Hansard, 2006-02-14

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 Cedric Foo Chee Keng 14 Feb 14 Feb Mr David T E Lim 14 Feb 14 Feb Mr Lee Kuan Yew 14 Feb 14 Feb 19 Feb 23 Feb Mr Tan Soo Khoon 14 Feb 14 Feb

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Education (a) what percentage of newly recruited academic staff in local universities are Singaporeans in each of the last five years; (b) if there are any plans or efforts to recruit more Singaporeans as academic staff in local universities; and (c) whether good PhD holders from local universities will be recruited as academic staff in these universities.

): Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to say that for our universities to be top-ranked, it is essential for them to hire

Candidates are selected based on their ability to meet or exceed the needs of their appointment. Each university has its own academic staff selection process but the underlying principle of selecting academic staff based on merit is the same for all three of our universities here.

Sir, in the past five years, about 23% of the newly recruited academic staff have been Singapore citizens, and another 12% have been Permanent Residents. While the universities recruit talent from abroad, they also actively seek out and recruit similarly outstanding Singaporeans with PhDs, whether from local or foreign universities. In addition, the universities develop potential faculty members through their postgraduate scholarship schemes, which are open to Singaporeans as well as Permanent Residents.

academic staff based on merit and not just whether they are Singaporeans or foreigners.

Sir, that means 65% of the academic staff are foreigners. I would like to ask the Minister of State what is the percentage of these foreign academic staff who have left and what is the average duration of stay within the university.

I have to say that this number is not quite related to the Question that the Member has asked. Unfortunately, I do not have the number with me. Maybe I just want to ask the hon. Member what is the motivation or thinking behind this particular question?

Sir, am I allowed to reply to him?

Since you are asked, just a short one.

The rationale behind this is that, as an

academic in the university, I have observed that many of the academics who have been recruited are foreigners and typically their average duration of stay in the university is less than five years. So in that sense, would we want to put in efforts to recruit locals, who are PhD holders from Singapore or overseas, who would stay longer in the university and therefore make better contributions to research and education?

As I have said, we do try to look for outstanding local citizens who are PhDs for appointment as academic staff. But I also want to say that it does not follow that if an academic staff is a local, he would stay with the university for life. Because, now for many, many subjects, even academic staff would want to go to the industry to be exposed, and it may not therefore follow that if we recruit a Singaporean PhD, he would stay in the university for 20 years. He may go to the industry after five years, even go overseas and then come back again maybe years later. We do have similar experience with local staff too.

2. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Education in light of the globalised university concept with shorter exchanges and overseas stays and pervasive borderless learning through information technology, what is the purpose of having sabbatical leave in the universities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in universities around the world, sabbatical leave is a well-accepted practice for the professional development of senior or tenured academic staff. Sabbatical leave enables staff to spend a meaningful period of time, which could range from several

Sabbatical leave also benefits the wider academic community in the universities. The collaboration and close networking that it enables can strengthen links between our universities and reputable foreign institutions and achieving a win-win situation. A well-chosen plan of sabbaticals can help enhance the international standing of our universities.

NUS, NTU and SMU have guidelines and processes to evaluate proposals from eligible academic staff who intend to take sabbatical leave to embark on study or research programmes, and to ensure that these programmes are aligned with the interests of the university.

months to a year, away from their teaching and administrative duties at their home universities in order to deepen their scholarship and to work closely with other researchers and academics in their field of expertise. It is generally recognised that the regular face-to-face interaction with fellow academics in the course of a sabbatical provides advantages in research that are not always obtained through shorter exchanges or communication through IT. Both the occasional sabbaticals and shorter academic exchanges have their place.

Sir, the Minister of State mentioned that face-to-face interaction is better than short travelling, short attachment and video conferencing. I would like to ask the Minister of State whether it is worthwhile that such long attachments overseas would typically cause workload to be distributed to the rest of the staff and many other inconveniences. Is it still cost effective to send a staff overseas? I would also like to ask the Minister of State whether he is aware that a staff who goes for sabbatical leave overseas is receiving double salary, a salary from his own university as well as a salary from the other hosting university.

I am not so sure about the salary part. Obviously, some of them are receiving more. But I just want to answer the question by rephrasing the Member's question. If we say that because of IT and many other means of interaction, does it mean that the House here should meet less often because there is no need for face-to-face interaction and that we can get all the information that we need? It does not really follow. An opportunity to meet will enable us to have a feel of a different culture - maybe it is a different language culture, a different work culture or a different academic culture - a feel of other people's thinking, their background, their exposure. I am sure if she were to go for sabbatical leave, she will find that very, very beneficial too. Yes, obviously, there will be certain workload distribution. But nowadays, we may want to get away from this thing called "tunnel vision", that we will just teach the same thing year after year, and hope that our institution is still top class. It is not going to be like that anymore.

Sir, I would just like to ask the Minister of State for his views on whether sabbatical leave should be an optional or a compulsory item because some staff in the university have been told that they must go for sabbatical leave in order to qualify for promotion and tenure.

I suppose if you have not gone on any sabbatical at all, or let us say if you have applied for sabbatical and never got it, there would probably be some fundamental questions asked why this should happen. And bearing in mind that if everybody else has got an opportunity to be exposed overseas through sabbatical, and let us say if I am the only one who did not have, obviously my exposure is not as wide.

Perhaps, that can affect my promotion prospect. That is one possibility.

Prof. Ong, one last question.

Sir, a clarification. My question is to have the Minister of State's views on whether it should be optional or compulsory, and not something else. A lot of reasons for going for sabbatical, like what the Minister of State said, would be to get fresh ideas and to be exposed to somewhere. If a person is already making contribution, making significant research invention, having fresh ideas, and so forth, would he still be made to go for sabbatical leave in order to get some fresh ideas?

From the way I answered the question, it would be quite clear that if you apply for sabbatical, the university would then consider it. You may receive some friendly advice from your colleagues or from the human resource department that it is good that you go for sabbatical. But if you really feel very secure that you are already making very good contribution and the sabbatical is not necessary, I am sure they will listen to your perspective and excuse you from sabbatical.

3. Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts whether his Ministry will introduce legislation to safeguard privacy of personal information and, if so, when.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Prof. Png asked whether my Ministry will introduce legislation to safeguard privacy of personal information. The Government recognises the increasing importance and

However, MICA appreciates the need to take a wider perspective on data protection. We recognise that an effective data protection regime will be an important pillar to develop Singapore's position as a trusted IT-hub. It will also be a critical factor in building trust between consumers and businesses for the adoption of new technologies and services (such as electronic transactions, biometrics and Radio Frequency Identification). MICA, together with IDA, started examining this issue in November 2004. On 26th October 2005, MICA convened an inter-ministry sub-committee under the National Infocomm Security Committee to review Singapore's data protection regime and assess the suitability of various data protection regulatory models. A total of 16 Government agencies, including MTI, MOF, MOH, MHA, MAS and AGC, are represented on this committee. The committee aims to submit its recommendations by the middle of this year.

impact of personal information or personal data protection in Singapore. We also recognise the need to protect personal data and prevent the possibility of misuse of personal information or even identity theft. This is especially critical when infocomm technologies can be misused to obtain and distribute personal data, with potentially adverse impact on the individuals concerned. Currently, we have in place strict provisions in our sectoral laws, such as our Banking Act and codes for medical professionals, to protect sensitive financial and health information.

Sir, with respect to safeguarding the privacy of personal information like, for example, RFID technology, as the Minister has said, there is a rising trend of manufacturers and businesses using the RFID technique and incorporating such tags into our daily consumer products, and this could be potentially exploited to track and identify an individual. So I would like to ask the Minister if the Government has any plans to introduce legislation in the very near

future to protect the information and privacy of consumers in this regard.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going into great details at this juncture. But as I said, we are aware of the potential for abuse and also the beneficial use that technology such as RFID can be applied to. Our committee looking at data protection will certainly study the various aspects and possibilities. In coming out with its recommendations, it would address all these concerns.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the hon. Minister four supplementary questions.

First, does Singapore currently comply with the European Union data protection directive?

Second, if we do not comply with this directive, to what extent does this non-compliance affect the future development of call centre and data centre businesses in Singapore?

Third, the Minister mentioned the inter-ministerial sub-committee. May I ask the Minister whether this sub-committee is charged with recommending legislation or just providing guidance and some principles that will not be binding?

Finally, may I ask the Minister if he is aware of the tremendous public concern over the privacy of ICs and IC numbers, as was shown in the considerable number of letters to the Straits Times last year and, if so, how does the Ministry plan to address these concerns?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, we do not have a formal mechanism or formal legislative framework specifically for the protection of privacy of personal information. Whether we comply with the European

On whether this inter-ministerial sub-committee on data protection's terms of reference would include recommending legislation, I would say, yes, that is one of the specific areas that they are looking into. In fact, just last month, members of the inter-ministerial sub-committee on data protection visited two countries. They went to Australia and Canada to study their legislative model, how they implement legal protection for personal information and how it impacts on the economy and the various organisations in the public, private and people sectors. So, it shows you how seriously we are studying this issue and that we will address all the concerns, including the need to have a specific piece of legislation for protection of personal information.

Last but not least, is the hon. Member's point on the public's concern with the publication of NRIC numbers. Arising from various expressions of concern on the publication of full NRIC numbers, we have conveyed this concern to the media and reiterated to them that they should, as responsible organisations, play their part to ensure that personal information would not be abused. I understand that the media have generally been very cooperative and they have not published the full NRIC numbers. They have only published a part of it, maybe the first three or four digits, just to facilitate identification. So, it shows that our media in Singapore are generally very responsive. If there is in fact a real problem, they will certainly initiate the

Union standards or not should be viewed in the context of our laws. I think one study showed that about 100 different Acts already have some provisions dealing with the protection of personal information or data. I would say that, as of now, we have not experienced any difficulty with regard to outsourcing or call centre business purely as a result of our lack of a specific law to deal with protection of personal information.measures to address this concern. Even though there is no specific law at the moment that will compel them to do so, they have shown to be helpful in many ways.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to follow up on the Minister's response, I do agree. Yes, the media have been most forward-looking in agreeing to not to publish full NRIC numbers. As far as I can see, the only non-complying body now is the Official Assignee, who still insists on publishing a huge number of people's full names and NRIC numbers. Would the Minister please work with the Minister for Law to have that corrected?

Secondly, would the Minister agree that, going forward, when we look at the regulatory framework for privacy and even legislation for privacy, we should be neutral and make no distinction between on-line and off-line dissemination and use of information? So, there should be the same robust protection for off-line information as well as on-line information.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we will certainly convey the hon. Member's sentiments to the Official Assignee, and I am sure the Official Assignee will take into consideration the concerns about protection of personal information.

With regard to the regulatory framework, we will certainly look at various options. It is quite consistent with our approach in terms of regulating such matters to adopt a technology-neutral approach.

4. Dr Geh Min asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, in view

of reports that an estimated 1,200 cars are needed for the International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group meetings in Singapore, (a) why are the organisers only considering luxury cars with high energy consumption rather than more energy efficient green vehicles; and (b) with dealers having to import cars which will subsequently be resold, whether this will be a good opportunity to promote the use of more green vehicles in Singapore.

Sir, let me, in reply to Dr Geh Min, begin by stating that the Government supports the adoption of green cars. In fact, we have recently enhanced the green car rebate from 20% of the ARF to 40% ARF.

In the case of S2006, we want to clarify that the organiser did not specifically rule out green cars. Instead, we invited car companies to submit their proposals to sponsor cars for heads of delegation. The evaluation of the proposal concluded that BMW had made the best offer. They agreed to sponsor the full cost of using their cars and allow the Government to fully discharge its obligation to provide vehicles for each official delegation.

Had we received a good offer of green cars for the S2006 meeting, we would have welcomed it. But it would have been unreasonable for us to impose additional costs on car companies to require them to provide only green cars, as they need to be able to have some assurance of being able to sell these cars after the event.

With the deal awarded to BMW for its 400 cars, the Organising Committee has secured enough vehicles for all official transportation requirements. Apart from these, all delegates will be provided local transport from the airport to the hotels and from the hotels to the meetings.

Some delegates may seek to hire their own cars. We estimate that this could come up to 800. The Organising Committee is merely helping to facilitate the supply with the major car rental companies to meet this demand. We cannot dictate that the rental market import and supply green cars specially for this event. But if they do, that would be a bonus.

Sir, although the Ministry cannot dictate that green cars are provided, perhaps the Government should recognise that, at this point in time, many responsible world leaders and other members of a meeting, such as IMF, would prefer green cars. So, while I am not suggesting that all the cars provided should be green cars, should we not try and ensure that at least a certain percentage of green cars are available? There are many now on the market, and I believe we have quite a fleet of CNG Mercedes cabs as well. So, it should not be a problem to encourage or indicate that it would be a good idea to have some green cars.

What is your question, Dr Geh Min?

Mr Speaker, my question is whether the organisers could look into providing an option of having some green cars.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to reiterate that the Government has not excluded the provision of green cars as an option. The different proposals are free to include that. As to whether the Government should stipulate a certain percentage, I think that would really impose an additional cost on car companies, because it is not only a question of providing the cars for the duration of the event. They need to have the assurance of being able to dispose of the cars after the event as well, and this would go into the

computation of all the costs of the proposals.

Sir, one of the problems in including green cars is because of the supply of hydrogen. Hence, in the effort to promote using energy-efficient green cars which use hydrogen as a fuel, I would like to ask the Minister of State what are the relevant Ministries' efforts in finding commercially viable ways of supplying hydrogen safely on a larger scale and hydrogen-refilling projects in Singapore.

I am not sure whether what is asked has any connection with the Question. I do not think I will allow that. Next Question, please. Mr Steve Chia.

5. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) if the Government will ban the use and carrying of aerosol party spray, whether in the form of foam, ribbon or others, at public countdown events; and (b) if the Ministry knows that groups of foreign workers are using these aerosol sprays to spray at young girls at these public countdowns to temporarily blind them, so as to molest them publicly.

Sir, the use of aerosol party sprays at outdoor countdown parties is common in many parts of the world. Most of the users are genuine party-goers with no criminal intent. Police officers deployed at such events are alert to acts of crime or mischief involving the use of aerosol party sprays.

Sir, in addition to deploying marshals for crowd control, police normally provides advisories to the organisers of major events on the pre-emptive measures that can be taken against law and order incidents. At the recent parties, besides advising organisers not to permit the sale of such aerosol party sprays by their own vendors, police worked with relevant agencies to take strict enforcement action against illegal hawkers peddling aerosol party sprays. A total of 84 summonses for illegal hawking were issued on Christmas Eve, and another 43 on New Year's Eve.

Even if aerosol party sprays were banned, molest or other crimes at countdown parties may still occur. In extremely crowded places, criminals will look for opportunities to commit molest and other crimes. Party-goers should, therefore, stay close to friends and remain vigilant.

During the recent New Year countdown parties, police arrested the culprits in six out of the seven reported molest cases. Of these six, only one involved the use of aerosol party spray and, in that particular case, it involved a foreign worker.

6. Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs what was the annual rate of accidents (minor and serious) per thousand drivers in the three years before and after the implementation of the requirement for new drivers to mark their vehicles with a reflective triangle.

Sir, since 1st September

For the one-year period prior to the implementation of this requirement, ie, 1st September 1993 to 31st August 1994, the rate of fatal and injury accidents per thousand drivers was 5.

5. Comparable statistics prior to 1993 are not available. The rate of fatal and injury accidents per thousand drivers after the implementation for the three-year period after 1st September 1994 was 4.9, 5.2 and 5.1 respectively.

Traffic Police does not keep records of non-injury accidents.

1994, every new motorist of a Class 2B or a Class 3 motor vehicle is required to display a "P" plate when he rides or drives for a period of one year after obtaining his driving licence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for the reply. It seems that the decrement in the accident rate has been from 5.5 per thousand to anywhere from 4.9 to 5.2 per thousand, which is not that much of a decrement, especially if we think of 5.2 and we do not know the data after 1997 and the data beforehand was for only one year. It could well have been a spike year. So, in that light, and also in the light that one of these devices costs about $11 and maybe we need several tens of thousands of them a year, is it not worth considering removing this requirement now?

Sir, this is part of the entire matrix of measures that we have taken to improve road safety. The figures given are general statistics, not pertaining only to accidents involving "P" plate holders. So, whilst the numbers have come down, showing some improvement, in fact, we cannot conclude therefore that it is the scheme that has made it such. But the point is that, from feedback from drivers and from what we have done in general, we can see that the "P" plate has served its function, because

it has caused other drivers to be more mindful that this person is new and, therefore, they take greater care when their own vehicles are near these drivers. Also, for newer drivers, it probably gives them greater confidence that whilst they are working-in, post getting the licence for one year, others are aware that they are new. So, let us keep this scheme.

Last question, Prof. Png.

Sir, would the Minister agree that, in Singapore, we are very much driven by evidence-based policies and, in this case, it seems that the evidence is very weak and we do know that this costs about $200,000 a year to new drivers? So, it is time we relooked at this policy since the evidence against is $200,000 a year, and some of the arguments, such as the Minister has put forward, that putting on the triangle makes other drivers drive more carefully, then that would be an argument for having every car put on the triangle so that every other driver will drive more carefully.

First, I would say that the numbers I have given are not really indicative. It is not evidence as such, because it talks about the general accident rates, not just pertaining to "P" plate drivers.

Second, they are a vulnerable group. It is the same approach that we take with other vulnerabe groups, whether it is motorcyclists as a group or senior citizens and young pedestrians as a group. I think for "P" plate drivers who are new, whether they are motorists or motorcyclists, they are a vulnerable group. Therefore, we should help them become better drivers in the process.

Third, I think $11 for a "P" plate is not too much to ask, for the gain that can be secured from the scheme.

7. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) if the Ministry will review the role and functions of the Community Chest to make it more effective in the management and coordination of the voluntary social services sector; and (b) how many voluntary organisations are there which carry out annual fund raising activities but are not affiliated to the Community Chest.

The Community Chest, or ComChest for short, is the fund-raising arm of the National Council of Social Service (NCSS). Its basic mission is to help the social service sector raise funds for critical programmes. It currently helps to raise funds for around 150 programmes run by more than 50 voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) each year. This has allowed the VWOs concerned to focus on delivering services to their beneficiaries rather than fund-raising per se. Through the generosity of individuals and organisations, the Community Chest has consistently raised over $40 million annually over the past few years.

NCSS has a membership of more than 250 voluntary welfare organisations within the social service sector alone. Most, if not all of these VWOs do carry out some form of fund-raising for programmes which are not directly funded by the Community Chest. ComChest does not fund all the programmes offered by the VWOs as its role has evolved over time.

When the Community Chest was first started, the objective was to relieve the VWOs from the burden of fund-raising by providing an option for centralised fund-raising. Over the years, however, many

More recently, the Community Chest has also been proactively advising donors on the social services and programmes that require greater support, even if some of these have not yet sought support from the Community Chest.

ComChest has also become even more outcome-focused in its funding, meaning, we look at the real impact of the programmes on the beneficiaries, rather than on just the declared aims of the programmes. Nevertheless, I want to assure this House that the Community Chest will not turn away reasonable requests for funding effective and necessary social service programmes.

VWOs have been able to raise their own funds and prefer to do so because it helps them to promote their own causes to the community. One needs to remember that the fund-raising exercise is not just necessarily to raise funds, but also one of engagement with the community. Donors themselves have also, in some cases, expressed their preference to make direct donations to the VWOs concerned for the causes they had particular care for. Consequently, when both NCSS and my Ministry reviewed the role and functions of the Community Chest, we decided not to take a dogmatic approach. Instead, what we have decided is that ComChest would continue to focus on critical and needed programmes, especially those which have less donor appeal, for instance, counselling and community based mental health programmes, as well as those run by smaller VWOs who may have more limited fund-raising capabilities, but nevertheless, are performing useful and critical roles in the social service sector. The Community Chest will also support new services in order to address emerging social needs in the community.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the

capacity of the ComChest as a central fund-raiser will be limited and its effectiveness diluted, if there are other VWOs who are not participating in what ComChest is set up to do.

I do not see the Community Chest being disadvantaged or necessarily limited because others are also doing fund-raising. This is not a zero-sum game and I see this as complementary. As I have said earlier, there are some donors who really do prefer to channel their funds to specific causes and specific VWOs which they have particular affinity to or are engaged for in the long-term.

On the other hand, having a centralised alternative for less glamorous causes is a healthy balance. That is why I have decided not to be dogmatic but allow both options to apply. Ultimately, it is the donor public who, in a sense, vote with their money and it depends on the effectiveness of the VWOs to convince donors of the merits of their cause and to deliver good services to the beneficiaries.

8. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Transport whether it is justified for Singapore Mass Rapid Transit to demand for more fare hikes when it can register a 25.8% year-on-year increase in net profit of $30 million for the third quarter of FY2006.

Sir, Mr Steve Chia asked whether there is any justification for SMRT to demand for more fare hikes when it registered a 25.8% increase in net profit. First, I would like to note that the third quarter results recently announced by SMRT represent the group results of SMRT Corporation. Besides local bus and train operations where fares

On the issue of fare revision, this will be considered by the PTC if and when SMRT decides to apply for one in May. As Members know, PTC is an independent body comprising representatives from different sectors of society, and its role is to regulate bus and train fares to keep fares affordable for the public, while ensuring the long-term viability of the public transport operators.

Under the new fare review mechanism implemented last year, the PTC is required to examine, as a reality check, the Return-on-Total-Assets (ROTA) achieved by the operators. This is to ensure that the operators' returns from bus and rail operations are not excessive when compared to those of other industries with similar risk profile. This is to safeguard commuters' interests when the PTC considers applications for fare adjustments.

I would like to assure Members that any fare revision applications will be scrutinised by the PTC very carefully.

are regulated by the Public Transport Council (PTC), the group also has taxi operations and non-local public transport related businesses like engineering consultancy and overseas investments.

Sir, may I ask the Minister of State how much profit should these public transport operators, whether as an individual unit or as a collective group, continue to make before their demands for any kind of fare increase become unjustifiable? That is, will there be a ceiling for their profits where continued requests from them for fare increase become unreasonable? And if there is such a ceiling for their profit, what is that level?

Sir, when the PTC decides on the fare increase proposals, it will not just look at actual profits. In fact,

they will be guided by many other things, one of which, as I have stated, is the Return-on-Total-Assets. In this regard, they could look at the transport operators elsewhere and compare those numbers to see whether these are reasonable. It will not be reasonable nor practical to impose an absolute number.

9. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what are the reasons for Temasek Holdings' poor shareholders' return of 1% over a five-year period, as opposed to a 2.7% return for the Straits Times Index; (b) which are the "poor performers" in Temasek's group of companies; (c) how much did they contribute to negating the positive returns of Temasek; (d) what are the bonuses and remuneration paid to the senior management of these money-losing ventures; and (e) what is the rationale for paying them these remunerations despite their losing money for Temasek.

Sir, Mr Steve Chia has raised concerns that Temasek's total shareholder's return (TSR) of 1% for the five-year period ending March 2005 is lower than the 2.7% increase in the Straits Times (ST) Index over the same period. Such a comparison does not, however, provide a complete picture of Temasek's performance. Let me explain why.

TSR, by market value is, by definition, highly sensitive to the opening and closing market values of the investment over the selected time period. Therefore, it is instructive to review performance over a longer period to avoid market distortions. Temasek's 10-year TSR of 6% compares favourably with the 4.3% return on the ST Index.

This is why Government evaluates Temasek's performance over multiple periods, using a variety of measures and benchmarks to get an accurate sense of whether it is delivering good returns. For instance, if we take TSR by shareholder's funds, rather than market value, which tracks the changes in the underlying book value of Temasek's portfolio, Temasek achieved a TSR, by shareholders' funds, of between 9% and 11% for the 3-, 5- and 10-year periods. Since its inception, we have received a healthy average annual cash dividend yield of more than 7% from Temasek. We are satisfied that Temasek is performing creditably and giving us good long-term returns as shareholder.

As to which are the "poor performers" in the Temasek group, this must again be viewed in context. Like all companies, Temasek companies experience short term fluctuations in profit, in line with changing market conditions and economic or industry cycles. For instance, in the past few years, some companies like Chartered and STATS ChipPac were subject to the volatility of the technology sector. With the upturn in the global semi-conductor industry, both have reported a return to profitability.

Instead of focusing purely on past performance, it is more critical to assess the underlying strength and future potential of each investment. In this regard, Temasek actively and continually reviews its investments as a long-term shareholder.

On whether the remuneration paid to the management of these 'money losing ventures' is appropriate in light of their performance, this is a matter for their respective boards to decide, not Temasek. Apart from ensuring that compensation plans are structured competitively and support sustained execution of business

strategy, such committees would typically build in a performance element into these compensation plans. What is important is that the remuneration of management is disclosed to all shareholders, including Temasek, in the companies' annual reports in accordance with the Financial Reporting Standards.

Sir, are these "poor performers" economically-viable companies or are these poor performing companies of strategic importance or consideration for Singapore? Secondly, are these "poor performers", at least for the last few years, home-grown Singapore companies or foreigner purchases?

Sir, I just wish to reiterate that the "poor performers" or the "losers" of today could well be the "winners" of tomorrow. The question that the Member has posed should actually be viewed in context. But suffice it to say that the "poor performers" would always be reviewed for their long-term business strategy and their long-term economic viability. And that is the role that Temasek would perform across its whole portfolio.

As to whether there is any pre-dominance of foreign or local-owned companies, amongst his so-called definition of "poor performers", we do not track the companies as such. The role of Temasek is really to manage a widely-diversified portfolio so that we get the benefits of diversifying across markets and across business sectors.

10. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the respective numbers of A*STAR PhD scholars who will be returning to Singapore in the next five years; (b) what are the job options available to these returning PhD scholars;

and (c) will the returning PhD scholars be given a choice to pursue an academic career at the local universities.

Mr Speaker, as of December 2005, A*STAR has 122 scholars pursuing their PhDs locally and 66 pursuing them abroad. They are due for deployment to A*STAR research institutes within the next five to seven years as the length of PhD training varies between four and five years at the minimum.

PhD scholars will return home to man the research institutes as research scientists and will be working to help upgrade the industrial R&D capability of our manufacturing industries in order to enhance their competitiveness and to strengthen our economy.

When the returned scholars have firmly established themselves within their research institutes, A*STAR may permit outstanding scholars with the passion and aptitude for teaching to take on joint appointments in the local universities to help in the supervision of subsequent batches of A*STAR scholars who are pursuing their PhD studies locally.

On these returning scholars who will come back to help to man the research institutes, I would like to know how many would be expected to be performing administrative and management type of jobs in these institutes

as compared to performing research jobs in this institute?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the objective of the scholarships is to generate a cohort capable of performing high-level cutting-edge research. Having said that, as these outstanding individuals' career progresses, some may need to perform administrative and other leadership roles, but this is something

which is after the fact and is not the primary objective of this scheme.

Resumption of Debate on Question (13th February 2006), "That the Bill be now read a Second time." - [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs].

Question again proposed.

2.16 pm

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate on the Casino Control Bill. Yesterday, we had one round of debate. Today, I would like to reiterate a few points. First of all, I support the Casino Control Bill which makes provision for the regulation and control of casinos. But supporting this Bill does not mean that I support the opening of casinos. Since the Government has already decided to open casinos, the Government will have the duty to supervise the operations of the casinos.

Last month in Parliament, DPM and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng introduced the Casino Control Bill that provides for a legal framework to regulate the gaming operations and casinos. I would like to highlight a few possible loopholes in this Bill as well as propose a few suggestions for the Deputy Prime Minister to consider.

Part V specifies that all management staff and employees directly involved in the gambling activities must first of all apply to the Casino Regulatory Authority for a "special employee licence" before they can start work. The Authority would then investigate into the suitability of the applicants before the licence is issued.

First, the definition of "special employees" in this Bill is somewhat vague. It does not state clearly whether other groups of supporting staff would

Secondly, the section does not clearly state if a special employee can use his/her special employee licence to freely enter the casinos outside of his/her working hours, to participate in gambling activities. I would like to suggest that the Bill clearly spells out the restrictions on the use of the special employee licence. This can prevent the special employee licence from being abused by the employees to freely enter the casino to gamble and avoid paying the entry levy.

Part VI, Division 1, clause 99 requires the casino layout to comply with the requirements prescribed by the Casino Regulatory Authority. I suggest that this clause should also require that the casino operators ensure that in the layout of the casinos, the time of the day is prominently displayed throughout the casinos, such as the use of large electronic displays, so as to let the patrons be aware of the passing of time. This is a necessary measure as, very often, when too absorbed in gambling, the patrons will lose their sense of time, especially when they are losing money, causing them to indulge in gambling for excessively long periods of time. In Australia, the Queensland Responsible Gambling Code of Practice, the Victoria State Casino Operator Code of Practice,

Part VI, Division 2, clause 106 requires the casino operators to provide assistance to the patrons by providing them with copies of the rules for the games, advice and information concerning those rules, the permissible minimum and maximum wagers pertaining to the games and the odds of winning each wager. Although whether to gamble or not is the right and choice of the individuals, to make a responsible choice and decision, patrons have to be aware of the gambling products and the odds of winning for these various products. Hence, this clause is necessary as casino operators are duty bound to provide patrons with suitable information, so that patrons can make informed decisions on whether or not to gamble, based on their preference and situation. I would suggest that the casino operators provide such information in at least four languages, namely, English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil, to the patrons.

On providing information to the patrons, I would suggest that this clause should also require the casino operators to provide responsible gambling materials to the patrons, in at least four languages, informing the patrons of where to get help on problem gambling. In Australia, the Adelaide Casino Responsible Gambling Code of Practice requires the casino operators to provide responsible gambling information to the patrons through prominently displaying responsible gambling materials, in the form of posters and pamphlets in five languages other than English.

Part VI, Division 2, clause 108 states that the casino operators may provide credits to a person who is not a citizen or a permanent resident of Singapore. The casino operators may provide credit to a

Part VI, Division 2, clause 109 prohibits the casino operators from providing automated teller machines (ATMs) within the casino premises. This is to ensure that patrons will not be able to obtain cash easily, as when they lose money, there will be a tendency to go to ATM to obtain more cash to continue to gamble in the hope of winning back the losses, thus unable to stop gambling. However, this clause does not prohibit the installation of ATMs within a certain radius from the casinos. There is a Chinese saying that "at a certain place, there is gold everywhere". Of course, there would not be gold everywhere in the Integrated Resort for the patrons to pick. However, there can be ATMs all over the entire Integrated Resort. Casino operators can locate ATMs in close proximity to the gambling areas or even at the entrance of the gambling areas. This clause will affect those citizens and permanent residents of Singapore who pay the daily entry fee, as when they lose all the cash they have with them, they will not be able to immediately obtain cash so as to continue gambling. However, this clause has no effect on patrons who have paid their annual membership fee to enter the casinos, as they have unlimited entries into the casinos. When these patrons lost all their cash, they can easily go to the ATMs located outside or near the casinos

I suggest that no ATMs be allowed to be installed in close proximity to the casinos, eg, within a radius of 100 metres and at the entrance to the casinos. This is a reasonable requirement. The Australia Queensland Voluntary Responsible Code of Practice introduced in 2002 clearly states that casino operators are not to locate ATMs in close proximity to gambling areas or at the entrance to the gambling areas.

Part VI, Division 4, clause 116 requires citizens or permanent residents of Singapore to pay a daily entry fee of $100 or an annual membership fee of $2,000. Casino operators have to collect these entry levies and pay them to the Singapore Totalisator Board within the prescribed time for which it shall be used by the Board for public, social and charitable purposes in Singapore. I would like to raise three points with regard to this clause.

Firstly, an annual membership fee of $2,000 is reasonable. However, if we consider this clause in conjunction with clause 109, a loophole will surface. As I mentioned earlier, patrons who have paid the annual levy to enter the casinos have unlimited entries to the casinos. When these patrons lost all their cash, they can easily go to the ATMs located outside and near the casinos to withdraw cash and immediately return to the gambling tables to continue gambling. Hence, I would like to propose that a maximum number of entries be set for the annual membership, eg, a maximum number of 50 entries into the casinos per year. 50 entries per year is a reasonable limit, as members holding such annual membership will still be able to visit the casinos for almost every weekend of the year.

Secondly, another more important issue is the effects of gambling on the patrons' working hours and productivity at work. The negative impacts on workers' productivity will cause problems in other economic sectors. Many social work researchers have reported that gamblers will lose certain numbers of work-hours, and even their jobs, due to gambling. A paper published in 2000 in the Gaming Research & Review Journal reported that the average gambler lost 7.5 hours of work a month in Wisconsin, USA, and 9.8 hours of work in Connecticut from the workplace, due to gambling activities. Another paper published in June 2005 in the International Gaming Studies Journal reported that in Ontario, Canada, among the 2,500 participants surveyed, an average 5.6% of the participants had unexplained absences from work due to problem gambling. Setting a maximum number of entries can prevent the hours of work from workplace and the productivity of citizens and permanent residents of Singapore from being affected by gambling activities, causing other economic sectors in Singapore to be affected. I urge the Minister to consider this suggestion.

The annual membership fee with unlimited number of entries into the casinos can be kept, but with a higher fee imposed, eg, $5,000 or $10,000. Anyone who can afford such a high membership fee does not need to work and can well afford to spend all his time in the casinos.

Thirdly, this clause states that casino operators cannot directly or indirectly reimburse the patrons the entry levy. This is a good regulatory measure. However, the Casino Regulatory Authority will face difficulties in the implementation of this regulatory measure. Casino operators can use many camouflaging methods, thus

Part VI, Division 5, clause 129 requires casino operators to take all appropriate steps to ensure that the employees, patrons and other persons within the casino premises do not commit (1) soliciting for purpose of prostitution or any other immoral purposes; (2) unlicensed money-lending or related activities; and (3) drunken, disorderly or riotous behaviour. I would like to propose that this clause should include consumption of drugs and drug trafficking as prohibited acts within the casino premises because, as currently, this clause does not include consumption of drugs and drug trafficking.

Part VII prohibits persons below 21 years of age from entering casino premises. This clause empowers casino operators to request patrons to produce proof of age before allowing them to enter the casino premises. If the casino operator suspects that a person is a minor who is attempting to enter the casino premises, the casino operator can request this person to produce proof of age. This is not enough. I propose that the clause requires casino operators to perform compulsory checking of personal identification documents, allowing only persons above 21 years of age to enter the casino premises. Compulsory checking of age is necessary as some people look more mature than their actual age, while others can even masquerade to look older so as to enter the casino premises. This Bill has

There are also two groups of people who should be prohibited from entering the casino premises. The first group is the foreign students who are in Singapore on a student visa. I hope the Government can consider banning them from entering the casino. Many foreign students with student visas are above 21 years of age, and are also not restricted by the entry levy. For example, in our universities, there are many research students who are on scholarship doing their Masters or PhD, and most of them are above 21 years of age. If we allow these students with student visas to go to the casino, it may affect their studies and some may not even finish their studies here. One Member mentioned

also be governed by this restriction. The Bill should give a clearer definition of "special employee". The Bill should also state categorically the various groups of supporting staff, such as the cleaners, waiters and waitresses, etc, that should also come under this category. This can prevent undesirable people from being employed as supporting staff and infiltrate the casinos and thus leading to crimes. This can also ensure that the special employee licences will not be exploited by unlawful people, thus keeping the casinos free from criminal influence and illegal activities.and the Adelaide Casino Responsible Gambling Code of Practice have rules that require the casino operators to ensure that the time of the day is prominently displayed throughout the gambling areas.citizen or a permanent resident of Singapore who has maintained a deposit account with the casino operators with a credit balance of not less than $100,000. This stringent requirement is necessary to ensure that patrons will not be able to to obtain credit for gambling easily. A question to raise here is: should this stringent requirement of a $100,000 deposit also be applied to patrons who are foreigners to ensure that these foreign patrons will not be broke due to gambling, with no travel fund to return to their home country, thus illegally overstaying in Singapore leading to crimes and unnecessary social problems?to withdraw cash and immediately return to the gambling tables to continue gambling. Hence, it is inadequate to just prohibit casino operators from locating ATMs within the casino premises.indirectly reimbursing the patrons. For example, casino operators can dish out drinks and food vouchers for use in the restaurants in the Integrated Resorts, door-gifts, hotel vouchers, etc. The casino operators can easily group these under part of their marketing strategy, and not violate any law. Hence, I would like to suggest that this clause should list out more precisely and in detail all the possible indirect methods that the casino operators should not use to reimburse the patrons the entry levy.to include compulsory checking of age so as to mitigate the negative impact and minimise the harmful effects of gambling on youths.

in Parliament yesterday that we can allow the parents of these foreign students to apply for exclusion order for their children. I feel that this proposed measure will not have much effect, as a lot of time the parents of these students are living in their home countries and will not know what their children are doing in Singapore, and many of them who are above 21 years no longer come under the care and control of their parents. So I think all those who are on student visas in Singapore should be banned from entering the casino premises.

The second group is those foreign workers who work as domestic maids in Singapore. I hope the Government can consider banning them from entering the casino. Although the DPM said that the relevant Ministry had studied the practice in other countries when drafting this Bill, I think this is a problem that is unique to Singapore because many families in Singapore engage domestic maids and many of these foreign maids are above 21 years of age. They are certainly not very rich, otherwise they would not have come all the way here to work as domestic

Part X, clauses 157 to 165 provide the steps for family members of gamblers to apply for family exclusion orders from the National Council on Problem Gambling. The clause states that after the casinos have been set up, the family member of a problem gambler who has neglected his/her family due to gambling activities can apply for family exclusion order from the National Council on Problem Gambling, to bar the gambler from entering the casino premises. The respondent has the right to object to the application made by his/her family member. The family member of a gambler can make an application and state the period of the exclusion if this gambler has, over a period of more than three months, engaged in gambling activities irresponsibly having regard to the needs and welfare of his/her family members, or for a period of less than three months but has caused such serious harm prior to the application. The Committee will hear and determine the applications for family exclusion orders. The respondent is allowed to make an appeal to the Council.

As the Chinese saying goes: "Even an honest magistrate finds difficulty in resolving family disputes." Will the Committee be able to effectively execute its duty, considering that every application for a family exclusion order will, to some degree, involve some family problems? For example, a female MP once told me that she has encountered a case of a lady applying for a Personal Protection Order against her husband. When this lady was beaten by her husband, she vowed to apply for a PPO against her husband. However, a few days later, she came lovingly, hand-in-hand with her husband, to cancel the PPO application! Application for exclusion from casino premises should not be restricted only to family members. The gambler should be allowed to voluntarily make an application for himself/herself. Since the announcement of the draft Bill and final Bill, the media seems to only focus on reporting

Finally, in Part XI, Division 4, clause 120 allows the casino operators to bar certain persons from entering the casino premises, and provide self exclusion facility to patrons. I suggest that the clause should require the casino operators to actively promote self exclusion facility to their patrons who exhibit problem gambling behaviour or inclination. Based on the patron's requirements and request, if the patron requests to be barred from entering the casino or using certain gambling facilities within a specified period, the casino operator should inform this patron of the availability of the self exclusion facility; and provide materials and information on the self exclusion facility, including the steps and procedures involved, the documents to be submitted in the application, as well as problem gambling supporting and counselling agencies and the methods of contacting such agencies. Under reasonable circumstances and at the request of the patron, the casino operator should also assist the patron to stay away

maids. Although the Ministry of Manpower has not mandated that all the maids should be given a day off every week, it encourages employers to allow these maids to take one day off per week. These maids can make use of their off-day to visit the casino instead of congregating in Orchard Road area. Allowing these foreign maids to enter the casino will give rise to some serious problems. Firstly, in most families in Singapore, the children spend a lot of time alone with the domestic maid at home as both parents have to work, and the gambling habit of the maid may affect the values of the children. Secondly, if these maids run into huge debts due to their gambling and borrow from the loan sharks, these loan sharks may go to the employer's house to harass the employer's family and demand payment, and this will cause unnecessary inconvenience to the families. In clauses 157 to 162, I have a few points to raise. The process of application for a family exclusion order appears to be overly complicated. For every application, the Council will appoint a three-man committee to hear and determine this application. The Committee has the power to set up a hearing, and summon witnesses to provide evidence. However, if the respondent does not agree with the decision made by the Committee, he can even appeal to the Council. If the family member is not able to provide concrete evidence, detailed information and relevant documents, and is unable to find a person to substantiate his/her claims and complaints against the gambler, as the person may not be willing to attend the hearing as a witness for fear of offending the respondent, does this mean that this family member would not be able to bar the respondent from entering the casino premises? I hope the Council will simplify this process of the application for the family exclusion order. family exclusion orders, many people are not aware of the provision for voluntary self exclusion orders in clause 165. I suggest that the National Council on Problem Gambling should actively promote and implement self exclusion orders to allow citizens and permanent residents of Singapore to voluntarily make an application for himself/herself. Those persons who know that they have problem gambling behaviour or inclination can apply for a self exclusion order without having to make such an application through their family members. In this way, unintended consequences, such as family violence or strained relationships, can be prevented. A person who has problem gambling behaviour or inclination will not have to go into the casino premises to apply for a self exclusion order as they can now apply from the National Council on Problem Gambling.from other gambling facilities and gambling organisations. I earnestly hope the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs will consider and adopt the suggestions that I have put forward.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I seek clarification from the hon. Member? When she mentioned earlier on that she wanted the instructions or guidance to be done in four languages, does she mean that it includes Malay (Bahasa Melayu)? Because this is one area where I think Malay Muslims do not want to demand equal rights, unless the hon. speaker has some Bahasa-speaking high-rollers from the neighbouring countries in mind.

When you say "the hon. speaker", you mean Prof. Ong, not me? Prof. Ong, would you like to clarify?

Just to answer his question.

A short one, please.

We could have tourists from our neighbouring countries and not just Singapore. So we could have tourists from everywhere else visiting Singapore. I think we have to be more general.

2.38 pm

Sir, in the 2005 Budget sitting, I mentioned the need to look at the big picture and weigh between the negative social impact and economic benefits of the IR project. I am pleased that the emphasis to be given by the Singapore Tourism Board on the proposals will be on the IR as a tourism draw rather than on the gaming component.

Unlike what NMP Prof. Ong Soh Khim has been talking about, I applaud the Bill on the Casino Regulatory Authority of Singapore as it sets out the framework on which the gaming aspect will be supervised, and it is very comprehensive. But there are areas which I think the Minister may want to consider. I would like to know whether the Authority will restrict the casino operator from offering website gaming in any form to Singaporeans. It does not make sense if someone is banned from the casino but he can get access to the gambling activities through the web. Of course, one may argue that there are many other casino webs, but, at least, we should take due diligence to prevent where we can those who are banned and also young children from gaining access through the backdoor.

Currently, the casinos in the US are big on football leagues and other major sports. Will the Singapore operators be similarly allowed to offer such betting for their operations in Singapore? While I know that Singapore Pools and others have been collecting bets on certain games, the wide following of English and European soccer leagues in Singapore, coupled with the availability of more such gaming opportunities, may well encourage more gambling than in the past. Will areas where big TV screens are put up for betting and where betting billboards are set up to be included in the definition of "gaming areas" under the law?

Sir, my other parliamentary colleagues have raised their concerns on bad hats, moneylenders and prostitution rings who will lay in wait to leverage, like parasites, on the casino operations. I would like to add a different dimension to the debate and ask what steps will the authorities take to prevent pimps from lurking around the IR. Also, we have a large workforce of lower income foreign workers in Singapore. How are we to monitor and ensure that they do not moonlight in

Part XII, clause 181(1)(b) allows the Authority to obtain information from a casino operator to make available information to the authorities. Video camera is an important element in crime prevention and the gathering of evidence. Will the regulatory authority impose on the operators a minimum timeframe where they have to keep proper records of their videos, surveillance tapes of the activities on their premises, so that in the event of any investigation, the authorities can have access to important evidence?

Sir, this section of the Bill also empowers casino personnel to detain suspected offenders. Will the Authority require that the casino personnel must record in detail the persons detained and the events leading to the detention and immediately call the police? The operative words are "immediately call the police" as, otherwise, an overzealous casino employee may abuse his authority by corruptly seeking gratification for the release of the detained person or to intimidate or harass the detained person without access to his rights under our laws.

Lastly, I want to touch on employment. I hope all the key casino employees who require special licences will be subject to screening by not just the police but also CNB, CPIB and CAD. I note that the Authority is empowered to investigate into the suitability of the applicants. I hope the prescribed fees imposed on each application will be sufficient such that the Government can recover the cost of its investigations, especially since some of the inquiries may require having to contact overseas counterparts to check on the applicants. Also, will the Minister consider stipulating a minimum age for those employees who require special

As I mentioned in my previous address on the IR issue, Sir, I hope this project will create sufficient jobs to help our older workers who lost their jobs to find opportunities to re-enter the job market. Perhaps, the Government may want to consider sending these older workers who are suitably qualified to be retrained in casino operations at the polytechnics or other institutions.

On this note, I support the Bill.

dubious activities on their days off on weekends at the casinos?licences so that this category of employees are, hopefully, more matured and able to fend for themselves?

2.43 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their questions and comments.

Several Members commented that the Bill, though comprehensive, did not provide the details on many operational issues, such as what is the allowable maximum number of jackpot machines, anti-money laundering measures, advertisement policies, and how the Casino Regulatory Authority will go about performing its role. Sir, it is simply not practical to state every detail in a piece of legislation, although the important provisions reflecting the policies are incorporated in the Bill. The Bill is already 152 pages and over 200 sections. If we were to put all the operational details into the Bill, it will look like a Police manual. Even then, there is no certainty that every conceivable measure is reflected in this first attempt on the Bill. The Bill defines a general legislative framework and deals with the broad policy issues like all our other legislation in Singapore. The operational details will be covered separately in subsidiary legislation which

Sir, the questions raised by Members broadly cover three areas: social safeguards, casino operations and, finally, casino taxes and funding for the Casino Regulatory Authority and the National Council on Problem Gambling.

Firstly, let me now respond to questions related to social safeguards, as raised by Ms Indranee Rajah, Mr Sin Boon Ann, Mdm Ho Geok Choo,

will be promulgated by the CRA in due course. They can also be specified as licensing conditions or as directives from the CRA to the casino operators. Some of these directives may be issued after discussion/consultation with the casino operators to ensure that they are implementable. This is also the practice in other jurisdictions, and so we cannot be any different. It is also the same way we draft our other laws.

Prof. Ong Soh Khim, Mr Ahmad Khalis, Dr Lily Neo, Dr Amy Khor, Mr Ong Kian Min, Mr Low Thia Khiang, and Ms Eunice Olsen.

Members will recall that last year in this House, we debated at length the issue of social safeguards to minimise the negative impact of casino gaming on locals. While we need to have these social safeguards, the measures must also be practical and not too onerous for the casino operators to implement.

For example, Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) will have to pay the entry levy of $100 for every 24 hours, or $2,000 for annual membership, which is not transferable. We will not allow the casino operators to directly or indirectly reimburse the entry levy to the patrons. This means that the moment a citizen or PR walks into the casino just for a look-see, he has already parted with $100. He will have to think very hard about even stepping in. Some Singaporeans suggested doing away with the entry levy. Some Singaporeans also suggested raising it. There are no right

Mr Low Thia Khiang has asked why the entry levy collected is channelled to the Singapore Totalisator Board and not to the National Council on Problem Gambling. A mandate of the Singapore Totalisator Board is to disburse gambling related monies for public, social and charitable causes. They will be best placed to decide how to use the levy. Mr Low can be assured that the Government will provide sufficient funding to the National Council on Problem Gambling for its operations.

The casino operators will be required to put in place a robust system to ensure that excluded persons and minors are not allowed into the casinos. They are allowed to implement any system so long as it achieves this objective. As part of their submissions for the Integrated Resorts, the investors will be required to propose how they intend to enforce the various social safeguards.

Ms Indranee Rajah and Prof. Ong have also asked about the treatment of minors under the Casino Control Bill. The Bill prohibits persons who are below the age of 21 years old from entering the casino. The patron will be required to provide an acceptable proof of age before he or she is allowed entry. What would constitute an acceptable proof of age will be covered in the subsidiary legislation.

Clause 133 of the Bill provides a defence for the casino operator to disciplinary action if a minor is above 16 years or older and has produced false evidence that he is not a minor. Minors who are found in a casino or have used the false evidence to gain entry into the casino will be guilty of an offence. These are not seizable offences. The casino operator will be required to inform CRA of any minors found on the casino premises and they are allowed to remove the minor using no more force than is necessary.

Mr Sin Boon Ann has suggested lowering the age limit from 21 to 18 years. In Hong Kong and Australia, studies show that the rate of problem gambling among the youths tends to be higher than for adults. This shows that youths are more vulnerable to problem gambling. As compared to other forms of legalised gambling like those conducted by Singapore Pools that are currently available in Singapore, casino gaming involves table games and more sophisticated jackpot machines, which are characterised by rapid play, high re-staking rates and instant gratification. This is what some researchers call "hard gambling" as compared to "soft gambling", like Toto, where after each draw, a person would have to wait a few days for the next draw, thereby creating a break for the punter. Taking all these into account, it would therefore be prudent to set a higher minimum age of 21 years old for casino gambling to protect our young.

Prohibiting automated teller machines (ATMs) in the casinos aims to create a break for patrons who have run out of cash by making them step out of the casinos. Hopefully, this will make them think about whether they should continue gambling. While Mr Ong Kian Min and Prof. Ong are correct in pointing out that the ATMs can be placed immediately outside the casinos, it would not be

Dr Lily Neo has suggested having separate sections within the casinos for locals and foreigners so that we can be stricter on locals by imposing further controls, such as shorter opening hours. In effect, such controls would mean creating two casino gaming floors. Ms Eunice Olsen has also suggested mandating a loss limit for patrons and to require the casino operator to provide responsible gambling counselling services. These suggestions will cause operational and enforcement difficulties. All these good-intentioned suggestions also hamper the casinos' ability to manage their businesses effectively and make our casinos different from others. Instead, our approach would be to work with the casino operators to strike a balance between meeting our regulatory objectives and implementability, and at the same time, have regard to some of the social problems which may be created. As regards how to deal with the social problems, we should leave it to the National Council.

Prof. Ong has suggested that the casino operators provide prominently time displays to ensure that patrons do not lose track of time. She has also suggested information about the games and responsible gaming should be made available to patrons in four languages. I think there was an exchange between Mr Zainudin and her. These measures to promote responsible gaming may be considered later when the CRA works with the casino operators on the details of the casino layout and operations. It may go beyond the four official languages. If we have customers coming from Japan, for example, they may have such instructions in Japanese too.

As with all Government policies, we will monitor and review the various safeguards to ensure that they remain relevant and effective.

Sir, I agree with Mr Ong Kian Min and Mr Sin Boon Ann that having measures alone are not enough. We also need to educate the general public about the dangers of problem gambling and how to recognise the symptoms. This is what the National Council on Problem Gambling hopes to do.

Mr Ahmad Khalis, Mr Sin Boon Ann, Prof. Ong and Dr Lily Neo have asked about the role of the Council and its programmes. I believe the Council has put up its role on the website. Its role is to:

provide independent advice and feedback to the Government on education programmes to promote public awareness on problem gambling;

decide on funding applications for preventive and rehabilitative programmes; and

assess and advise the Government on the effectiveness of treatment, counselling and rehabilitative programmes.

Sir, the Government will fund the initiatives undertaken by the National Council on Problem Gambling, which deals with problem gambling holistically, and not just in relation to the casinos.

The Council has started working on initiatives to help problem gamblers. For instance, it has set up a website containing information on problem gambling as well as help services available to problem gamblers and their families. To raise public awareness, the Council has also funded television programmes featuring real-life cases of problem gambling. It has also made funding available to voluntary welfare organisations to

The Council will be empowered to issue exclusion orders against problem gamblers. Families of problem gamblers can apply to the Council for such exclusion orders. In response to Mr Ong Kian Min's question, parents of foreign students studying in Singapore can also apply to the Council for exclusion orders to prohibit their children from entering the casinos. Mr Ahmad Khalis and Dr Lily Neo have suggested allowing our courts, co-workers, healthcare workers to apply directly to the Council to exclude their clients who are problem gamblers. As exclusion orders curb a person's freedom of movement, such orders should not be made lightly. This is why we have limited the parties who can apply directly to the Council for exclusion orders and the Council has to give the respondents a fair hearing. As for the suggestion to exclude bankrupts, clause 165 of the Bill has empowered the National Council on Problem Gambling to exclude them from the casinos.

Sir, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports has set up a database to capture all social assistance beneficiaries supported by Government funding. This database can be tapped on to check who should be excluded from the casinos, as suggested by Ms Eunice Olsen.

We have also considered the possibility that the family exclusion order could create domestic disputes. As such, the Council intends to work with social workers to help counsel families that apply for exclusion orders. This would allow social workers to intervene and provide assistance to families should there be a need. In addition, the Council will work with the courts and social workers

The Council will consult families, social service, religious and community sectors to ensure that the processes for applying for family exclusion orders are simple and effective. With regard to Prof. Ong's point about the voluntary exclusion orders, the patrons can also apply to the National Council on Problem Gambling for voluntary exclusion orders.

Sir, it is not possible at this early stage to define more clearly what the Council will do or how it intends to conduct its proceedings. There is also no need to enshrine the functions of the Council in the Bill. Unlike the exclusion orders that the Council can issue, the initiatives and programmes of the Council do not impact on personal freedom. Since the Council is set up under MCYS specifically for the purpose of tackling problem gambling, Members can be assured that the Council members, who perform their role, will pool their collective wisdom and experience.

But we must also be realistic about the extent to which we can prevent a person from gambling and become a problem gambler. If a person is bent on gambling, no measure will deter him. If he cannot gamble in Singapore, all he needs to do is to take a ferry to Batam, or take a ride to Genting, or go on a cruise. No government, no NGO or social do-gooder can stop him.

answers. Some MPs also suggested fixing the number of times a member can visit the casino. I think we should not micro-manage every measure. There will be no end to the number of ways to stop people from visiting the IR. What we have done is to put in some barriers so that Singaporeans can pause and think whether to cross it. We settled for $100 per entry and $2,000 for the annual membership for 10 years, rather than chop and change and cause uncertainty to patrons and investors. Specific details as to what constitutes reimbursement will be worked out later between the CRA and the casino operator.practical to prohibit ATMs outside the casinos since there are other facilities and services within the Integrated Resorts, such as retail shops and restaurants, which are not gaming related. Besides, how far to place the ATMs is far enough?organise public education initiatives in the community. The Council will continue to evaluate the response to its current programmes and determine what more needs to be done.on a system of referral protocols for family members to obtain Personal Protection Orders if there is a need to do so.

Ultimately, the responsibility is his, and the consequence is for him to bear. The unfortunate part is that his irresponsible behaviour will affect his family.

Mr Ong Kian Min and Dr Lily Neo have also asked about casino-related TV programmes and promotional flyers. The Media Development Authority's TV and Radio codes do not allow programmes

Sir, let me now address questions raised by Ms Indranee Rajah, Mr Ahmad Khalis, Mr Sin Boon Ann, Prof Ong Soh Khim, Mdm Ho Geok Choo, Dr Lily Neo and Mr Ong Kian Min about our policies on the casino operations.

Members have cited the figure of 5% of the total Integrated Resort area as the total gross floor area for the casino and raised questions on who will decide whether to allow further expansion and how this will be determined. The answers to these questions are found in the offiicial Request For Proposal (RFP) document for the Marina Bayfront Integrated Resorts that was launched on 15th November last year. However, I think Members are not likely to be potential bidders, so they did not get a copy of the RFP.

The RFP document sets out clearly the maximum gaming area of 15,000 square metres within each Integrated Resort. If we compare this to the maximum permissible gross floor area of 570,000 square metres at the Marina Bayfront site, it is a very small component, barely 3%, of the entire development. This is consistent with our intention to develop the Integrated Resorts, albeit with a small component of casino gambling, to support our tourism and economic objectives. The size of the casino floor or total area for casino is also similar to that of the many well-known casinos overseas. We decided to fix the maximum gaming area in square metres, instead of a percentage of the

The casino operator may also need to adjust the location of the gaming areas within the Integrated Resorts for business reasons. We can allow the casinos to do so, so long as they keep within the 15,000-square-metre limit for the gaming area, subject to other planning considerations. This is the intent behind clause 51 of the Casino Control Bill. I would like to assure Mr Sin Boon Ann that the Ministry of Home Affairs has no intention of allowing the CRA to administratively increase the 15,000 square metres allowed for each of the casinos. These are not decisions to be taken lightly by the CRA but by the Executive.

Sir, with regard to Dr Lily Neo's suggestion on operating hours, we do not intend to stipulate opening hours for the casinos, as this will interfere with the casino operators' ability to run their businesses effectively. During the consultation exercise for the Bill, the investors have provided feedback that controlling the hours of operation will affect them adversely. The casinos in Las Vegas and Macau which I visited operate 24 hours and seven days a week, 365 or 366 days a year. If ours are to be of a comparable international standard, we should not specify fixed opening hours. We will be short-changing ourselves, when our nearest competitors do not. For that matter, when we first drafted the Bill, we noted that the Victoria Casino Control Act in Australia empowered the regulator to stipulate the number of operational controls on the casino operator, such as the maximum and minimum number of games, detailed control over the casino

This is the background to the context of my statement yesterday when I said we decided to relax a number of operational controls on the casino operator. But, in effect, there is actually no change, in the sense that, in this final draft which is now before the House, we did not include them. We took into account the experience that we gathered from overseas, and decided to remove the provisions which we took from the Victoria example. We believe that our supervision and regulation of the casinos will not be compromised by these changes.

To deal with problem gamblers within the casino, the casino operators will be required to train their staff to detect and deal with patrons whose behaviour clearly suggests that they are at risk of problem gambling.

Sir, I agree with Dr Lily Neo that the honesty of the casino staff and patrons would be critical in protecting the integrity of gaming in our casinos. As such, the casino operators shall be required to submit a set of internal controls for CRA's approval to ensure that our casinos have the necessary controls and measures to guard against scams and frauds. This will include thorough checks on gaming

We shall also conduct comprehensive checks to ensure that the key casino employees are suitable to work in the casinos. To Prof Ong Soh Khim's suggestion to include supporting staff, such as cleaners and waiters, as special employees to be licensed, we have decided that, in the initial stages, only key management staff and those directly related to the gaming operations will be licensed. It would not be practical nor is it necessary to check and license every single employee who is not directly or indirectly involved in the gaming component of the casino. We will monitor this and review whether other types of employees should be included later.

Ms Indranee has asked about our measures to combat money-laundering. As mentioned earlier, we shall put in place a comprehensive set of measures based on the recommendations by the Financial Action Taskforce and the best practices in other gaming jurisdictions. We take this seriously, because Singapore is an international financial centre and we do not want to be classified as a centre for money-laundering.

Ms Indranee Rajah, Mdm Ho Geok Choo, Mr Sin Boon Ann and Mr Ong Kian Min have noted that undesirable activities, such as solicitation for prostitution and loan sharking, are often associated with overseas casinos and asked what we will do to ensure that our Integrated Resorts are wholesome places to visit. As I mentioned earlier, clause 129 of the Bill will require the casino operators to take all appropriate steps to ensure that

In addition, Members should not see clause 129 of the Bill in isolation. It should be viewed holistically with our other existing laws, such as the Penal Code, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act, etc, that deal with solicitation, loan sharks and other criminal activities. Police is also studying the various strategies to help ensure that the overall law and order situation in the vicinity of the Integrated Resorts remains under control. Police is setting up a Casino Investigation Branch to deal with the potential law and order challenges from the casinos. Let me assure Members that the police will take the necessary enforcement actions to ensure that the Integrated Resorts, including the immediate vicinity of the Resorts, remain wholesome places to visit.

Sir, Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked about video surveillance in the casinos, the casino operators' powers to detain suspected offenders, and the types of games which we will allow in the casinos. We shall require the casino operator to provide comprehensive video surveillance for the gaming area and key locations, such as the count room, where they count the money. The police and the CRA will also work out procedures to guide the casino operator in handling and detaining suspected offenders to ensure that there are no excesses.

The casinos will not be allowed to offer sports betting, as it is known in the United States. This is already reflected in the Marina Bayfront Request For Proposal document which was launched on 15th November 2005. The casino operator will also not be allowed to offer remote gambling services that extend beyond the casino boundary. However, the casino operator will have the flexibility to decide on the number of jackpot machines, subject to a maximum of 2,500. This is because, if you look at the size of the casino, ie, 15,000 square metres at the most, 2,500 jackpot machines should be adequate. We will also allow them the flexibility to decide on the number of blackjack or baccarat tables and so on, as these are business decisions best made by the operator and not the regulator.

Sir, Mr Low Thia Khiang has suggested that we should not appoint Board members to the CRA or the National Council on Problem Gambling who have a direct or indirect interest in our casinos. This is not practical. What matters is that we put in place good corporate governance standards and we make sure that only persons of integrity and with the necessary expertise are appointed to serve. This is also the practice in many other jurisdictions. Mr Low knows full well that no system can prevent a person from taking advantage of his position, if he does not have integrity. Maybe Mr Low would like to volunteer, because he has no connection with any of the IRs, to serve on the National Council on Problem Gambling, and I shall ask the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports to invite him.

With regard to inspectors, Mr Low may wish to know that these are the CRA employees, not the casino operators' employees, and they will be given the necessary training, including attachments to foreign casino operators or regulators, to ensure that they are up to the task and

promoting or offering instructions on gambling to be aired on our TV and radio networks. On the issue of promotional flyers, the casino operators will be allowed to conduct direct marketing only to non-Singaporean residents and registered casino patrons who have paid the $2,000 annual casino levy. We will work with the casino operators to see how excluded persons do not receive such promotional flyers.gross floor area, to provide clarity and certainty on what is the allowable maximum gaming area. We will work with the casino operators to ensure that the visitors will be able to move within the non-gaming facilities in the Integrated Resorts without having to go through the casinos.layout, restrictions on the operating hours, etc. For example, they lay out exactly where the gaming machines are to be placed, how many baccarat and blackjack tables, and so on, and that any movement of any of these tables or any addition of the tables and the subtraction of another needs the approval of the regulator. We included some of these restrictions in the draft Bill earlier because we adapted them from the Victoria Casino Control Act and put into our draft consultation Bill. However, after I had visited the jurisdictions elsewhere and learning from the experience of others, we found that these are not universal practices and, therefore, may not be necessary. equipment before they are allowed on the casino floor. In addition, the Casino Control Bill will impose heavy fines and imprisonment terms on those who are caught cheating at our casinos. The details, such as the frequency of the equipment checks, will be worked out later.undesirable activities, such as prostitution and illegal money-lending, do not take place within their premises. We need not define "appropriate" steps upfront, because we cannot envisage all situations. If necessary, these will be made known in subsidiary legislation and the CRA directives. The police and the CRA will work closely with the casino operators to keep the casinos free from such undesirable activities. Police has since last year begun to implement a series of enforcement measures against loan sharks.to learn from other people's experience. They will also be given the necessary powers to carry out their duties.

Sir, I will now turn to the queries raised by Mr Ahmad Khalis and Dr Geh Min about the casino taxes and funding for the Casino Regulatory Authority and the National Council on Problem Gambling. As I mentioned earlier, the casino operator will have to pay the casino tax and the corporate taxes. This is a standard practice in most casino jurisdictions.

We will levy a 15% casino tax on the gross gaming revenue. Gross gaming revenue generated from the premium players will be levied a 5% casino tax. The premium player market is highly selective and the casino operators need to find ways to attract them. Hence, the lower tax rate for premium players is to incentivise the casino operator to bring in more high rollers. This is also the practice elsewhere in many other jurisdictions. Commonsense tells us that 5% of a large sum of money from a select pool of high rollers is more in absolute terms compared to the 15% of the money put in by small-time player mass market.

One operator in Las Vegas told me, when I visited them last November, that premium players can possibly account for 75% of the gaming revenue. To Dr Geh Min's suggestion to have different tax rates for locals and foreigners, I think the casino operators would find it onerous to keep track of their revenues based on nationality. Dr Geh Min will know that there are, at most, four million "sitting ducks" in Singapore, even if we include every child or baby. But if you were to include all the "moving ducks" around the region, there are tens, if not, hundreds of millions of them. If you just depend on Singaporeans, that will not be enough to sustain the business. In fact, we want our casino operators to go out and get foreigners so that they can boost our

The additional tax revenue from the casinos will go into the Government's Consolidated Fund. As they will more than cover the funding of initiatives undertaken by the National Council on Problem Gambling, there is no need to earmark a portion of it for the social programmes, as suggested by Dr Geh Min. This should be up to the discretion of the Ministries and agencies. Besides, it is not the Government's policy to earmark revenue for specific purposes.

Sir, in conclusion, we have studied and adapted the best practices in other jurisdictions to our unique circumstances to deal with the potential social and law and order impact of the casinos on Singapore. As we move ahead, we will continue to review and fine tune our policies to ensure they remain relevant and effective. We are confident that the Casino Control Bill will help to provide an environment where the Integrated Resorts can succeed and thrive while, at the same time, enabling us to keep social and law and order problems under control.

tourism traffic and, at the same time, to spend money in Singapore and also to provide the variety of entertainment that Singaporeans may also be able to benefit from when the foreigners come here to watch the shows.

I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. I would like to know what is the Government's consideration for not putting in the maximum percentage allowable for casinos within this legislation.

Sir, there is no need to do so because it is already in the RFP document and it is a point already clearly made to the potential bidders.

Will there be any likelihood that the Government might

change its mind or, on the request of the IR operators, the CRA might, one day, decide to allow the increase in the floor area, and thereby Parliament will not know exactly whether it is 5% or even more?

Sir, as I have said earlier, this is not a decision to be taken by the CRA. If any decision like that is to be taken, it will be taken by the Government.

Sir, I will give Members an idea of what is 15,000 square metres out of the total size of gross floor area that we have. I mentioned that it is less than 3%. I have been to casinos in Las Vegas. I have been to four of them - Sands, Caesars Palace, Wynn Resorts and Bellagio. The biggest I have seen is probably in Caesars Palace. It is about 170,000 square feet. Anyone who has been to Caesars Palace would know that it is very large, compared to the total gross area that they have in that place. And for the others, the casinos are about 110,000 and 120,000 square feet. If we are going to put it in terms of metres, 110,000 square feet is about 10,000 square metres. Bellagio is also quite big. For those who have been to Bellagio, can you imagine what is 15,000 square metres? So there is no need for us to go beyond 15,000 square metres as far as we can see.

Sir, the Minister said that it is not for the CRA to make the decision. If, in the event, there is a need to increase, it is for the Executive to decide. Is he saying that if there is a need to increase, it is for the Executive to decide and not for Parliament, and thereby, there is no need to legislate the maximum number?

Because it is not in the Act, therefore, there is no need to come to Parliament. But it is a public issue and certainly, the Government cannot make such a decision in a quiet manner

without it being known. The operators will know, the public will know, somebody will know.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his comprehensive reply. But may I clarify a few points? One of them is with regard to casino taxation. I did ask the question yesterday. It was said that the casino tax of 15% and 5% respectively would not be increased for the next 15 years. I asked the Minister whether it means that it could be decreased, or is the intention that it will be unchanged. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify whether it is the intention of the Bill to allow for a decrease within the next 15 years.

Secondly, I would like to go back to the question of the annual membership. I understand, from what the Minister has said, that this is just a legislative framework and you cannot macro-manage it. And as the Minister has also said, we cannot enshrine all the functions of the Council into the Bill. My question is: why are we enshrining this $2,000 annual membership into the Bill when it seems to me that it contradicts the $100 levy? To me, I just do not see how this can expand the functions of the $100 levy because, as I have mentioned, the moment you have put down $2,000, you would be tempted to gamble more rather than to gamble less. So it seems to me like the sort of incentives that the casino operator would be tempted to put in or request to be put in, rather than an extension of what the $100 levy is. It seems, to me, to neutralise the $100 levy, rather than to reinforce it.

Sir, if a member wants to go and use the place for more than 20 times a year, let him be. Whereas when we say $100 per entry, every time when he walks in, it is $100. But for convenience, for people who want

to visit more often, we fix a fee at $2,000 a year. There is no need to equalise number of visits of a member's fee of $2,000 with $100 per entry. That is the point I want to make that there is no need to go and put in all these barriers just to stop people from gambling. If people find that $100 is too much, they will not go. If those who find that $2,000 a year is too much a commitment, they may not put up that $2,000. Such decisions should be left to the individual. We put in this mechanism of per entry or annual membership to provide the convenience to those who want to go there more often. Whether the 15% or 5% tax will be unchanged, it is quite clear that we commit to 5% and 15% for the next 10 years.

Sir, I would like to seek a clarification. During my speech, I mentioned about proposing to exclude foreign workers who are working as maids in our households because many of our households in Singapore do have maids. The Deputy Prime Minister has not replied to my proposal on this.

Sir, if these foreign maids think that they want to spend $100 going there and lose another $300, let them decide. Why are we going to do that job for them? They are adults.

May I ask the DPM whether there is any plan to allow the operators to have a one-day open house of the casino before it goes into official operation? This would allow Singaporeans to have a look-see of the casino.

I think many people wish to have a free open house. I think such a decision should not be made now. Maybe, for good business reasons, they may want to open the casino and say, "Please come and see, but no

gambling". But who knows? I do not want to decide that for them. I am not the operator.

I would like to clarify with the Minister. Singaporean PRs are not allowed to go into the casino unless they pay $100, but foreign workers and domestic home-makers are allowed to go into the casino without paying $100. Is that the case? Because maids are allowed to go into the casino without paying the $100.

It sounds like Mr Chia is equating our domestic home-makers to domestic maids. Is he saying that? It means that he thinks that all our wives at homes who are not working are maids. I would object strongly to that. As I have said, if the maids want to do that, let us not be their nanny.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. Yesterday, in my speech, I mentioned about mandating for the casino operators to implement gaming programmes because I read that Harrah's, which is one of the big players in the industry, have their senior vice president of communications and government relations overseeing the casino operators responsible for gaming programmes. Obviously, they see it as part of their operations. Perhaps, not all the bidders might think this way. Is it not better for us to mandate that, like a gaming programme, in the casino, to educate the public on responsible gaming as the first line of defence for gambling addicts?

We will leave it to the good conscience of the operators to decide what to do. Those who believe that they want to be good corporate citizens and it is their normal duty or even

to do it as a social mission, we should give them the flexibility. But I am not going to put it in the law to say that we must have that social programme.

Sir, I would like to clarify that it is foreign domestic workers, not domestic home-makers.

I thought he was talking about maids. So the maids he talked about are foreign domestic workers, whether we should stop them from going in.

What I mean is: do they need to pay the $100 if they want to go in?

Are they foreign or are they local?

Foreign domestic workers.

The answer is in the law.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

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

Order for Second Reading read.

3.31 pm

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

This Bill seeks to amend the Residential Property Act (RPA) as announced in Parliament by the Minister for National Development on 19th July last year in his Statement on Policy Changes Affecting the Property Market. At that sitting, three key changes involving the RPA were announced:

First, flats in buildings below six levels would no longer be restricted under the RPA; that means with effect from July last year, foreigners could buy such flats without the need to seek approval from the Minister for Law;

Second, to level the playing field, all foreign companies became subject to Qualifying Certificate (QC) requirements if they intended to undertake residential property development. This measure also came into effect in July last year; and

Third, it was announced that after the RPA is amended, the costs of the QC requirements be reduced as follows:

the quantum of the Banker's Guarantee would be lowered from 50% to 10% of the land price; and

the developers would be given greater flexibility and be allowed up to six years to complete the development of the residential land.

Sir, we had a full debate in this House on these and other policy changes announced by the Minister for National Development.

Other amendments

Today, I will move amendments to the Residential Property Act to bring into operation the third key policy change mentioned earlier as well as other more

Refining the safeguards to prevent developers from speculating in land

First, as part of safeguards to prevent developers from speculating in residential land, a foreign developer who currently applies for a Qualifying Certificate to develop residential land, ie, a QC holder has to furnish a Banker's Guarantee of 50% of the land price. If, for example, the QC holder breaches the condition prohibiting it from disposing of the land in a vacant or undeveloped state without the prior approval of the Controller of Residential Property, the Banker's Guarantee will be forfeited.

As I had mentioned earlier, we will be lowering the Banker's Guarantee amount to just 10% of the land price. This will reduce business costs for developers. To ensure that there is effective deterrence when the Banker's Guarantee quantum is lowered to 10%, we will be imposing a financial penalty on a QC holder found to be in breach of the condition that he is not to sell the land in a vacant or undeveloped state. The financial penalty imposed is capped at 50% of the land price and will take into account any Banker's Guarantee which has been forfeited.

Sir, as an additional measure, the Registrar of Titles will be empowered to enter a notice in the land register to alert persons dealing with the QC holder that the QC holder is prohibited from selling the residential land in a vacant or undeveloped state.

In short, we will be moving towards a more targeted approach where we lower the business cost for QC holders while ensuring sufficient measures to deter speculation in undeveloped land.

Streamline procedures for Singapore entities with clearance certificates

Second, we have streamlined the procedure for a Singapore company when it applies for a clearance certificate from the Controller of Residential Property. Presently, a Singapore company applying for a clearance certificate is required to amend its memorandum or articles of association, and to submit a list of its members and directors containing particulars of their nationality. We have reviewed the requirements and are satisfied that it is sufficient for a Singapore company to submit a list of its members and directors containing particulars of their nationality. We will do away with the requirement to amend the memorandum or articles of association, thus reducing red tape and business costs without a loss of effectiveness. A consequential amendment will be made to section 34 of the Companies Act following the repeal and re-enactment of sections 10 and 14 of the RPA.

We will also streamline the procedure for Singapore entities, ie, companies, limited liability partnerships and societies, that have been issued with clearance certificates. Currently, in order to ensure that these Singapore entities remain eligible to acquire and retain residential properties, they are required to file annual statutory declarations, declaring the particulars of all their members, directors, partners or trustees, as the case may be. The proposed amendment will dispense with these annual filings. Instead, these Singapore entities will only be required to obtain the approval of the Controller (if they do not own any restricted residential property), or the Minister (if they own restricted residential property) before they cease to be Singapore entities.

To ensure that there is sufficient deterrence to achieve compliance after

In other words, we will take the same targeted approach as the earlier amendment, ie, we lower business costs for those who comply with the requirements, but punish more severely the violators.

Review penalty for holding property in trust for foreign persons

Third, we have reviewed the penalty imposed for holding restricted residential property on trust for non-approved foreign persons. This is a serious breach. The current penalty, which is a fine not exceeding $5,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, does not adequately reflect this. Hence, the Bill seeks to increase the maximum fine that can be imposed for such an offence to $50,000. In addition, the Court will be empowered to make a confiscation order in respect of benefits derived by any person convicted of an offence under this provision. The stiffer penalty will ensure that there is effective deterrence to prevent attempts to circumvent the law through an arrangement where a Singaporean buys restricted residential property on trust for a foreigner.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Key changes as announced in Minister for National Development's statementtechnical amendments to improve the overall administration of the Act. I will now elaborate on these amendments. these changes, we will increase the ceiling for the fine from $5,000 to $50,000 for offenders who own restricted residential property but who fail to seek approval before they cease to be Singapore entities.

Sir, the property market welcomes the amendments to the Residential Property Act, as it relaxes the restrictions on the foreign ownership of residential property, reduces business cost and imposes heavier penalties for offences committed under the Act. This relaxation is seen by industry stakeholders as complementing

With the amendments, foreigners are now - for all intents and purposes - allowed to own all types of residential properties in Singapore, except landed homes for which approval is still required from the Controller of Residential Property. The previous restriction which prohibited foreigners from owning landed properties as well as apartments below six storeys, unless they have condominium status, was put in place some 30 years ago in the 1970s when the Residential Property Act first came into force. The policy intent was to safeguard certain categories of properties from excessive foreign ownership and prevent them from driving up their prices beyond the reach of Singaporeans.

But times have changed. Those earlier concerns which were the genesis of the original Act have subsided in importance against the backdrop of new economic realities. Our size and limited pool of labour impose limits to our growth. Most people therefore accept, perhaps grudgingly, that we need to supplement this local limited workforce with enough critical mass to draw a pool of self-sustaining high-tech and knowledge-intensive industries, to capitalise on our own niches, and to ensure our continued prosperity.

But the competition for global talent has intensified, and such talent is highly mobile. Urban sociological research has shown that the quality of life in general is an important draw for such talent. Hence, it is vital that talented foreigners wishing to set up home in Singapore be able to enjoy as many housing options as possible to suit their varied lifestyles and preferences.

From that perspective, Sir, I fully support this Bill. But I would like to raise three issues in relation to the Bill for the Minister's further consideration.

First, lifting foreign ownership restriction for good-class bungalows. Sir, I had asked the Minister for Law in May 2005 if the Ministry would consider lifting restrictions that bar foreigners from purchasing landed residential properties in Singapore since such restrictions have already been lifted for Sentosa Cove.

Sir, the Minister had then noted that Sentosa Cove was given this special exemption as it is considered a unique world-class integrated waterfront development. He noted that it was the intention of the Government to create a niche for the international clientele wishing to buy these waterfront homes and help develop Sentosa Cove to its fullest potential as a world-class development.

Sir, I note the need to strike a balance between keeping landed properties affordable for Singaporeans and attracting foreign talent and investors to our shores to make Singapore truly an attractive global city for investors.

Based on feedback from the real estate industry, there is considerable interest in good class bungalows from foreigners looking to invest and live in Singapore. They wish to buy homes which are commensurate with their lifestyle and preferences back in their home country.

Hence, may I urge the Ministry to consider lifting the ownership restrictions for good class bungalows altogether, of which Sentosa Cove in reality is a subset. The argument that good class bungalows are very limited - there being only 39 good class bungalow areas with an estimated current total stock of some 2,500 units - and hence ought to be safeguarded for Singaporeans does not hold, since Sentosa Cove properties which are fully available to foreigners under some conditions would be equally limited. There is a need to regularise the policy.

Second, new housing forms. Clause 4 of the Bill states that foreigners are allowed to purchase any residential property that is not a landed dwelling house. It is conceivable that new housing forms would be developed over time to meet the changing needs and aspirations of home purchasers. Recent new housing forms include strata bungalows and cluster housing, which essentially share common facilities such as swimming pools and tennis courts, and the owners of these properties own a share of the common property, much like condominiums.

Under the present Bill, it is not clear if foreigners can purchase such properties. Are they considered condominiums since their legal interest in the property is similar to condominiums or are they considered as landed properties for which there is restriction on foreign ownership?

Hence, I would like to ask the Ministry to periodically review new housing forms that may come up and clarify if they are subject to foreign ownership restrictions, if this is not evident. Additionally, the Ministry should also consider lifting foreign ownership restrictions on such properties, if there are no compelling reasons not to do so.

Third, harsher penalties. The Bill has increased 10-fold the penalties imposed for those caught trying to buy a landed home as a nominee of a foreigner from $5,000 and jail term of up to three years to $50,000 with a similar jail term of up to three years. Furthermore, the amendments will allow the Government to confiscate any financial benefits of or derived from the property. I would like to ask the Minister whether this implies that there are indeed a relatively sizable number of such offenders every year. On average, how many of such cases are there per year and has anyone been sent to jail for such an offence?

I would also like to ask the Minister if the Ministry knows for what purpose these properties have been illegally bought on behalf of the foreigners. Are they subsequently occupied by the foreigner's family members or for the purpose of investment or trading?

Additionally, do these offences primarily relate to conventional terraces, semi-detached houses and bungalows, or do they also include good class bungalows?

Whilst I agree with the harsher penalties to deter those who try to circumvent the law, I would like to urge the Ministry to evaluate the reasons for such offences and determine if there is a need to review the policies and circumstances under which approval can be given for the purchase of a landed home by a foreigner.

Sir, I support the amendments made to the RPA as they clearly complement our current drive to develop Singapore into a city that will be exciting to the global talent and investors we seek to attract and retain. In line with this, Sir, I urge the Ministry to further consider relaxing the restrictions

the Government's efforts to attract and anchor global talent in Singapore.

on foreign ownership in respect of good class bungalows and also to regularly review the Act to take into account new housing forms that may emerge so as to make the Act relevant to the priorities and realities of the times.

With these comments, Sir, I support the Bill.

Sir, I thank Mayor Amy Khor for her support of the Bill. She makes three points.

The first point concerns good class bungalows in Singapore. She argues for the lifting of restrictions on foreigners buying good class bungalows in Singapore and she premises her argument on what we have done in Sentosa Cove. But, Sir,

Indeed, there is ample housing on the Singapore mainland for foreigners, even the better endowed ones, to have a choice in Singapore mainland, including, of course, luxurious penthouses and other apartments of varying sizes in various districts. So, I think there is enough choice. Let us keep that balance. Because, as Dr Amy Khor has rightly mentioned, it is a matter of balance. Whilst we want to attract and root foreign talents here, we also have to take into account the fact that Singaporeans do also want an adequate supply of housing and, in particular, landed properties.

The other question she asked was new housing forms. When new housing forms emerge, we will consider whether or not to lift restrictions on them. But now, I think, the categorisations are quite

The third point is on whether there is a plethora of many cases concerning Singaporeans who stand as nominees and hold properties on trust for foreigners. There have not been many cases. So far, there have been only two reported cases. It is not because of the large number of cases out there that we are amending the law. But the current punishment of $5,000 is, indeed, very low. So we are raising the punishment to $50,000. And more importantly, we are also sending a stronger signal so that any ill-gotten gains, including a Singaporean who may be holding the property on trust for a foreign person, if the Public Prosecutor sees the need to do it and makes out a case, then, the Public Prosecutor can apply to the court to also have that property or the proceeds representing the property, should there be a sale, confiscated.

Sir, these are the points I want to make.

we have explained before in this House and also publicly that Sentosa Cove is in a class of its own. In fact, she used the word "unique", and, indeed, it is unique because for Sentosa Cove, we have taken a liberal approach, since it is a unique integrated waterfront development with complementary recreational facilities located on an offshore island. And the purpose really is to attract a clientele, both local and, of course, foreigners, who desire the lifestyle that is found in other places in the world. So we have made that concession, based on these special premises which do not apply to land in Singapore, including good class bungalows. Good class bungalows may be bigger, more expensive or, indeed, more exclusive, but they are still part of the category of landed properties in Singapore. As Mayor Amy Khor knows, we have been very strict on that because we all know Singaporeans cherish landed property - they value land - and there is limited supply. So I think we should not cross that line. Let us keep the principle and keep the concession only to unique projects like Sentosa.clear. So all the other categories of housing which are in existence in Singapore have been clarified. Basically, we just lifted restrictions on flats below six storeys, ie, from 19th July 2005. For the other forms of housing, including strata titled landed housing in cluster developments, those remain restricted.

Sir, a point of clarification. I would like to note that while Sentosa Cove is a unique development, so are many other properties in Singapore itself, because really every property is unique, different, and heterogeneous, and so would be good class bungalows.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, if it were so for Sentosa Cove, because it is termed unique as the Government sees it, and it is to attract international clientele, whether the Ministry would then consider relaxing the restrictions on other unique developments

that may arise, ie, similar developments which offer unique lifestyle preferences, and so on, that would also attract international clientele.

Of course, every property is unique in a general sense - the facing is different, the facade is different, the heights are different. I think Dr Amy Khor cannot stretch that term too far. But Sentosa is unique in the Singapore context. It is offshore; it is in a setting where there are waterfront bungalows; the lifestyle offered is unique. So, for that reason, we are prepared to lift the restrictions.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

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

Order for Second Reading read.

3.53 pm

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

Background

This Bill amends the Accountants Act to enable accountants to form Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) for public accountancy services.

The LLP business structure was introduced in April 2005 when the Limited Liability Partnerships Act was passed. This new business form is now available to most businesses and the take-up has been encouraging. From 11th April 2005 to 1st January 2006, a total of 947 LLPs were registered with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA).

To enable the accounting profession to have the option of adopting the LLP structure as a vehicle for providing their services in Singapore, the Accountants Act has to be amended. Currently, public accountants can choose to operate as sole proprietors, ordinary partnerships or accounting corporations. The new LLP option will enable accountants to form structures that provide them with limited liability similar to companies, while preserving flexibility similar to "partners" in a partnership. As accounting firms expand globally, the LLP option will be particularly relevant as a partner operating in one region would no longer have to be held accountable on an unlimited basis for liabilities arising from the actions of another partner operating in another region, simply because they belong to the same accounting partnership.

On an individual basis, however, a public accountant will remain professionally accountable for each audit he performs. A public accountant in an accounting LLP will therefore be held to the same standards of professional conduct and competence as a public accountant in an ordinary accounting partnership, including unlimited personal liability, for his own wrongful acts or omissions.

LLPs for accountants have already been introduced in other countries like the UK, Jersey and US-Delaware where the response and feedback has been positive.

Main amendments to the Accountants Act

First, the Accountants Act is amended to specify that Accounting LLPs shall abide by the requirements laid out in the LLP Act and all other legislation applicable to LLPs. For instance, an accounting LLP and all other LLPs will be required to have at least two partners and lodge an annual declaration of solvency with the Registrar of LLPs.

Second, this Bill proposes that Accounting LLPs shall be subject to the same standards of governance, professional conduct and administrative care as are required of Accounting Firms (namely sole proprietorships and partnerships) and Accounting Corporations under the Accountants Act. For example, similar to other business structures providing public accountancy services, an Accounting LLP must be managed by one or more partners who are public accountants ordinarily resident in Singapore. Accounting LLPs must also be overseen by the Public Accountants Oversight Committee (the PAOC) of ACRA in the provision of public accountancy services. The PAOC shall have the authority to investigate any complaint made against an Accounting LLP and institute disciplinary proceedings, if necessary. In addition, Accounting LLPs shall be subject to the same complaint and disciplinary processes, penalties and restrictions on employing disqualified persons as Accounting Firms and Accounting Corporations.

Finally, since partners of Accounting LLPs will enjoy limited liability similar to shareholders in Accounting Corporations, Accounting LLPs will also be subject to the investor and creditor safeguards applicable to Accounting Corporations. In particular, all Accounting LLPs will be

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, Sir, allowing the formation of Accounting LLPs will facilitate the expansion and internationalisation of accounting services from Singapore. This will complement and further our strategy to develop Singapore into a services hub and a leading jurisdiction for business.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Sir, I shall now highlight the main amendments proposed in the Bill. required to maintain a minimum capital base of $50,000 and secure professional indemnity insurance of at least $1 million.

3.55 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, speaking on this Bill, I would like to, first, declare my interest that I am a member of the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA).

I am delighted that one of the key provisions of this Bill is for public accountants to form LLPs. This was indicated at the ICPAS/ACRA seminar held in the calendar quarter of last year. And the Government, by provision of this Bill, is delivering on its promise.

Sir, in going over the provisions of this amendment Bill, I have a few comments and concerns which I would like the Minister of State, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, to address. First is with respect to clause 9(c) of the Bill. I would like the Minister of State to clarify why the clause, inter alia, should prescribe that at least two-thirds of the partners in an accounting LLP should be public accountants. While this requirement may mirror that of some professional bodies of certain European countries, I feel that such a qualified

My next point, Sir, pertains to clause 18 which sets out the amendment of section 28. It prescribes, among others, that one of the requirements of setting up or converting into a LLP is a minimum level of professional indemnity insurance or PII. It appears that the PII requirement is on the same scale as that for public accounting corporations, or PACs. It is my understanding that there are only a handful of PACs which

majority provision may hamper the development of strong multi-disciplinary practices, such as the combination of accounting and legal practices which would be beneficial for Singapore. I would, therefore, advocate instead that a simple majority, ie, just above 50%, should be adequate to ensure that public accountants control the accounting LLPs.

currently number less than 10. I have been told that a major reason for a lack of willingness for a CPA firm to convert to LLP is because of this specific requirement. Consequently, I imagine that many small to medium sized accounting firms may not want to convert to LLP because of this requirement.

I understand, from a legislative viewpoint, that professional indemnity insurance is required and important to safeguard the public interest as under a LLP, all partners would generally enjoy limited liability. A suggestion I would like to make is for the level of the professional indemnity insurance requirement to be lowered. A tiered insurance requirement could perhaps be stipulated. This would make it more appealing for smaller accounting firms to consider embracing LLP while at the same time ensure that the public interest is adequately protected.

The next several comments pertain to the changes provided in this amendment Bill relative to the umbrella statute for LLPs, ie, the LLP Act of 2005. This is

Sir, it is stipulated under section 25(3) of the LLP Act that limited partners in a LLP are entitled to inspect the accounts of the LLP. This provision appears to be mandatory and not subject to the terms of a partnership agreement unlike certain other provisions. I understand that some accounting firms currently do have salaried partners and they may not be entitled to inspect the partnership accounts under the terms of "partnership". If a firm converts to LLP, it may no longer be possible to exclude such salaried partners from exercising their rights to inspect accounts under section 25(3) of the LLP Act 2005. The breach of this provision is an offence. I wonder whether this poses a serious issue for the accounting profession in terms of getting accounting firms to convert to LLPs, or to set up as LLPs.

Next, Sir, LLPs need to appoint a manager, as provided for by section 23 of the LLP Act. This manager has certain statutory duties, such as lodging an annual declaration of solvency or insolvency, lodging changes of particulars with the Registrar and several others. The manager has personal liability for these obligations. Unfortunately, the definition of "manager" under the LLP Act is very wide, and I quote, "The manager is any person (whether or not a partner of the LLP) who is concerned in or takes part in the management of the LLP (whether or not his particulars or consent to act are lodged with the Registrar)." I feel that the use of the term "manager" is too broad and unfortunate and could lead to a confusion as to whether other managers who are not appointed to perform the statutory functions of the manager of a

The accounting profession needs to consider their current application of the term "manager" and has to be clear that no one, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is caught by this wide definition. The professional managers who do fee-earning work rather than take part in management should not, in my view, be caught by this definition. What is less clear is the general manager and administrative manager, finance manager or other manager who may be concerned with or is taking part in the management of the LLP as well.

My final comment, Sir, is that while this Amendment Bill primarily provides for the accounting profession to form or convert to LLPs, what may be missing is the provision to address specific features of the LLP's structure under the LLP Act which may not be suitable for the accounting profession. In this regard, the accounting profession should make a study of the LLP Act of 2005, as was the case with the legal profession, and consider what changes perhaps could be made to their own Accountants Act to address some of these issues relating to LLPs which are unique to the accounting profession.

On that note, Sir, I support the Amendment Bill.

made clear by the new section 30A addition as provided in this Amendment Bill which states that nothing in the Accountants Act shall affect the operation of the LLP Act of 2005 in relation to an accounting LLP.LLP are or are not caught by this wide definition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank Mr Ahmad Magad for his support of the Bill.

I would like now to address his questions in turn. He asked whether the two-thirds requirement is actually necessary. Sir, the requirement for at least two-thirds of the partners in an Accounting LLPs to be public accountants is the same as that for accounting partnerships and accounting corporations.

Sir, we would be cautious in making any changes to the requirement at the start so that Accounting LLPs do not inadvertently bring the integrity of the accounting profession into question. That said, the requirement could obviously, as in all regulations, be reviewed later in accordance with changing business conditions and public expectations.

As regards professional indemnity insurance, or PII, let me note that Accounting LLPs, like accounting corporations, enjoy limited liability. Hence, the PII is required for Accounting LLPs to safeguard clients and creditors' interest given the limited liability to be enjoyed by such accounting entities. This is also the case for the legal LLPs. The amount of the PII must necessarily be driven by the coverage required to safeguard public interest, and not the objective of encouraging the formation of Accounting LLPs per se. Again, the aim of this Bill is to provide an additional structure by which accountants can choose to provide their professional services. It seeks neither to encourage or discourage accountants from setting up Accounting LLPs. That said, again, a review will, however, not be ruled out in future.

Mr Ahmad Magad noted that under the LLP Act, all partners are required to ensure that proper accounts are kept for the LLP. While a LLP is not required to file accounts with ACRA, this oversight by all partners helps to safeguard creditors and clients' interest. It is the responsibility of each and every partner of the LLP to ensure that proper accounts are kept. The criminal liability is imposed on the LLP and every partner if proper accounts are not kept. Therefore, it is fair and appropriate that every partner should have access to the accounts so that they may perform the necessary due diligence.

Finally, on his point about the definition of a "manager". Although the title "manager" is commonly used today, it has to be understood here within the specific context of the Act. There should not be any concern of ambiguity in this instance, as section 23(2) stipulates that "every LLP shall ensure that the particulars of every person who acts as manager of the LLP and his consent to act as such are lodged with the Registrar". So it would be clear to any LLP who the manager is for statutory purposes as the

Sir, I believe I have answered his questions.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mrs Lim Hwee Hua].

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

A large majority, as opposed to a simple majority, will provide additional assurance and help to maintain public and business confidence in the professionalism and credibility of Accounting LLPs, just as the rule does for accounting partnerships and corporations. I should also add that this requirement is similar to that for other professions like the architects and the professional engineers. The Architects Act, for example, requires that two-thirds of the shareholding of the company must be owned by allied professionals. In fact, the rule for the legal profession is even more stringent where 100% of the partners of a legal partnership or LLP must be lawyers. LLP will have to identify and lodge this information with the Registrar.

Resolved,

"That Parliament do now adjourn to Friday, 17th February 2006." - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Adjourned accordingly at

Eleven minutes past Four o'clock pm

to Friday, 17th February 2006.

asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what percentage of officers in the various Government-related boards, such as the Economic Development Board, are scholars; (b) how many of these scholars are assigned to administrative positions that are not in line with their undergraduate training; and (c) will there be any steps taken to match the training of these scholars to the job scopes assigned to them, after the completion of their studies, so as to ensure that their talents are not wasted.

In the civil service, 10.6% of Division 1 officers are scholars (excluding the Education Service). For the Education Service, 3.7% of our teachers (including trainee teachers) are scholars. For the statutory boards that give out a large number of scholarships*, on average, 16% of their Division 1 officers are scholars.

The majority of public sector scholarships are aimed at grooming talent for policy development, operational and administrative positions in the agencies. For these jobs, we expect the undergraduate courses to provide them with sufficient grounding to perform their first jobs competently. These scholars are generally allowed to choose from a wide range of courses so that they can come back to take up a range of duties, and not just duties specific to their course of study. Subsequently, if the scholars need to undertake duties or roles that require more specialised or professional knowledge, they may be sent for postgraduate studies in the relevant fields. Some scholarships are for specialist careers. The terms and conditions of such scholarships and the type of work that the scholars will be assigned to during their careers are carefully conveyed to the scholars before they take up the scholarships. For example, in the Urban Redevelopment Authority, the architecture scholars are deployed to do urban design work upon their return. In the Defence Science and Technology Agency, scholars will be assigned to engineering/technical positions in their first two to three years.

The public sector invests heavily in scholarships as a means to attract a fair share of talent and to develop the future pipeline of leaders and professional talent. Public sector agencies are mindful that scholars are well developed and deployed, to reap the full benefits of the investment.

* The statutory boards are the Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA), Economic Development Board (EDB), Infocomm Development Authority (IDA), International Enterprise Singapore (IE Singapore), Jurong Town Corporation (JTC), Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA).

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many overseas universities have been invited to set up joint programmes in Singapore; (b) how many of them have pulled out of Singapore after failing to maintain and sustain their presence; and (c) what are the reasons for their failing to maintain and sustain their presence in Singapore.

We have successfully invited many overseas universities to establish a presence in Singapore. The EDB has attracted 16 leading foreign universities from all over the world to Singapore, with courses covering a diverse range of disciplines. Of these 16 universities, some, for example, INSEAD (France) and Chicago Graduate Business School (USA) have decided to establish independent branch campuses in Singapore. Others, such as MIT (USA) and Waseda University (Japan), have partnered with our local Institutes of Higher Learning (IHL) to offer joint programmes. The National University of Singapore and the Nanyang Technological University have also forged partnerships with about 20 other institutions around the world to offer joint programmes in Singapore. The University of New South Wales is in the process of setting up a comprehensive university here. The EDB is continuing in discussions with other renowned universities around the world to set up their presence in Singapore.

To date, none of the overseas universities with a presence in Singapore have pulled out. They have been working closely with the EDB and our IHLs to maintain and grow their presence here. For example, INSEAD has expanded its campus in 2005 to house more faculty members and students.