF feels that we can apply the principle of National Service which is to compel a person to serve only if it is to serve a critical need. We cannot apply that principle to compel a person to serve in the arts or in sports or in other areas. That would not make sufficient sense and would not be a strong enough justification.

Many Members talked about the need for flexibility. Sir, indeed, MINDEF does agree that we should apply flexibility and allow Singaporeans, as far as possible, to fulfil their individual goals. But this flexibility has to be exercised within that principle of equity. If we do not exercise flexibility within the principle of equity, then a sense of unfairness will prevail, and again the commitment to National Service will be undermined.

Let me give some examples of flexibility though Members may not consider these to be flexibility. The Enlistment Act provides for an enlistment age of 18 years old and as Dr Loo pointed out to me just now during the break, we had people, certainly during Dr Loo's time or even my time, classmates who were drafted at the age of 18 years old, regardless of what they were doing. They might be studying but they were required to do National Service while they were studying - part-time in the Police National Service and in the Special Constabulary. While the rest of us were studying and could enjoy life, they had to spend two nights a week doing National Service, even during examination period, as Dr Loo reminded me.

Today, MINDEF does exercise flexibility. We do not insist on young men being enlisted immediately after their 18th birthday. And we do grant deferments to allow them to complete their 'A' levels or polytechnic diplomas before enlisting for National Service. This, in fact, also contributes, in a sense, to equity because we allow them to proceed to the same level of education before we require them to serve.

However, deferment cannot be free for all. The concept of National Service does involve making a sacrifice or postponing a person's individual gratification or pursuit of his own personal life goals to serve the nation when the nation needs his service. So the concept of self sacrifice and postponement of personal gratification is an inherent part of National Service and it is not possible to have a system where the person's personal gratification is completely fulfilled and yet, at the same time, he serves National Service. These two things are not completely compatible.

But more importantly, we must bear in mind our fundamental principle of equity, not just in terms of whether one serves National Service or not, but also in terms of when one serves National Service. A deferment policy can be flexible only to the extent where equity is maintained. Otherwise, as I have said, there will be a loss of morale and commitment if it is perceived that some can get deferred to pursue their personal goals while others have to serve. As far as possible, we also want pre-enlistees of the same school cohort to enlist for National Service at around the same time. This helps in terms of bonding - the cohesion of the units and their fighting spirit - and also ensures equity in that they all bear similar interruptions to their studies or careers.

Sir, Mr Tan Soo Khoon cited an example of the flexibility that MINDEF has exercised in allowing deferment of a few months for the World Cyber Games. So indeed, MINDEF is flexible. But Mr Tan Soo Khoon, on the other hand, also criticised MINDEF for being inequitable for allowing Mr Stanley Aw to be deferred for the World Cyber Games but not other people to be deferred to pursue personal goals in their studies and so forth. Therein lies the dilemma that we have to face and we have to deal with this all the time in MINDEF, to try to balance flexibility with equity, and we try to do it in the best way that we can. Unfortunately, different persons, particularly individuals who are affected by not being allowed deferment, will often feel that we have not been fair to them, that somehow or other, we should have let them go. But in the end, we have to look at the totality of the cases and decide in as fair a way as possible, in order to be fair to all those who serve.

Members have also suggested that we should take into account the talents and contributions that NS defaulters can make to Singapore when dealing with them. They are concerned that if we are too harsh, such NS defaulters may not want to come back and Singapore may end up losing their talents. As I have explained earlier, universality and equity are two of the fundamental principles of National Service. NS defaulters, regardless of talent, must be dealt with in an equal manner. We will be seen as being unfair if we were to treat talented NS defaulters more leniently than others. Besides, the fact that they are talented and can contribute to Singapore does not detract from the fact that they have defaulted on their NS duties. Everyone, regardless of talent, must play their part in our nation's defence. And I cannot put it more eloquently than Mr Iswaran did just now.

Members have also made the point that post-graduate studies are more important today and so forth. But there is nothing to stop Singaporeans from going on to post-graduate studies after they have finished their National Service. In fact, many Singaporeans do and more Singaporeans do today than they did in the past. The important thing is that you should complete the service obligations before you move on. In fact, one could argue that you should complete your service obligations early so that you can proceed with the rest of your career without interruptions, because after you have finished your graduation, you may get a $1 million job offer - as many of our Singaporeans do - because you are very talented and able. You may get a very attractive offer to do your post-graduate studies. So it is better for Singaporeans to finish their National Service as early as possible before they move on to the next phase of their life.

Mr Sin Boon Ann also asked whether those with special talents can serve in a different way or be deferred from NS so as to fully develop their potential. I think Dr Tan also asked similar questions. MINDEF has exercised flexibility, for example, in allowing pre-enlistees who are top athletes who are chosen to represent Singapore to defer their enlistment for a few months in order to train and compete at key games. These deferments are for limited periods and for specific purposes and the pre-enlistees will be enlisted once their deferment period is over. You must recall that Melvyn Tan actually was granted deferment for a finite period and was asked to return on the completion of the finite period of deferment. Any such deferments are finite and the person has to return to perform his National Service when his deferment period is over or he will become an NS defaulter, and must face the consequences.

Sir, I was at the SEA Games recently in Manila and I was with many athletes. I had a very loud and indignant response from a former national athlete who is now in the management committee of one of our sports associations. He was quite indignant and quite outraged that those who did not serve their NS could get away so lightly, and he was quite insistent that everyone has to perform his duties. He had just, incidentally, completed his ICT before rushing off to Manila to be with the team. Sir, these are the kinds of people and the type of commitment that we need in order to maintain our defence.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked about citizens who left at a young age. Basically, Sir, the parents have to decide. And as Mr Iswaran has pointed out just now, many Singaporean parents who have young children who live abroad want to retain their Singapore citizenship, want to retain their roots with Singapore and have urged their children to do National Service. I think that is the right way. We cannot be such that we want to keep our options open all the time and then, at a later stage in life, we jump whichever way the options appear best. And then, we want not to be able to do National Service, but then to be able to come back and enjoy the fruits of those who have performed their National Service dutifully.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon asked about Permanent Residents and their liability for National Service. Perhaps, I should take this opportunity to expand on this subject a little. Permanent Residents are liable to serve National Service under the Enlistment Act. First generation Permanent Residents who are able to contribute to Singapore economically immediately upon the grant of PR status are administratively exempted from National Service. Second generation PRs, who are sponsored by their parents for PRs and those granted PRs at a young age based on their potential to contribute to Singapore in the future, are required to serve National Service. If NS-liable PRs fail to register or enlist for National Service, they would also be treated as NS defaulters. However, PRs have the option of renouncing their PR status. We cannot stop them from doing so since they are PRs and not Singapore citizens. Upon renunciation of their PR, they would no longer be liable for National Service.

Mr Chew Heng Ching asked about MINDEF's policy towards PRs who have renounced their PR status without serving NS and subsequently, changing their mind and wanting to study and work in Singapore and are prepared to serve their National Service. He argued that some of these PRs may be talents who would be able to serve to contribute to Singapore.

Sir, PRs, who are liable for National Service, are like Singaporeans in many ways. Many of them studied alongside their Singaporean counterparts in our schools and they benefited from living in Singapore like Singaporeans. So, like Singaporeans, they are expected to play their part in defending Singapore and the fundamental NS principles of universality and equity would apply to them. After all, they have benefited from the security provided by the many batches of NSmen who served diligently before them. Unlike Singaporeans, such PRs can renounce their PR status without serving NS. This is fair for those PRs who have decided that they do not want to make Singapore their home.

But what about those who subsequently want to return? Would it be fair to allow them to do so unconditionally? After all, their initial action of renouncing their PR status to avoid serving National Service calls into question their commitment to Singapore. It would also not be fair to Singaporeans who have to serve their National Service. This is why we currently take into account, together with other factors, the fact that such ex-PRs have failed to serve National Service when they subsequently applied for a student pass or Work Pass to study or work in Singapore. And there is no automaticity for them to be able to be restored. Such ex-PRs who refuse to do NS should be considered in that light.

Should we be more welcoming of ex-PRs if they offer to serve NS again? As ex-PRs, they are no longer liable for National Service. That is a technical legal issue. And, in fact, they cannot be drafted for National Service. By renouncing their PR in order to pursue their personal goals and then later offering to return to serve National Service, they are, in effect, trying to choose when to serve their National Service. This is an option which is not open to Singaporeans. A Singaporean cannot say, "I suspend my Singapore citizenship. I go abroad to study and then I come back and reclaim my Singapore citizenship." He cannot choose when to do NS. He has to do NS when the nation calls. So we have to look at PRs in that light.

We recognise that some PRs may decide not to do NS and renounce their PR. But each year, a substantial number of PRs answer the call and do serve NS. If we freely allow the return of those who have chosen not to do NS, we would also be unfair to those PRs who have answered the call of duty when they were asked to do so.

A number of Members asked about alternative punishments for defaulters who come back and there have been a number of creative ideas proposed. If I may reiterate what MINDEF is proposing to do. We are proposing to amend the Enlistment Act to increase the fine from $5,000 to $10,000. But we do not believe that the fine is sufficient compensation as replacement for a person who has failed to do NS. What we intend to do is that for those who return after a relatively short period of default, we will not object if they were only fined. They will continue to serve their National Service after that. But for longer periods of default, we will press for jail sentences -

initially, short jail sentences and, subsequently, longer jail sentences.

Some of the Members asked: what message are we sending to defaulters? Are we sending the message, "Defaulters, don't come back." I think the message to defaulters is: if you have defaulted, do come back as early as possible to settle your account and do your National Service. And best of all, do not default. Do your National Service duties like 700,000 other Singaporeans have done.

Sir, several Members have argued emotionally that we should be more accepting of National Service defaulters, particularly those who have reached an older age. In order to maintain the institution of National Service, we have to apply National Service universally and equitably. Unfortunately, if we do not do that, the whole concept of National Service and the commitment of our young men who serve National Service will be undermined. This is the greater good that we have to maintain.

Several Members have expressed sympathy for Melvyn Tan. Sir, I ask them to consider: who will shed a tear for Singapore if there is no Singapore for such people to return to, because the institution of National Service has been undermined, young men do not serve, no one defends Singapore and Singapore is no longer there for them to return to? Who will shed a tear?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, National Service is a key cornerstone of our security and prosperity. It has, over the past four decades, come to be accepted and embraced by Singaporeans as a key milestone in every male Singaporean's life. Sons follow fathers into National Service. And I wish every Singaporean had a mother like Dr Amy Khor to explain to their son why National Service is important and why he needs to do it.

I am heartened by the strong support that Singaporeans have shown for National Service and the commitment that NSmen have for National Service. These bode well for the future of Singapore.

Sir, anyone who has led men, or who have done National Service, knows how strong the spirit is in our National Service units. They strive for each other. They want to do well for each other. There is a great spirit of comradeship, and that is because they know we are all in it together. So we must continue to ensure that those who fail to serve National Service are dealt with appropriately in order not to erode the support for National Service.

Melvyn Tan's case has highlighted an inadequacy in penalties for those who have defaulted for so many years that they are no longer able to discharge their National Service obligations in full. Perhaps MINDEF should have acted earlier. I concede that. But MINDEF will now be acting to address this inadequacy by asking the Prosecutor to press for jail sentences in serious cases of NS defaulters. This will help to send a clear signal that defaulting on National Service is not acceptable.

Sir, I would like to, once again, thank Members of the House for sharing their views and comments and for their strong support for National Service.

Sir, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. Currently, how many NS defaulters are there on the Gazette? What is the number?

Our statistics show that there are about 100 unresolved cases a year. There may be defaulters, there may be a number beyond that, but many of those are for short periods and for technical infringements and so forth. We deal with them summarily, eg, we compound fines and so forth. There are about 100 cases a year, about 0.5% of the NS cohort who remain unresolved each year.

A further clarification, Sir. Are there measures in place to resolve these cases? For instance, how would we know that they have slipped into Singapore through the airport? Are there measures to make sure that these cases can be resolved fairly?

Yes, certainly, there are. That is why they are put on the Gazette. And that is why when they come to Singapore, they will be picked up. That is why many of them are a little wary of attempting to come to Singapore.

Many of the average 100 cases a year are actually overseas. We know that they are overseas. A number of them have dual citizenship and they may well have decided that they are not going to return to Singapore in any case, and just have not gone through the process of renouncing their citizenship and so forth, which they could have been allowed to do so. So a number of these cases are like that, but they remain as defaulters and on the Gazette. That is the situation.

Sir, will the Minister, before passing this law, be prepared to consider a period of amnesty for some people who could be unjustly treated? Give them one last chance to come forward, pay their dues and then they could move forward?

I am not in favour of granting an amnesty, Sir. For many of them, they have had long periods to think over this matter. Some of them have waited for a very long time. I am not in favour of granting an amnesty. Dr Geh Min, for example, said that Melvyn Tan left at a time before National Service. That is not true. Melvyn Tan left in 1969. National Service, as an institution, began in 1967. He decided not to enlist for National Service. He knew very well that there was National Service. This was already in the 1970s. I think that when persons default from National Service, they know that they are doing something wrong. So I am not in favour of an amnesty period.

The motion to consider the Ministerial Statement on National Service lapses at the conclusion of debate.

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].

"to amend the Residential Property Act (Chapter 274 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Companies Act (Chapter 50 of the 1994 Revised Edition) and the Singapore Land Authority Act (Chapter 301 of the 2002 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (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 Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Chapter 190A 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 make provisions for the operation and regulation of casinos and gaming in casinos; to establish the Casino Regulatory Authority of Singapore, to provide for its functions and powers and for matters connected therewith; and to make related amendments to the Civil Law Act (Chapter 43 of the 1999 Revised Edition) and the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 2004 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

The Second Minister for Finance has given notice that the Accountants (Amendment) Bill be deferred to the next available sitting.

Order for Second Reading read.

6.25 pm

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

Sir, the purpose of this Bill is to introduce a new framework for the oversight of payment systems. The framework also covers the regulation of stored value facilities (SVF), which refer to prepaid cards and other payment instruments used for the purchase of goods and services. MAS has consulted the industry and the public on this framework and the feedback received has indicated broad support for it. MAS has incorporated the feedback received into the Bill, where practicable and where they are in line with its objectives.

Need for a consistent framework for the oversight of payment systems and stored value facilities in Singapore

Let me now set out the rationale for a new regulatory framework for the oversight of payment systems and stored value facilities in Singapore. I will start with payment systems.

Payment systems

In Singapore, we have a well-developed payment system industry, consisting of a wide-ranging spectrum of payment systems to cater to a variety of purposes. These payment systems can be broadly categorised into three tiers.

The top tier comprises Singapore's large-value payment system, the MAS Electronic Payment System (MEPS). Currently, MEPS is owned and operated by MAS, and functions as the main payment system for settling large-value financial transactions between financial institutions. MEPS is also linked to an international grid of large-value payment systems via the Continuous Linked Settlement (CLS) system, which is a global foreign exchange (FX) settlement system. The values settled in MEPS in 2004 exceeded 70 times Singapore's GDP. So it is easy to see how a disruption in MEPS can have a systemic impact on the financial system and the economy.

The middle-tier comprises Singapore's cheque-clearing systems and the Interbank GIRO system. While these systems process payments that are lower in value compared to MEPS, the values involved are not insignificant, and the payments comprise important business and retail transactions such as salary and bill payments. As they are closely tied to a wide range of economic functions, the safety and efficiency of these systems are important for maintaining a high level of public confidence in Singapore's financial system.

The third tier is made up of retail payment systems that handle the majority of payment transactions in Singapore in terms of transaction volume. These include systems such as debit and credit card systems, ATM networks, as well as mobile and Internet payment systems. As such systems generally process low-value retail transactions, they have lesser impact on financial stability. But an efficient and innovative market for retail payments is essential if we are to keep our economy vibrant and meet consumer needs.

Sir, taken as a whole, the payments infrastructure forms a critical part of our financial system and economy. It is therefore important that we ensure that payment systems operate in a safe and efficient manner, while encouraging market competition and technological innovation to serve businesses and consumers better.

A new regulatory framework for payment systems is needed for two reasons. First, MAS' current oversight framework for payment systems relies on legislation introduced on a piecemeal basis and an informal and cooperative arrangement with the industry. From the industry's point of view, a more formalised and comprehensive approach would provide greater consistency and clarity in MAS' oversight objectives and policies. Second, while the existing framework worked well when financial institutions were the traditional payment service providers,

it has become less effective now that payment service providers which are not financial institutions are becoming increasingly common.

Sir, the Bill will establish a new regulatory framework for payment systems that will provide MAS with a comprehensive and consistent basis to effectively oversee the payments infrastructure in Singapore, while promoting a competitive marketplace among payment service providers.

A number of jurisdictions, such as Australia and Canada, have introduced comprehensive legislation for the oversight of payment systems a few years ago. Hong Kong did so about a year ago.

Stored value facilities

Sir, I will now speak on stored value facilities (SVFs). These are prepaid payment instruments, most commonly used for low-value retail payments. In Singapore, there are two nation-wide SVFs, namely, the NETS Cashcard and the ez-link card, and several smaller-scale SVFs such as gift cards and store vouchers.

SVFs can be categorised as either single-purpose or multi-purpose. Presently, only banks are allowed to issue multi-purpose SVFs, that is, instruments which can be used to purchase goods and services provided by third-party merchants other than the issuer. However, multi-purpose SVFs when operated on a small scale present low risk in terms of potential loss of stored value to their users. The existing regulatory regime is therefore unnecessarily restrictive. We should give the market more flexibility to meet consumers' needs, and encourage competition and innovation among different providers.

The Bill introduces a new regulatory regime that liberalises the multi-purpose SVF market. Any entity will be allowed to issue multi-purpose SVFs to consumers and to hold the stored value, as long as the amount of stored value does not exceed a stated threshold. Where the stored value is above the threshold, the holder of the stored value must be approved by MAS and a bank licensed by MAS must also be approved to be fully liable for the stored value. In this respect, users of these larger SVF schemes, which the Bill terms widely accepted SVFs, will benefit from some protection on their stored value. Single-purpose stored value facilities will not be subject to the stated threshold. They will not need MAS' approval to operate their schemes, which is also the current position under the law.

Sir, in liberalising the multi-purpose SVF market, MAS will put in place several measures to enable users or potential users to be better informed and more discerning of the risks associated with the SVFs that they intend to purchase. For the smaller SVF schemes, MAS intends to require clear written disclosure to users that the holder of the stored value is not subject to MAS' approval under the Bill. At the same time, the list of widely accepted SVFs will be published in the Government Gazette and on the MAS' website. MAS will also help SVF users make more informed decisions through consumer education initiatives, such as publications under the MoneySENSE financial education programme. In addition, MAS intends to issue guidelines to encourage the adoption of sound practices in the SVF market.

Sir, I will now go through the main provisions of the Bill briefly, starting with those that relate to payment systems, followed by those that pertain to stored valued facilities.

Information-gathering powers over all payment systems