Hansard, 2006-04-03

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) Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim 14 Mar 15 Mar 20 Mar 20 Mar 28 Mar 28 Mar Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 15 Mar 18 Mar 22 Mar 23 Mar Mr Chew Heng Ching 16 Mar 16 Mar 28 Mar 04 Apr 12 Apr 16 Apr 20 Apr 26 Apr 01 May 03 May Mr Mah Bow Tan 17 Mar 19 Mar 25 Mar 30 Mar Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 18 Mar 18 Mar 31 Mar 02 Apr 03 Apr 06 Apr Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 18 Mar 19 Mar 26 Mar 29 Mar Mr Wong Kan Seng 18 Mar 18 Mar 13 Apr 16 Apr Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong 19 Mar 23 Mar Dr Lee Boon Yang 19 Mar 23 Mar 25 Mar 31 Mar Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon 19 Mar 23 Mar Mdm Halimah Yacob 21 Mar 24 Mar Dr Wang Kai Yuen 22 Mar 25 Mar Mr Lee Kuan Yew 25 Mar 29 Mar 06 Apr 07 Apr Mr Lim Hng Kiang 25 Mar 29 Mar Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng 25 Mar 27 Mar 01 Apr 10 Apr Column: 1677Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 25 Mar 30 Mar 31 Mar 02 Apr Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 26 Mar 30 Mar Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 26 Mar 29 Mar 06 Apr 10 Apr Mr Inderjit Singh 27 Mar 29 Mar 31 Mar 02 Apr 03 Apr 07 Apr Mr Lawrence Leow Chin Hin 27 Mar 29 Mar Mr Ang Mong Seng 28 Mar 30 Mar Mr Charles Chong 28 Mar 31 Mar Mr Loh Meng See 28 Mar 28 Mar Mr Tan Soo Khoon 29 Mar 05 Apr Dr Geh Min 31 Mar 03 Apr Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee 31 Mar 02 Apr Mr Lim Swee Say 31 Mar 02 Apr Dr Ng Eng Hen 31 Mar 02 Apr Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 31 Mar 02 Apr Encik Yatiman Yusof 31 Mar 02 Apr Mr Goh Chok Tong 01 Apr 08 Apr 12 Apr 18 Apr 19 Apr 22 Apr Mr Teo Chee Hean 01 Apr 02 Apr 03 Apr 03 Apr Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed 01 Apr 08 Apr Mr Alexander Chan Meng Wah 03 Apr 03 Apr Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung 03 Apr 03 Apr Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 03 Apr 05 Apr Mr S Iswaran 04 Apr 05 Apr Mr Wee Siew Kim 05 Apr 08 Apr 09 Apr 11 Apr Dr Tan Sze Wee 08 Apr 15 Apr Mdm Cynthia Phua 10 Apr 13 Apr Mr Chay Wai Chuen 11 Apr 13 Apr Mr Seng Han Thong 12 Apr 18 Apr

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

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

14th March,2006 (1) The Supplementary Supply (FY 2005) Bill 16th March,2006 (1) The Supply Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will provide an update on the talks with Malaysia regarding the proposed new bridge across the Causeway.

Mr Speaker, Sir, bilateral negotiations on Malaysia's proposal to construct a full straight bridge to replace the Causeway are ongoing. Minister for Foreign Affairs, George Yeo has clarified Singapore's position with regard to the full straight bridge in this House on several occasions, most recently on 2nd March 2006. Singapore's position remains unchanged. There are huge financial costs and no significant benefits for Singapore to construct the full straight bridge to replace the Causeway.

Our senior officials have met five times to discuss the details of this balance of benefits. Although there have been many reports in the Malaysian media on the details of the ongoing bilateral negotiations, Singapore has adhered to the decision taken jointly by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi not to publicise the details of the ongoing negotiations. As such, I am unable to disclose any details of the discussions to this House. Suffice to say, our senior officials have had constructive discussions and they have made good progress. But there are a number of important related issues which both sides would need to discuss in further detail.

Singapore has been surprised by some of the remarks on the bridge issue and bilateral relations attributed to Malaysian politicians and leaders by the Malaysian media even as bilateral negotiations are still ongoing. For example, on 10th March 2006, Deputy Works Minister Datuk Mohd Zin bin Mohamed was reported to have said that Malaysia had "symbolically launched" construction works of the "scenic bridge" or half-bridge. On 11th March 2006, DPM Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak was reported in the Malaysian media as saying that Malaysia would proceed with the construction of the "scenic bridge". On the same day, Malaysian Minister of Works Datuk Samy Vellu was quoted in Bernama as saying that he had asked the contractor to continue the work without any disruption.

Such remarks as reported by the Malaysian media are cause for some concern as they were made even as the

Members will remember that when Malaysian Foreign Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid and Minister George Yeo met during the MFA-Wisma Putra Game in Singapore from 4-5th February 2006, they agreed that both sides should continue with the negotiations for a full bridge. Wisma Putra had also previously clarified to us in a Third Person Note (TPN) that Malaysia remained committed to negotiations for a full bridge. However, the statements by Malaysian leaders on the construction on the "scenic" or half-bridge contradict what Wisma Putra had earlier communicated to us. This is why Singapore has sent Malaysia several TPNs seeking clarification on Malaysia's position on the "scenic bridge" or half-bridge. Malaysia has yet to reply formally to these TPNs.

However, in the spirit of good neighbourliness, Singapore is prepared to consider Malaysia's proposal to replace the Causeway with a full straight bridge if there is a balance of benefits for both sides. Senior Officials from Singapore and Malaysia were in Kuala Lumpur discussing the possibility of Singapore and Malaysia cooperating to construct a full straight bridge. Such continued public comments on Malaysia's intention to proceed with the half-bridge will not be helpful to the ongoing bilateral negotiations on the full bridge.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister two supplementary questions. The Malaysian DPM Datuk Seri Najib has been quoted in the press as saying that it is within Malaysia's right to build the bridge within their territory. What is Singapore's position regarding this?

I would also like to ask the Minister what is the impact or implication for Singapore if Malaysia were to go ahead to build the so-called "scenic" half-bridge within its territory.

Raymond Lim Siang Keat: Mr Speaker, Sir, this House may be aware of reports in the Malaysian media regarding comments by Malaysian leaders, including

On 18th March 2006, the NST reported DPM Najib as saying, "This is our right. Nobody can question or deny us this right as a sovereign nation. The Government is committed to building the bridge." Singapore does not accept that Malaysia has the right to demolish its side of the Causeway unilaterally and replace it with a half-bridge. This position has been repeatedly conveyed to Malaysia, through diplomatic channels, on a number of occasions. We have taken this position not lightly but after seeking expert legal advice.

Any major work related to the Causeway on which also are sited the pipelines supplying water to Singapore will affect both Singapore and Malaysia in a variety of areas of vital importance to both countries. This is why Singapore cannot accept that Malaysia has the right to unilaterally replace its side of the Causeway with a half bridge.

Members will recall that in 2003 Malaysia had applied to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to stop Singapore from undertaking reclamation works within Singapore's sovereign territory. Malaysia's action was guided by the principle that any major work in the Johor Straits, even if done within the sovereign territory of Singapore, could affect Malaysia. Similarly, we have reminded Malaysia that any decision to demolish the Causeway has to comply with the principles enunciated in the

DPM Najib, which Dr Amy Khor alluded to just now, on the continued construction of the half-bridge within Malaysia's territory. Recent public comments by various Malaysian quarters reaffirm Malaysia's intention to proceed with the construction of the half-bridge and thereafter to demolish its half of the Causeway unilaterally and Malaysia claims that it has the sovereign right to do so. ITLOS Order and must also be fully consistent with the requirements of international law. Singapore has stated its position clearly and consistently and hope that Malaysia will understand Singapore's concerns and position. As I have mentioned, Singapore has asked Malaysia to clarify its position officially with regard to the half-bridge. In the meantime, Singapore will continue negotiating with Malaysia on a possible full bridge to replace the Causeway based on balance of benefits.

Sir, it is puzzling, on the one hand, we have on-going negotiations and, on the other hand, we read in the newspapers that the Malaysian government intends to carry on to build the half bridge first, and later on the full bridge, regardless of Singapore's position. Can I ask the Second Minister whether, in all the negotiations with Malaysia, Malaysia has indicated that it understands and accepts the principle of a balance of benefits and that it is prepared to hold off its decision to build the bridge until a full agreement is reached between both sides?

As I mentioned just now, I am not at liberty to disclose the details of the negotiations because Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi have agreed to keep this off the media. But, with regard to the Member's point whether this point on the balance of benefits has been put across and registered with the Malaysian side, in fact, when SM Goh met with PM Abdullah Badawi in their earlier meetings on how to proceed with bilateral issues, they have agreed on two principles. One, on the existing issues, including the bridge, they should be done with a balance of benefits that both sides should have mutual benefits. Second, we should not allow these old issues to hold back future cooperation. These are the two underlying principles.

2. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assessment of the bilateral relations between Singapore and Thailand in view of the current developments in Thailand.

Mr Speaker, Sir,

Singapore-Thailand relations are excellent. The relationship is longstanding and multi-faceted. The close friendship between the two countries was forged in the 1980s when Singapore stood with Thailand over the Cambodian issue. This friendship continued, stretching over decades of cooperation with successive Thai Governments. Political links are excellent at the highest level. In January 2005, President S R Nathan made the first ever State Visit to Thailand by a Singapore Head of State. President Nathan was received most graciously by the Royal Family, the Thai Government and the people of Thailand.

Singapore and Thailand have strong economic ties. In 2005, bilateral trade between Singapore and Thailand amounted to S$28.2 billion, an increase of almost 16% over 2004. Thailand was Singapore's 8th largest trading partner in 2005, while Singapore was Thailand's 5th largest trading partner in 2004. Singapore is also one of the top five investors in Thailand from 2003-2004.

Mr Speaker, Sir, institutional links between the civil services are well established under the Thailand-Singapore Civil Service Exchange Programme (CSEP), which was mooted by then PM Goh Chok Tong and then Thai PM Chavalit Yongchaiyudh in 1997. Educational ties are also growing, with extensive teacher and student exchanges. Our cooperation at the people-to-people level is also strong. This is evident in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami disaster

Against the backdrop of such excellent bilateral relations, it is unfortunate that there have been attempts by some groups in Thailand to drag Singapore into that country's internal politics. All sorts of allegations were made against Singapore and our relations with Thailand. These allegations are without basis. Where necessary, the Singapore Government will set the record straight and address gross misrepresentations.

Singapore is a friend of Thailand. A prosperous and peaceful Thailand is important for Singapore and ASEAN. The Singapore Government has worked hard with the various Thai governments over the years to establish a mutually-beneficial relationship. In particular, we have encouraged our companies, including our GLCs, to seriously consider Thailand as one of its key investment options. And the Thais themselves have encouraged Singapore to invest in Thailand. This is also why Temasek went ahead with the purchase of Shin Corporation, which is a purely commercial deal.

We hope the Thai people will resolve their differences peacefully. This would be good for Thailand as well as for the region as a whole. I note that elections have just taken place in Thailand yesterday. We hope the elections will help in the resolution of the current situation in Thailand.

where Thais extended a helping hand to distressed Singaporeans. On our part, Singapore also responded swiftly in the tsunami relief efforts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have understood the good long-term bilateral relations between Singapore and Thailand. However, given the circumstances, as what the Minister has described, certain groups in Thailand are against Singapore, especially in the recent fiasco about the purchase of Shin Corporation leading to the burning of the

effigies of our Prime Minister and Mrs Lee, I wonder whether this opposition to Singapore's good relations is building up. I would like to know from the Minister what is his projection of the future bilateral relations between Singapore and Thailand and how he sees the current development in which there are some groups which seemingly are getting stronger against Singapore. What is his assessment of that situation?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the key thing to address, first of all, is the point that the Member brought up, and it is an important point: what is the impact on Singapore-Thai relations given the current developments? As I have said, our relationship with Thailand is a strong and durable one and I am confident that the relationship will remain strong. I believe that Thai leaders and government officials understand that the relationship is mutually beneficial. It would be a disservice to present and future generations of Thais and Singaporeans to allow recent events to impact negatively on Singapore-Thailand bilateral relations.

The Singapore Government will continue to work with the Thai government to strengthen bilateral relations for the benefit of our two countries and people.

3. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health whether he will give an update on the hand, foot and mouth disease outbreak and what measures are being taken to prevent infection among children in schools, kindergartens and childcare centres.

4. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Health how dangerous is the resurgence

of the hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) enterovirus-71 strain and what are the steps taken by the Ministry to prevent death from this HFMD virus.

5. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Health (a) how many cases of hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) have been reported over the last six months; (b) if there is any evidence or cause for worry that we may be affected by the enterovirus-71 strain; (c) what precautions has his Ministry, together with other relevant Ministries, taken to prevent the spread of HFMD; and (d) what advice will the Ministry give to parents of young children regarding the HFMD.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I take Question Nos. 3, 4 and 5 together?

Yes.

Mdm Halimah, Dr Lily Neo and Dr Khor have asked for an update and information on the Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD) situation and the measure we should take to manage the disease. Let me first give Members a little background information about this disease. HFMD is a common childhood infection caused by a family of viruses called enterovirus. One member of this family is enterovirus 71 or EV71. HFMD infections are usually mild. Every week, there are between

100 and 500 children who develop the infection. Rarely, when the virus involved is the EV71 virus, the disease can affect the brain or even cause a fatal outcome. Every few years, the EV71 virus will be the predominant virus responsible for most of the cases of HFMD. In 2000 and 2001, it was the predominant strain and caused a total of seven deaths. In 2003, it was again the predominant strain and caused about 65% of the HFMD cases but there were no deaths.

Let me now give an update on the current situation. This year, EV71 is again the predominant strain. In the first 13 weeks of this year, 3,680 cases were reported, which is lower than the 3,901 cases reported for the corresponding period last year. So the weekly average this year has been 283 cases, which is the usual range for this disease. Although the weekly average this year is lower when compared to last year, there was a surge of cases in the week ending 25th March when 785 cases were reported. For the week ending 1st April, the number of cases reported has come down to 721. Most years, including last year, there is a surge of cases between the months of March and June. So the surge in the number of cases is not in itself unusual. Most infections as expected are mild, self limiting, and do not require hospitalisation. Sixty-nine children did require hospitalisation at KK Hospital and NUH but none of them developed severe complications.

We cannot eradicate HFMD but we can slow its spread. The risk of infection spreading can be lowered by good hygiene practices. The single most important measure is hand washing. Although it is a common practice to ask affected children to be excluded from a group setting like a kindergarten or a childcare centre, this measure may not prevent additional cases from occurring, because the virus is excreted by well children for weeks after they have recovered from the HFMD. That is why washing hands is the most important measure in prevention. We have worked closely with MCYS and MOE in educating all childcare, kindergarten and preschool operators on hygiene measures. My Ministry has also alerted doctors to be vigilant for complications from HFMD as the predominant strain this year is the EV71 strain.

Parents and caregivers can play their part too by encouraging good hygiene in children, through proper hand washing.

They should also consult a doctor early if their child is unwell. In addition, they must ensure that the child with HFMD rests at home.

Sir, may I ask the Senior Minister of State how proactive and stringent are kindergartens and schools in identifying children with possible HFMD and in the prevention of the spread of HFMD.

The Senior Minister of State earlier said that there were seven cases of deaths from HFMD in 2000 and 2001. May I ask him what were the causes of deaths at that time and how can we prevent a recurrence?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the cause of death is usually encephalitis, that is inflammation of the brain. Most of the viruses that cause HFMD do not cause this complication. And if it occurs, it is very rare. When it occurs, it is usually associated with EV71. But even then, it is a very rare occurrence. The strain of virus, EV71 virus which affects the brain, again varies from year to year. As I have mentioned, in 2003, EV71 was the predominant strain and there were no cases. But in 2000 and 2001, the strain that occurred caused some complications and so there were seven deaths. This year, the strain so far has not caused any complications.

As for the prevention of hand, foot and mouth disease, the primary way of preventing this disease is hand washing. The reason is that this is a virus that spreads through, what we call, oral-faecal route. As parents - and I notice that all three Members who asked questions are parents - it is hard to imagine that something in the stool of one child would enter the mouth of another child. But the amount of virus required to cause this infection is very small. So if a child or an adult goes to the bathroom and he comes out and does not wash his hands, he

The second important thing is that if you play with these objects or you touch these objects, your hands get contaminated. And if you eat or touch food, then you contaminate the food that you are eating and that is how the virus enters your system. So the second important rule is: you must wash your hands well before you eat. This is something that every child must be taught. This is something every parent has a responsibility to do. And more important, adults must show a good example in hand washing. I hope, through this outbreak, everyone, adults and children, will understand the importance of a simple hygiene measure like washing hands and that this will reduce the spread of the infection significantly.

carries a tiny amount of this virus on his hands. When he touches objects, he contaminates the objects with the virus. That is why the first rule is to try and teach everyone to wash their hands after going to the bathroom.

Sir, I have three questions. I just would like to ask the Senior Minister of State at what point and under what circumstances will the EV71 virus turn deadly. Secondly, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that in certain months, the disease seems to peak. What are the factors causing the disease to escalate in certain months and whether there is any way we can prevent it? Thirdly, there are some parents who are concerned, especially mothers, because when there is an escalation in the number of cases, and even if it is not hand, foot and mouth disease, the childcare centres and kindergartens are worried and they do not take the children. But mothers cannot take leave at short notice. So is there some service that can be provided by the Ministry of Health in

collaboration with some agencies? These mothers cannot automatically take leave and stay at home to take care of their sick child. But, at least, if there is a daycare facility for them to put a sick child, this will be a great help.

There are several important issues that Mdm Halimah has brought up. First is this surge in the number of cases. We do not know why certain months have a higher incidence than other months, but that is a pattern that is noticed. But it does not mean that the virus is more dangerous because there is an increased number of cases in that month. The danger to the child depends on the type of virus, what particular strain causes the HFMD that year. If it is EV71, the risk is higher. But again, if it is EV71, the EV71 strain every year does not have the same risk. As shown in 2003, when EV71 was the strain that caused most of the infections, yet there were no fatalities. So, why in some years the strain causes more complications and in other years, it does not? We do not know.

The next issue that she has brought up is the closure of schools. The closure of schools causes parents quite a lot of disruption because they have to adjust their work schedule and find someone to look after their children. MCYS and the preschools are working with parents to try and minimise this disruption.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if GPs are required to inform MOH if a child or a patient comes down with HFMD and whether they are required to state in their medical certificates (MCs) that a patient has got HFMD, the reason being that I understand that some parents, for various reasons, are actually not informing the schools, and the MCs do not state that the child has HFMD.

Also, I would like to ask the Minister, in view of the fact that this is a recurrent kind of sickness every year, whether the Ministry will consider mounting some kind of public education effort to make sure that every individual knows how to protect himself and the children from HFMD as well as not spreading it to others.

First, the GPs have been instructed to give seven days of MC. This is to ensure that the child has sufficient rest and has recovered from the illness. This is for the benefit of the child. But all the well children who go back to the school continue to spread EV71 virus and they will continue to do so for several weeks. So because they are well and they go back to school, it does not mean that the EV71 virus is prevented from entering the school. That is why hand washing is the mainstay for trying to slow the spread.

On the second issue of putting the diagnosis on an MC, in general, doctors do not indicate the diagnosis on an MC unless it is specifically requested by the parent or the patient. This is because the confidentiality must be preserved. When you write down a diagnosis, you are revealing what the diagnosis is. So the general principle is that in an MC, there is no diagnosis. For example, a worker in one of the companies was ill and came down to see a doctor, and if the medical certificate was to state the diagnosis, then the employer has access to that information. In general, we do not give the employer that information unless there is specific consent from the worker. So the same principle applies everywhere. That is why the diagnosis is not written on the MC.

But I would urge parents to be responsible and keep the child at home and allow the child to rest for seven days because one way of reducing the risk of

any complication occurring is for the child to rest during a viral infection and not be out there playing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Senior Minister of State did not answer my questions at all. Therefore, I will repeat them again. May I ask him what were the causes of deaths of the HFMD cases in 2000 to 2001 and how do you prevent such recurrence. The other question I asked was how proactive and stringent are kindergartens and schools in identifying and preventing the spread of HFMD.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have answered that question. I said that in 2000 and 2001, the complication was encephalitis. Encephalitis is basically brain inflammation. If you have brain inflammation and it is very severe, then the person can have a fatal outcome.

Second, she asked why sometimes they get complications and sometimes they do not get complications. I think I have explained this. It depends on the strain of the virus. The strain of the virus in 2000 and 2001 caused the deaths, but the strain that caused the infection in 2003 did not cause any deaths. And the strain this year so far has not caused any deaths.

With regard to the measures that my Ministry has taken, basically, the measures cover two areas. The first and the most important thing is to promote good public hygiene. And that is why we keep emphasising hand washing. The second is the advice to doctors, parents and schools on how many days a child should rest and having children resting at home. But I want to point out again that

that is not the key measure in preventing the spread of the virus because, even if the child is well and goes back to school for several weeks, the child will still be spreading the virus.

Sir the Senior Minister of State said that after the child has recovered, for the next few weeks, the child would still continue to spread the virus. Should we not quarantine the child for that period until he is fully cured of the virus, so as to stop the spread of the virus? On this matter, could the MCYS help with the subsidy for home medicare?

Sir, the only way to stop the spread of enterovirus in our schools, short of good hand washing measures, is to close down the schools the whole year round. This means that there will be no schooling for children. Many children who have hand, foot and mouth disease have asymptomatic disease. When they go back to school, no one knows that they had the infection because it is asymptomatic. The parents do not know. The children do not know, and they are going to spread the virus in school. If we try to take measures that we learnt from SARS, which is for the spread of droplets, and then try and use these measures in the school setting, thinking that it will work, it will fail. So, if someone wants an ultimate 100% way of ensuring that there is no spread of hand, foot and mouth disease in schools, the only way to get 100% is to close down all the schools, and have all the children stay at home.

Last question, Dr Amy Khor.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry could review this MC policy. Whilst I understand the confidentiality involved, for a contagious disease like hand, foot and mouth disease, though it may not be that deadly, especially for younger children, could the doctors be required, especially for young children, to state the cause for the MC, so that the childcare centres and kindergartens can

take the necessary remedial action? Because this has happened in one of my centres where they were not aware of it. They could not do anything till they found out later that the child actually had hand, foot and mouth disease.

Sir, if the childcare centre requires that parents provide the diagnosis and the parents give their consent to the doctor, the doctor will provide it.

6. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for National Development (a) as the bird flu virus seems to be spreading in Malaysia, what further precautionary steps have been taken to prevent the spread of the virus into Singapore, especially the chicken farms; and (b) what steps will be taken to stop the spread of the virus and protect the public in the event that migratory birds in Singapore are found to be infected with the bird flu virus.

Mr Speaker, Sir, AVA has been in close touch with its Malaysian counterpart, the Department of Veterinary Services (DVS), regarding the avian flu outbreaks in Selangor, Perak and Penang. DVS had taken swift and firm actions to contain the outbreaks and to prevent the other Malaysian states from being affected. Both AVA and DVS are working closely together to strictly enforce the various mutually agreed control measures to ensure that poultry and eggs imported from Malaysia into Singapore are free from bird flu, and safe for consumption. zones at the border. It has stepped up the sampling and testing of imported poultry and eggs to detect any presence of the HPAI virus. AVA is also working with the ICA and Police to curb any smuggling of birds and avian products.

AVA will only allow imports of poultry and eggs from the accredited disease free zones in Malaysia. It will continue to be vigilant and inspect every poultry consignment from these disease free

At our local poultry slaughterhouses and farms, AVA has also intensified inspection and surveillance. Strict bio-security has been mandated as a licensing condition for farms to continue their operations. In addition, AVA is now working with farms to implement bio-segregation to minimise inter-farm contact. This will prevent any spread of infectious agents between the farms.

AVA, NParks and NEA have also stepped up surveillance of wild birds in nature reserves and also stepped up surveillance of urban pest birds. Birds at the Bird Park, Sentosa and Botanic Gardens have been vaccinated. The public should continue to keep their pet birds and poultry caged, and observe personal hygiene after handling birds. As for dead birds found in public places, the public should contact NEA for assistance if they have any doubts about how to dispose of them.

AVA is ready to implement emergency vaccination of poultry in our local farms when there is an imminent threat of avian flu incursion into Singapore, such as when there are rampant outbreaks in areas of close proximity to Singapore, or when there is an imminent threat of a human flu pandemic.

Sir, as the avian flu has become endemic in this region, we need to remain highly vigilant. AVA will continually review the situation and implement further measures when necessary to mitigate the risks of a bird flu incursion into Singapore.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether protocols are actually in place or will be developed

I would also like to ask the Minister whether there are plans among the different agencies to launch a continuous public education effort, using both print and broadcast media, regarding bird flu and the precautions we should take against bird flu, so that Singaporeans will not become complacent whilst we still remain free of bird flu.

together with the other relevant Ministries to disseminate information to the public on the proper response if they were to find dead birds. If so, what are they and what will be the responsibilities of the different agencies, like the AVA and NEA, because I understand that NEA is in charge of certain birds and AVA may be in charge of others? Which is the agency to contact?

Sir, with regard to the specific issue of dead birds, as I explained in my answer, if anybody sees a dead bird or is aware of such a situation, please get in touch with NEA. There is an established protocol/agreement between AVA and NEA that as far as disposal of dead birds is concerned, NEA will be in charge. There are no "ifs" and "buts" about it. It is very clear. However, if somebody is not sure and calls up AVA or some people may even call up the police or whatever, there is also an established protocol to direct such calls to the relevant agency concerned, in this case, the NEA.

As far as nation-wide publicity campaign is concerned, I think the Member may be aware that we have an inter-Ministry Committee on Avian Flu, which is chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Wong Kan Seng. All the relevant Ministries are represented in this Committee - MND/AVA, MOH, MICA, etc. The Committee is now in the process of preparing a publicity programme which will keep Singaporeans informed of avian flu - what are the dangers involved, what are the threat

situations, how is the Government going to respond, and how should citizens respond in such a situation. We have not had a bird flu outbreak in Singapore, but I do not think we can ever discount the fact that such an outbreak will happen in Singapore. So it is important for us to be prepared, not just at the Government level but also at the level of the households, at the industry level, at the level of the importers, and so on. Such a contingency plan is being prepared and relevant publicity will be disseminated in the very near future.

Sir, with regard to chicken farms and especially slaughter house workers, I believe they must be well trained and briefed on the precautionary measures to take. But are they insured under the Workmen's Compensation Act or any other kind of insurance in the event that they are afflicted with the bird flu virus?

Sir, the slaughter houses are, obviously, one very critical part of the production chain. This is the reason why we maintain a very strict vigilance on the bio-security of the slaughter houses and also on the training and hygiene protocols for slaughter house workers. So, if necessary, they will be vaccinated; they will be trained on how to properly handle carcases as they come in, and how to properly do the slaughtering. In any case, if there is an outbreak of the HPAI bird flu and any of them are infected, they will be covered by the relevant insurance plans, including workmen's compensation.

7. Mr Leong Horn Kee asked the Minister for National Development

whether the component cost involving structural works such as the provision of lift landings in void areas and access floors and staircases to lifts, should be excluded from the cost-sharing computations for future Lift Upgrading Programmes (LUP) where the residents have to bear a part of the LUP costs.

Sir, the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) provides residents who live on floors that do not have lift landings with direct lift access. Under the LUP, HDB will either create new lift openings from existing lifts and lift shafts, or add new lifts and lifts shafts to the existing block. The LUP works often involve modifications to the existing lift shaft and the adjacent structural components, such as the parapet walls and floor slabs. Depending on the block configuration, new landing bridges may be constructed to connect the lift and lift shaft to the existing corridors. As these structural modifications are an integral part of the LUP works, their costs should be included in the cost-sharing computation for the LUP.

I would like to reiterate that Government is heavily subsidising the LUP. Residents’ share of the cost is between 5% and 12.5% only, depending on their flat type, and the maximum co-payment is capped at $3,000.

Sir, in cases of several HDB blocks built in the 1980s, where there is a need to slab over quite a big portion for lift access, the cost is therefore very high. These blocks are not able to be funded under the present LUP scheme. Would this not be deemed as a structural or design issue and therefore should be borne by the HDB as part of the cost of HDB in not catering for lift access in those blocks?

Sir, blocks of varying designs and configurations were built by HDB over the years to meet changing needs and preferences of residents at different points in time. For example, as Mr Leong Horn Kee has mentioned, some blocks built in the 1980s do not have common corridors running through the entire block. These are not design deficiencies. These were provided for because, at that time, there were residents who would prefer privacy. Residents who bought flats in such blocks would also have been aware of such structural issues as lift access. So we have to bear in mind the principle behind co-sharing. The principle behind co-sharing is that there must be an issue of shared ownership as well as shared responsibility. I think the residents recognise and probably know some of the limitations. So what we have always told them is that, yes, the cost may be high at this point in time but we will continue to look at new technologies and new possibilities to reduce the cost. But it is not fair for us to say that just because these are structural deficiencies, as Mr Leong put it, it is the responsibility of the HDB and therefore the HDB should bear the cost. While there may be structural deficiencies, there were other benefits which residents enjoyed at that time. They enjoyed privacy whilst other residents had access to lift landings on their own floors.

My question is that, although at the point of purchase when the blocks were built, this may not be structural deficiency, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, but it is now because the demand or desire is for lift access. Now that there is a structural issue, I still feel that the HDB should look into it as a form of payment funded by HDB for the structural cost.

My second point is, if we do not do that, would the Parliamentary Secretary, or even the Minister, admit that over time,

we may have a precinct where certain blocks are able to have LUP with lifts whereas certain blocks are without lifts on every floor, because they are not able to fund enough of it to get lift access. Therefore, there may be a discrepancy within a precinct? Would that be an acceptable position of the HDB to allow this situation to persist?

Sir, we try our best to make sure that we have lift access to every eligible block. The commitment that MND has given is always that we will try to provide lift access to every floor for all eligible blocks. What does "eligible block" mean? We have certain criteria that we have put in place. One of the criteria is that we cannot allow those blocks to have lift access if the cost goes up to $30,000 per benefiting unit. We have to be fair. We look at the cost. Some of it goes up to as high as $80,000 because the so-called structural limitations make the cost to be that high. And it is very unfair for the other situations where the costs are much lower. So, to be fair to most Singaporeans, I think the cap that we have put is at $30,000. As I mentioned earlier, it all depends on what is available and what we can do at that point in time. We try as far as possible to make it available to all eligible blocks. We cannot say for sure that all 100% of HDB blocks can be retrofitted with lift access, but, perhaps, in the future where technology permits and the cost can be brought down, then those blocks may be eligible.

Sir, based on the same principle of the Parliamentary Secretary on lift upgrading, ie, (i) the cost structure is a consideration for co-payment; and (ii) the owners have actually chosen and enjoyed privacy in segmented blocks and, in that case, residents whose units are located on, let us say, the common corridor, or a unit which is located in a segmented block but with the lift landing, and therefore without the

need to incur extra cost for additional structure, then why should they be asked to co-pay as well?

They are not being asked to co-pay. Those residents who already have lift access to their respective floors are not required to take part in the vote. Those who have got lift landings on their floors, they are not required to pay and they are not required to vote. So those who are required to co-pay are those who are going to benefit from any additional work with regard to LUP.

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary: do the residents really have a choice of flat? The flat type is being built, they are asked to select, and they are allocated. Do they really have a choice? And if they do not have a choice and, therefore, they are caught in a situation, should the HDB not take responsibility that they have designed that, and that is a defect in the long term, in terms of mobility?

Sir, we are talking of blocks that were built by HDB some 20 or 30 years ago. We do not know at this point in time whether the issue of them having no choice is really valid, because there is so much mobility among Singaporeans. There is a high possibility that people who are living in those blocks are second-time or third-time owners, and, therefore, they have bought those flats from the resale market, knowing what the configurations of those blocks were, and they were actually making those informed decisions. We do not know at this point in time how many original flat owners are still there. So, therefore, I think it is hard to say at this point in time that HDB should be made responsible for those conditions.

But I think what is important to really take note is that we have to make HDB

dwellers or lessees co-pay because they must be responsible, there must be co-ownership, and there must be partnership. If we were to just take away all the responsibilities from them, it is as though that we tell them whatever decision they made at that point in time, they are not responsible for it, and therefore the Government is responsible for everything that they are facing today. I do not think that is fair.

Mr Chiam, last question.

Sir, it would appear that LUP works subsidised by the HDB are dependent on whether the works are an integral part of the lift or whether they are structural items. So, am I correct to say that if they are structural, then the HDB will bear most of the costs? And if they are an integral part of the lifts, then the residents will have to pay.

No, it is together. It is a whole package. When we talk about lift upgrading, the whole idea is we have to do whatever replacement that needs to be done. We also want to make sure that there is access to the lift landing and there is access to the floors. We have to punch the holes to make sure that there is access. So, it is an integral programme. It depends on the structure of the flats. Some blocks require landing bridges; some blocks require other works.

I have not asked my questions yet.

I thought that was the question that he has asked.

I made a statement first. Is the HDB willing to come together with the Town Councils or residents to decide on what are the items that the residents need to pay and what are the items the HDB needs to pay?

I thought that was already asked. That was what I understood the question to be. Sir, when we look at LUP, the whole idea is basically we want to upgrade the lifts to make sure that it is accessible to every floor. What do we need to do? It depends on the structure of the flats. Some flats require landing structures; some flats require more works; and some flats require lesser works. It is a total package. That is why the total package may cost differently between different blocks. So it is an integrated programme with the same objective of creating access to every floor. So, we look at the total package, we divide by the number of possible benefiting units, and that is the cost that is required now.

As far as TC-LUP is concerned, the co-payment is between 5% and 12.5% (that is, the co-payment part of the residents) and the rest are to be paid by the Town Councils.

As far as HDB-LUP is concerned, 5% to 12.5% by the residents, and the rest will be covered by the HDB. So, it is very clear that it is a total package, and we do not itemise. Once we itemise, it will create a lot of difficulties because one will say that is yours, and the other one will say that is mine. So, I think to be fair, to be easy, we have a whole package and we decide the co-payment component, and the rest of it will be the responsibility of either the TCs or the HDB.

8. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) when will the investigations of the former CEO and his staff over matters related to the NKF scandal be fully completed; and (b) if charges will be brought against the former CEO and any of his staff.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) commenced investigation into the affairs of the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) on 18th August last year. Soon after, other agencies including the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) and the Ministry of Manpower also commenced simultaneous investigations into the affairs of NKF. These agencies are currently at different stages of investigations. They are also in consultation with the Attorney-General's Chambers on issues relating to their respective investigations. As the case has many complex details which must be thoroughly examined, it is difficult to say exactly when investigations into the case will be fully completed.

As investigations into the case are still ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment on whether charges will be made out at this juncture.

Sir, I would like to clarify with the Senior Minister of State. Does it mean that at this moment, the Government or the Ministry has not been able to find any charges against the former CEO and the Board for misleading the public?

Sir, as I have said, since investigations are ongoing, it is not appropriate to comment on this at this point in time.

9. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts whether the Government intends to change the laws and regulations concerning the use of Internet and

new technologies such as podcasts for campaigning during the General Election and, if so, what will be the main changes and when will such changes be made public.

Mr Speaker, Sir, currently, there are several pieces of legislation and guidelines which cover Internet campaigning issues or which touch on such matters. These include the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) and the Election Advertising Regulations under the PEA, and the Class Licence Scheme and the Internet Code of Practice administered by the Media Development Authority (MDA).

Political parties, candidates and election agents are permitted to use the Internet for election advertising based on a "positive list" of activities listed in the Election Advertising Regulations.

The "positive list" ensures the responsible use of the Internet during the elections. In a free-for-all Internet environment, where there are no rules, political debates could easily degenerate into an unhealthy, unreliable and dangerous discourse flushed with rumours and distortions to mislead and confuse the public. The Government has always maintained that political debates should be premised on factual and objective presentation of issues and arguments. The regulations governing Internet campaigning have served well to safeguard the seriousness of the electoral process.

Political parties, candidates and their election agents will continue to be guided by the "positive list" in the Election Advertising Regulations in the coming general elections. Party political websites

Private or individual bloggers can discuss politics. However, if they persistently propagate, promote or circulate political issues relating to Singapore, they are required to register with the MDA. During the election period, these registered persons will not be permitted to provide material online that constitutes election advertising.

Mr Low has asked about podcasting. I take podcasting to mean the provision of an audio feed over the Internet to subscribers. As I have noted, during the election period, political parties, candidates and election agents must keep to permitted election advertising set out in the "positive list". Podcasting does not fall within this list.

There are also some well-known local blogs run by private individuals who have ventured into podcasting. The content of some of these podcasts can be quite entertaining. However, the streaming of explicit political content by individuals during the election period is prohibited under the Election Advertising Regulations. A similar prohibition would apply to the videocasting, or video streaming of explicitly political content.

At this point, the Government has no intention to amend the legislation regulating Internet campaigning during an election. But the review of Government regulations is a continual process so as to ensure that they are kept up-to-date. We recognise that in our society, people will have diverse opinion and some will want to share their opinion. But people should not take refuge behind the anonymity of the Internet to manipulate public opinion. It is better and more responsible to engage in political debates in a factual and objective manner.

must be registered with the MDA. Failure to register is a breach of the class licence conditions.

Clarification, Sir. Do I understand that unless what is allowed is being listed, whatever new technology that comes along, one is not allowed to apply and use it for political advertisement purposes?

The purpose of a "positive list" is to define what is allowed. And if it is not on the "positive list", then it is not allowed.

Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, if any concerned citizen takes what is on the "positive list" on the Internet, prints it out, and circulates it on his own to the residents in a contested constituency, is that an offence?

Let me clarify. I want to clarify that private individuals are not prohibited from commenting on politics, either before or during the election period. They can give their own personal views, for example, what they think about the candidate or a political party. But if such individuals or groups use their blogs or websites as vehicles to promote political discussion in a consistent fashion or propagate political ideals or use their blogs as vehicles to support one party, in other words, they are called individual sites, but they really act like a party website, then they would be required to register.

Sir, may I clarify with the Senior Minister of State? He did not answer my question exactly. My question is this. From the "positive list" of the websites that are approved and registered, a concerned citizen downloads all these materials and prints them out on his own, using photostating machine or whatever, and distributes them to the mail boxes of the residents in their constituency, is he allowed?

Sir, every case will have to be considered on the facts of

the case. So, one would have to look at the facts of the case that he has presented. What he is presenting is he is saying that an individual who acts like a political party.

As an individual.

If an individual acts like an individual, then he is an individual. But if an individual uses his website and acts like a political party, then even though he calls himself "an individual", we will have to treat it like a political party. So, as I have said, we need to look at the facts and details of each case and then decide.

Sir, the facts of the case, as I explained, is that they are citizens who want to download materials from the approved list to distribute ---

Mr Chia, you have repeated your questions twice.

The Minister did not answer my question.

Let me clarify to Mr Chia. Should he have somebody who takes his party's information, cyclostyles and distributes it, he must be his election agent. He should not allow people whom he has not authorised to do that.

What about people who help to do photostating?

Yes, if he is his authorised helper.

If we do not know them.

Let me give the Minister of State a scenario. An individual decides to send out SMS message across

to the people, is it under the "positive list", or is it not?

Sir, email and SMS fall within the realm of private communication. So the Government has no wish to intrude into people's privacy. However, if he is still seeking to use mass email and mass SMS as tools to influence people or to affect the outcome of an election he should realise that he is still governed by the laws of the land, and this includes libel. They should not assume the fact that emailing or SMSing information gives them the licence to say anything they want. So the laws of the land apply, but SMSes and emails are generally considered as private communication, and we do not want to intrude on it.

Mr Low, last question.

At which point would a person whom the law of the land defines as "an individual" becomes a political party or a political party machine? Can he please clarify and define it?

Sir, currently, only a handful of websites are registered with MDA, and they consist largely of political party websites, like Mr Low's party and the PAP, and registered political associations, like the Think Centre. In general, we have dealt with the Internet with a light touch and have allowed individuals to express their views on the elections and politics on their websites. But should an individual decide to use his website so that it looks like his party's website and does the function of his party's website or my party's website, then it is not an individual's opinion, it is a site that acts like a party's website.

How do we define "looks like"? Can he please explain?

That is why, Sir, I said that in any case, the facts of the case have to be seen. But we have dealt with the Internet with a light touch and other than the party political sites and sites, like the Think Centre, this handful of sites is registered. All the rest of the individuals are expressing their opinions freely.

I would like to clarify with the Minister. It is important.

If it is the same question, I think it is answered already.

The clarification is that this individual, whom we do not know, is not our election agent or election helper. This is an individual in the constituency who wants to download anything and distributes it to the residents in the contested constituency. Is it an offence?

Sir, during the election period, anyone who distributes election material must be registered.

10. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (a) whether his Ministry has taken any action against bloggers who deliberately post lewd photographs of themselves or others, with or without their consent, on their blogs; and (b) how many people have been charged for such offences.

Sir, I share the Member's concern about bloggers posting lewd photographs of themselves or others on their blogs. We recognise that blogs are a means of private communication used by individuals as well as groups. However, bloggers

To date, there has been no police report complaining about lewd pictures posted by Singaporeans or lewd pictures being hosted on blogs in Singapore. When the Police receive public information on such cases, they will investigate and assess each case. Where offences have been committed, they will investigate them thoroughly. If an offender is apprehended, he or she may be prosecuted. The Media Development Authority (MDA) will assist the Police with these investigations.

The Government recognises that legal enforcement alone is not enough, given the nature of the Internet where bloggers could be anonymous. It is crucial for us to address the issue by building up awareness and responsibility in using the Internet among our younger users. In this regard, education plays an important role whereby parents, schools and the community work together through various programmes to help promote safe practices online. The MDA has also funded public education efforts on the Internet.

Furthermore, the Government has been working actively with the industry and the local Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to promote greater industry self-regulation. This is to encourage the

must realise that the materials they post in their personal blogs can be seen in the public domain. Posting of content, such as lewd photographs of themselves or others, would be offensive to many other Internet users. Bloggers could also run foul of the law. While some bloggers may do it deliberately, some others, especially young Singaporeans, may not be aware of the adverse consequences of their action. That is why we have emphasised the importance of developing public education programmes and industry self-regulation to work hand-in-hand with legal enforcement, so as to keep our online environment safe for all users.industry to provide a safe Internet environment for subscribers, especially families with young children. A positive result is that ISPs now offer Family Access Networks (FANs) to filter out undesirable websites to their subscribers.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State how would the Ministry actually be tracking the content in such blogs and, given the fact that the websites are actually public domain, what form of accountability is to be taken by or expected of the bloggers. I am heartened to note that there will be an educational approach taken. And to what extent will the Ministry be implementing such educational programmes?

I believe there are two parts to her questions. First, what measures are we taking to police, and second, the education messages. With regard to the first part, the MDA takes a light touch approach in regulating the Internet. So we do not police closely the blogger sites and what the bloggers put up on their blog sites. Because, by and large, bloggers want to communicate with their friends and to police all these blog sites would be intrusion into the life of the bloggers. However, if there is a specific complaint by a Singaporean to the Police about the law being broken by a Singaporean blogger, or a website hosted in Singapore, we will investigate and prosecute. Where we do come across postings that are offensive, we have asked people to take them down. For example, MDA issued an ISP of Friday.com with a take-down notice in October and November when their website showed links to materials that depict incest and there were postings of members soliciting for sex. When the website Floutboy.com was found to be trading and exchanging naked photographs of underaged boys, the website was blacklisted. So Singaporeans cannot access that website. Where there have

She has asked what measures we are taking. Among the things that MDA has been doing, it has been actively supporting the efforts of volunteer groups, like Touch Community Services, to train and teach parents as well as teenagers on how to use the Internet. So far, MDA has provided over $600,000 in funding to support Touch Community Services towards their programmes, in particular, the Cyberspace Risk & where U Seek Help (CRuSH) programme. So among the CRuSH programme, we have had the CRuSH roadshow, the project CRuSH Mandarin programme, the planet CRuSH programme. And these are all intended to educate young people about the Internet.

MDA has also spearheaded other initiatives to promote cyber wellness in 2005, there was a Cyber Wellness Pilot Run for Computer Training Centre in September 2005 to March 2006. Then there is the RestFest which was conducted between 24th and 27th November which was the world's preeminent festival of Innovative Moving Image which occurred in Singapore and, during that period, gained the opportunity to educate young people.

MDA is also collaborating with the School of Infocommunication Technology at the Singapore Polytechnic to produce animation clips, based on the theme "Internet Safety". So these are some measures that MDA is taking because education is the most important aspect of Internet safety, more so than policing.

been specific complaints, we have taken action. But the Internet is a place where there is a lot of rubbish and it is not possible for the MDA to clean it up. So where we have specific complaints, we will look into it and try to clean it up. But what is important is educating our young so that they can protect themselves when they use the Internet.

Sir, the Minister of State mentioned the blacklist of Internet sites. May I ask him how long is that list nowadays?

The list has always been 100.

Can I ask the Minister of State whether he feels that MDA is satisfied with the level of funding and support that is given in the area of educating the children and users of the Internet?

I think to educate young people requires more than funding from MDA. It really requires teachers, parents and the community to get involved, and for parents to teach young children does not require funding. But if there are good projects that require funding that will enhance safety, we would consider it.

I just want to emphasise that MDA should work closely with MOE because these are young children and those going into the Internet are getting younger. I would like to ask MDA to work closely with MOE in educating our children.

I totally agree with the Member that we will work with MOE in educating our young people.

I would like to find out from the Minister of State when will the content of these blogs start becoming from being just mere offensive to tenable and verifiable evidence that could be tendered in court for an act committed in Singapore that is punishable under the Penal Code, such as homosexual act, oral sex and sex with underaged ladies.

Sir, in any particular case, it will depend on the facts

of the case. So if there is a site that a Member feels is objectionable, he can make a police report and then the Police, under MHA, will investigate directly and, if laws are violated, they will investigate.

Sir, would MDA not, in monitoring these sites and when they have found such a content on its own, make it as tenable evidence and pass it to the Police rather than have the complaint from the public? If the public makes a complaint, we are making an assumption that the public would peruse this and therefore find it offensive and then make a complaint.

Sir, we cannot regulate MDA with a light touch and, at the same time, police it in the manner suggested. So, currently, our philosophy is to have a light touch regulation of the Internet which means that we do not look at everybody's blog site and website and then take objection to it and start investigations.

But if there is a site that has offended a Singaporean and the Singaporean complains to the police, the police will investigate.

11. Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what percentage of Central Provident Fund (CPF) members who turned 55 years of age last year met the Minimum Sum criteria; (b) what was the average amount in the CPF savings of such members; (c) how do these figures compare to previous years; (d) what are the main reasons why CPF members do not meet the Minimum Sum; (e) what is being done to ensure that more members will meet the Minimum Sum when they turn 55.

Sir, of active CPF members who

turned 55 last year, 40% of them were able to set aside the Minimum Sum. This was $90,000, the Minimum Sum requirement last year. The $90,000 comprises half in cash and half in a property pledge. I would like Members to note that this 40% was after withdrawing 50% of their net balances at 55. Of this group that set aside the Minimum Sum, half did so fully in cash and did not use a property pledge. Among all active CPF members that turned 55 last year, the median Ordinary Account and Special Account cash balance before applying the 50% withdrawal rule was more than $66,400. The percentage of active CPF members who met the Minimum Sum last year is unchanged, compared to 2004. Whether members can meet the Minimum Sum at age 55 depends on many reasons. Those who work longer and contribute regularly to their CPF, who were prudent in property purchases and had less medical expenses would be best able to meet this Minimum Sum level. The Minimum Sum is being raised to cater for increasing life expectancy and will reach $120,000 in 2003 dollars by 2013. We must help Singaporeans work longer so that they can put aside more in their CPF. The Government has accepted the recommendations of the Tripartite Committee for the Employability of Older Workers chaired by Mr Gan Kim Yong. To enhance returns on CPF savings, we have recently announced measures to tighten the CPF Investment Scheme to reduce costs and improve the quality of products within this scheme. The CPF Board has also formed an International Advisory Panel to study ways to enhance the retirement adequacy of members in the long term.

Sir, if only 40% of people are managing to meet the Minimum Sum, can the Minister suggest how our elderly are going to be able to cope with their

retirement needs, considering the fact that we have an ageing population, and whether or not the CPF system is adequate to meet our population's retirement needs?

Sir, that was why I was careful to insert a number of caveats. But I accept that there are sometimes too many figures.

I said 40%, after withdrawing the 50% that they are allowed to. Hon. Members would remember, we are slowly phasing out that 50% withdrawal rule, and that would raise the proportion of members who reach the Minimum Sum. Indeed, I gave the figure that, of all those before they applied for 50% withdrawal, ie, before they took out their 50%, the median balance was actually $66,000, which is quite healthy.

How can we help older members save enough for their CPF? As I said, there are many reasons. Of the many ways, one way is to allow them to work longer and contribute regularly. This is a simple enough assertion but, as Members will remember, from the recommendations of the Tripartite Committee for the Employability of Older Workers, there are a number of measures that we want to institute to help older workers work longer. We are at the same time raising the level of the Minimum Sum so that older members can put aside more to cater for their increasing life expectancy. There are no easy answers in terms of how do we help members enhance their retirement adequacy. But, as we have said, for those who are prudent in their property purchase and have less medical expenses, our data suggest that they are best able to meet their Minimum Sum. So there are a number of measures concurrently applied, eg, education on how much they should use for their

housing, how they can stretch their Medisave dollar, how they can work longer, and in terms of being prudent in their investment choices, I think all these collectively will help to enhance their retirement adequacy.

Miss Olsen, last question.

Sir, I would just like to ask the Minister how much inter-agency communication is there between the Ministry of Manpower and the Ministry of National Development with regard to this, and whether or not the CPF Board's concerns are reflected to the HDB.

Sir, I do not presume to speak on behalf of HDB because that is not under my Ministry, but let me just say that they are equally concerned. From policies that have already applied, in terms of advising members and assessing credit withdrawal, we have put in a number of structural aspects. This is an evaluation on how much members can withdraw from their CPF, for example. That is one hard figure.

The second aspect is to counsel or educate members before they buy the property. We have a number of avenues. One is HDB staff. The other is CPF independently having a website or a counter for members to calculate how much they can afford to buy in terms of their housing.

12. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the most recent Labour Market 2005 report (a) what is the percentage of the 63,500 jobs that were added in 2005 for local people, that went to Singapore citizens and permanent residents respectively; (b) what is the percentage distribution of the 49,800 jobs that were added in 2005 for foreign workers, with respect to sectors,

salary range, education requirements and skill sets; and (c) what are the factors leading to high foreign employment gain in 2005.

Sir, we do not have a breakdown of local employment data by Singapore citizens and permanent residents. We collect them as locals. We have started collecting data, but it is too premature to release to the public. It is not precise enough and we need to double check the figures.

We have the breakdown of foreign employment gain by sectors, but not by salary, education requirements and skills sets. But of the 49,800 jobs created last year that went to foreigners, 46% were in the services sector, about 40% were in the manufacturing sector and 13% were in the construction sector.

More jobs were created for both locals and foreigners last year, in tandem with the strong economic growth. While the job gains for foreigners were high, ie, 49,800 or 44% of all jobs created, they were less than for locals. For locals, it was about 56%. In recent years, more jobs have gone to locals, ie, Singaporeans and PRs, every year, in both good and difficult times.

Sir, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. Is there any reason, whether historical or statistical, that we classify PRs and citizens together as one category called "locals"? Would it be clearer to actually segregate the two categories?

Sir, we have followed international convention. That was the first metric on which we collected data. In that sense, we never needed that finer granularity or sensitivity when we produced data.

But I take the hon. Member's point. It may be instructive for us to see, in terms

of the number of jobs created for locals, how many went to citizens and PRs. Our look at preliminary data when we started trying to get them from a number of sources - this is not the precise way to do it and, therefore, I am reluctant to give the exact figure until we have clear data - was that neither group was over-represented. In other words, the proportions of Singaporeans and PRs were equally represented in terms of jobs created.

13. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) what kind of national suicide prevention strategy is the Government adopting to tackle the rising trend of youth suicides; (b) how effective will such a strategy be to prevent suicides; (c) what is the total projected economic loss to the nation for each successful youth suicide; and (d) will the Government introduce an easier '444' national hotline number for suicidal people to get help.

Sir, there is no conclusive evidence from past statistics that there is a rising trend in youth suicides. However, each youth suicide is one too many.

Suicide is caused by a complex set of factors, including many socio-cultural factors. Tackling youth suicides requires a multi-agency and many-helping-hands approach. The Government’s multi-pronged strategy involves, firstly, working with parents, schools and the community on preventive measures to reduce suicidal tendencies. Secondly, working with professionals on intervention programmes to treat suicidal cases and, thirdly, raising

Parents are the first source of support and care for the young. MCYS strives to build strong and stable families through our various schemes, programmes and initiatives, such as our series of family life education programmes. Schools engage the young in learning and developmental activities while teachers and school counsellors help to identify and support students in distress.

Health workers and social service professionals are trained to identify early and treat high-risk groups, such as youth in crisis. Treatment programmes available in our healthcare institutions include the Child Guidance Clinic under the Institute of Mental Health.

To increase public awareness of mental health issues and promotion of mental well-being, the "Mind Your Mind" programme was launched by the Health Promotion Board in the year 2001. The annual Suicide Prevention Week by the Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) helps to increase understanding of suicidal thoughts and the avenues for help.

The Government does not perform projections of economic loss from suicide. Nonetheless, each suicide is a tragic loss. The loss is not just to the economy or society, but also from the perspective of what the youth could have done with his or her life. We would do what we can to prevent it.

The Member suggested that the Government should introduce an easier '444' national hotline number for suicidal people to get help. The Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) has been running a 24-hour crisis hotline since 1969. The hotline 1800-2214444 operates to counsel anyone in distress, including

Based on past cases, many youths who have contemplated suicide would have sought help or called the SOS hotline several times before actually attempting suicide. The key is therefore to have a hotline which a troubled youth can readily access, in this case, the 24-hour SOS hotline. On the other hand, a 3-digit number would be most useful for an emergency situation where the person is in acute distress. Members of the public who witness a youth attempting suicide should continue to call 999 or 995 for immediate help.

Having said that, Sir, hotlines should not be deemed as the only channel for suicidal people to seek help. Parents, teachers, peers and caring adults in constant contact with the youth can help in a more timely manner if the warning signs for those contemplating suicide are detected early and the young person is then referred to the support services available.

public awareness about mental health and well-being.those with suicidal tendencies or who just need someone to talk to.

Sir, I hope that the Minister of State understands that suicide is basically an attempt to cry out for help. In that time, if they do not have an easy number to remember, like SOS' 1800-2214444 hotline, can they call 999 or 995 and be redirected to the SOS in the event that they are thinking of suicide?

Sir, the answer is yes. There is a network. The police and NPCs are trained to handle emergency calls and they are all connected with the emergency hotlines like the SOS'. There is a network of help providers. In emergency cases, the young person should be able to access help almost immediately. I think the most important point is that helplines are available, and often times people who attempt suicide would know where the

helplines are. They would already have accessed those helplines before that, because it is not the first time. They do not think of suicide and do it immediately. There would be a whole range of calls that they would have made and a whole range of help that they would have asked for. Some would have received the help. But, sometimes, at that point in time that they make those decisions, it is very hard for us to understand. But the point I want to make is that there is help available when they access the police hotline. The police will make the necessary referrals.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 15-21, 23 and 26-28 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 14, 22, 24-25 and 29-30 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

* Cols. 1805-1820.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members would have read that Chief Justice Yong Pung How is retiring. Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong will succeed him as the next Chief Justice, and Mr Justice Chao Hick Tin will be appointed as the next Attorney-General.

Sir, the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General are the two most important positions in our legal system. They are responsible for setting the directions for our legal system and high standards for the administration of justice in Singapore.

The Chief Justice is head of the Judiciary. As such, his is a critical

If I may make a tribute to Chief Justice Yong Pung How who was appointed Chief Justice in 1990. In his distinguished tenure of 16 years, he has built up our judiciary and legal system to vigilantly uphold the rule of law and administration of justice. He has made a lasting and outstanding contribution. He initiated wide ranging reforms to build up the legal infrastructure and develop local jurisprudence relevant to Singapore's context. He took a series of measures to clear the backlog of cases, streamlined the rules of court, and improved efficiency through extensive use of IT. He created specialist courts and Night Courts and also leveraged on alternative dispute resolution. He also introduced our own Singapore Law reports and the Senior Counsel Scheme. Sir, as a result of his leadership, we have today a judiciary that has a high standing internationally. Many judges and judicial officers from other countries who are involved in reforms or reviews of their own systems, including England, have made study visits to our Courts. This is a tribute to Chief Justice Yong's sterling contributions in enhancing the standing and reputation of our Judiciary.

Chief Justice Yong recognised that we cannot have a first-rate legal system without quality people on the High Court bench and in the Legal Service. He saw the need for officers with strong professional knowledge and skills, and the ability to adapt and respond to a rapidly changing environment. As President of the Legal Service Commission, he

In addition to his duties as Chief Justice, Chief Justice Yong has also served as Chairman of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR). As I am a member of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, Sir, I can attest to the diligent and meticulous manner with which he scrutinised every Bill passed by the House at meetings of the Council.

I would also like to say a few words about Mr Chan Sek Keong who served with distinction for 14 years as Attorney-General. He has transformed the Attorney-General's Chambers from a relatively small office to one with an efficient team of lawyers who can handle a whole range of complex legal issues in civil and commercial law, criminal law, and international law. Many of the lawyers in the Attorney-General's Chambers are acknowledged as experts in their own fields and some have been invited to assist as experts by Commonwealth and United Nations agencies.

Mr Chan Sek Keong has also made major organisational changes to build up capabilities in the AG’s Chambers. He established the International Affairs Division to advance the interests of Singapore internationally. He also set up the Law Reform and Revision Division to review and reform Singapore law and to

Sir, as Minister for Law, I have observed first hand the high quality of Mr Chan Sek Keong's contributions. For instance, I was present in Hamburg during the hearings of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea in the case brought against us by Malaysia concerning reclamation within our territorial waters. He and his team did Singapore proud in ably presenting our legal arguments before that Tribunal. I should add that he has been playing a pivotal role in overseeing our preparations for the case we have with Malaysia on Pedra Branca before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). I am grateful to him for agreeing to continue with this role until the ICJ has heard and decided that case.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the past 25 years as Minister for Law (and before that as Second Minister for Law and Minister of State for Law), I have had quite a bit to do with our laws and our legal system. Based on my experience, I can say without exaggeration that Singapore has indeed been very fortunate that Chief Justice Yong Pung How and Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong occupied those positions since 1990 and 1992 respectively. As a result of their contributions, our legal system today is consistently ranked among the top in Asia and in the world, and has contributed to Singapore's strong reputation for trust, integrity and reliability.

We have to give thought on how we go forward from there. With the new

If I may touch on these aspects, Sir.

First, revising the structure of the Legal Service Commission. Our present legal service personnel management system is inherited from the British. The Constitutional framework for the Legal Service has remained largely unchanged since our Independence, even though the demands on legal services have changed radically. The Legal Service has grown over the years, both in quantity and quality. There are now 290 Legal Service Officers in the Legal Service, up from 45 when the service was formed in 1965. Through the Justices' Law Clerk (JLC) programme initiated by Chief Justice Yong, a steady stream of top law graduates has been brought into the service. Today, almost half of the Legal Service Officers have generalised or specialised post-graduate law degrees. We need to strengthen our personnel management system to make it more robust and responsive to the new challenges in managing talent and personnel in the expanded legal service. The LSC, as it is currently constituted, has its limitations. We need to revise both the composition and structure of the LSC.

First, we need to widen the membership of the LSC by providing for

Second, we need to formalise the system of Personnel Boards under the LSC, and provide the Personnel Boards with formal powers delegated from the LSC, to appoint, recruit, promote and discipline legal officers up to a certain grade, along the lines of what is done now in the civil service. The Legal Service already has a system of Personnel Boards which is modelled after the civil service, but their powers are only informally delegated from the LSC. Whereas in the civil service, the Personnel Boards are provided for under the Constitution and have their powers gazetted. We should consider doing the same for the Legal Service, but adapted for its smaller size.

Sir, the outgoing and incoming Chief Justice as well as the incoming Attorney-General are also agreed that we should

The JLCs are an important source of talent for the Legal Service, but we need to also strengthen our other sources. We must continue to recruit as many of the top law graduates as possible to join the Legal Service, via the JLC and other schemes. But Sir, our objective is not to retain all of this talent in the Legal Service throughout their careers. We want some of these officers to stay on and move up to hold senior appointments in the Legal Service, while others move out to practise law in the private sector, or to follow academic careers. Later, having acquired experience and having made a name for themselves in the profession, they can be considered for appointment to posts like the Solicitor-General, Judicial Commissioners or Judges. For the top posts in our legal system, Sir, we must recruit both from within and outside the Legal Service

appointment in developing and shaping a respected and competent judiciary and in ensuring a fair and just administration of justice in our Courts. The Attorney-General is the legal advisor to the Government. He advises Government Ministries and agencies on increasingly complex and highly specialised issues. As Public Prosecutor, he oversees and sets the standards for criminal prosecutions.aggressively pursued efforts to attract talent into the Legal Service. He started the Justices' Law Clerk (JLC) programme in 1991, which he supervised himself. He personally recruited many outstanding law graduates to become JLCs, and mentored them as they worked closely with him and the judges in the Court of Appeal during their initial years of training. Former Justices' Law Clerks have moved on to other departments to provide a steady flow of talent to the whole of the Legal Service. This has resulted in high quality work and judgements. revise and modernise our legislation. He considerably strengthened both the Civil and Criminal Law Divisions in the Chambers. Mr Chan Sek Keong also headed important policy reviews to strengthen the legal service sector. These include chairing the Committee on Supply of Lawyers and chairing the Legal Services Review Committee which resulted in the Joint Law Venture and Formal Law Alliance Schemes. appointments which we have announced, the Government has discussed with the outgoing Chief Justice Yong Pung How, the incoming Chief Justice as well as the next Attorney-General, on how we can build on this hard won reputation. They are all agreed that the key is to have the right people in our judiciary and legal service. It is vital that we maintain a continuing inflow of talent and attract the best and most promising law graduates to the Legal Service. They are also unanimous that, to achieve this, we need to restructure the Legal Service Commission (LSC) and update our personnel management system. We also need a more systematic talent management scheme. the appointment of independent members. The LSC sits at the apex of the personnel management system, and is vested with the Constitutional authority to appoint, recruit, promote and discipline all legal service officers. The LSC comprises the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, the Chairman of PSC, a Judge of the Supreme Court as nominated by the Chief Justice, and two members of the PSC as nominated by the Chairman of PSC. They are all members by virtue of the offices that they hold. This composition has remained unchanged since Independence. So we should consider restructuring the LSC to include a wider range of experience, for example, people who have worked in personnel management, or who have knowledge of the legal service or the legal profession. They can be from the private sector, and can include retired judges or retired senior counsel. Their appointment will be subject to the safeguard of the elected President, as is the case now with the appointment of members of the Public Service Commission. This change will require amending the Constitution. institutionalise and update the arrangements for talent management that worked under Chief Justice Yong so as to further improve the quality of the Legal Service. This requires a personnel management system that recognises outstanding officers, tracks their performance, and grooms them through assignments and training courses for future leadership roles. It also requires a system that assesses the performance and potential of legal officers against all their peers, and revises these assessments systematically and regularly as the officers advance, so that those who do well are recognised and promoted, regardless of whether or not they entered the service as Justices' Law Clerks.

those who have had the widest exposure, the necessary temperament and ability. We should not revert to the old colonial Legal Service system in which promotion to the bench is only from within the service, as this would result in too narrow a range of experience at the top.

Sir, we will set up a review panel to conduct a comprehensive review of how to manage and develop the whole range of talent in the service, including those recruited as JLCs, so as to ensure that all serving officers are provided with opportunities to exercise their capabilities and potential to the fullest.

In conclusion, let me say that we will have to consider carefully the changes to the personnel management system and the introduction of a more systematic talent scheme, and we will take time to study the details, including any possible amendments to the Constitution. Over the next few months, we will work out the implementation steps to bring about these changes.

Mr Speaker Sir, the legal landscape, as lawyers in the House would know, has changed tremendously in recent years, reflecting the wider changes taking place in the world. With each passing day, the frontiers of law are being pushed further and further. We need only to look at the developments in intellectual property, alternate dispute resolution, information technology and financial services. Our Legal Service, therefore, needs to keep abreast of these wider developments, and we need good and able minds in the Legal Service with expertise to advise, prosecute as well as adjudicate.

Sir, the changes to enhance and institutionalise the personnel management system in the Legal Service are, therefore, necessary to underscore our commitment to the Legal Service maintaining its high quality of people and the high standards of legal practice. I believe this will ensure a responsive and innovative legal service, and a fair and independent judiciary that will apply and uphold the rule of law impartially for all without fear or favour.

Ms Indranee Rajah, questions and clarifications only. There is no debate on the Statement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would just like to say that that tribute to the Chief Justice was most fittingly given, because the legal profession has advanced greatly under his tenure. As a young lawyer during that period, I can attest to the fact because we felt that we were going from what we called our Formula One years - we went from zero to 100 in something like under three seconds. But the legal profession was transformed as a result. Also, with the appointment of the new Chief Justice and the new Attorney-General, I am sure that the judiciary and the legal profession will grow from strength to strength.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Law to clarify two aspects of his statement. The first is on the Legal Service Commission. Clearly, the quality of the Legal Service depends on the quality of the recruitment. And I welcome his statement that the composition of the Legal Service Commission will be broadened to include perhaps people from the private sector. Legal officers nowadays cannot just be pure lawyers. They need wide skill sets. If they are dealing with international treaties, for example, they must have some knowledge of foreign relations or international relations. Similarly, magistrates and registrars need to have an understanding of the wider commercial background against which judgments are given. So I would like to ask the Minister if he could expand a little on the rationale for including a wider composition of the LSC, which I think would add value to the recruitment process.

The second aspect on which I would like to ask the Minister to clarify or expand is on talent management; in particular, his statement that they do not intend to retain all the talent in the Legal Service throughout their careers. What is interesting is that in the US, especially for lawyers, there is a lot of lateral movement - meaning, somebody from academia

could go into private practice, then go into government and come back to private practice again. In Singapore, this is not so common. And when it does happen, sometimes people wonder whether there is anything wrong because he could not stay on in a particular area or segment. But, clearly, it seems to me that we must look for talent where we can find it, and that the lateral movement of talent is something that should actually be encouraged. And I would like to know the Minister's views on this.

Sir, the Minister mentioned the setting up of a review panel that will review and develop talent in the Legal Service. Could the Minister tell us how he envisions talent to be developed in the service?

Mr Speaker, Sir, Ms Indranee Rajah asked two questions about the rationale for an expanded LSC. As I explained in my speech, we need to expand the LSC which, if we compare it with the PSC, has a much more limited and smaller composition, and the members are all holding office by virtue of their position. We need to do what is done in the PSC - to bring in people who have knowledge of personnel management or knowledge of how things are operating in the private sector. And particularly for the legal profession, to bring in people who have knowledge and experience of both career development and personnel management as it operates in the private legal profession.

The people we are recruiting to the Legal Service are amongst the top graduates. They would have many options open to them. When we track their careers and manage their development in the Legal Service, we need to be mindful of their counterparts who are in the private sector. It is not just about remuneration. It is about how we provide the whole range of career opportunities

With regard to her question on the personnel management system, I think those who are in the bigger law firms will know that from their experience, personnel management is important even in the private sector, and big law firms invest a lot in HR. We have a limited legal talent pool in Singapore generally. And within that talent pool, the Legal Service has to compete for its share of talent - compete with private law practice, with MNCs who have in-house counsels and with academic institutions. So we need people who are knowledgeable about HR practices and personnel management. I hope that if we succeed in bringing that kind of wealth of experience and perspective, then the Legal Service indeed would have the ability to meet the future challenges in grooming our bright minds in the legal service.

Mr Charles Chong asked about talent management - how do we expect the review committee to develop talent. The details will have to take time to be worked out and will be made known later. But let me say that, obviously, talent management covers several issues, including staff assessment, career advancement and remuneration. At the most basic, there is the issue of competitive remuneration, but I think that is the easier part. Other than remuneration, the challenge is how to retain the talent that we have in the Legal Service after we have attracted them to join the Legal Service. So to be able to retain talent, we need to provide challenging assignments which offer appealing training opportunities, fair share of jobs, whether in different departments of the Legal Service or in the judicial branch. At the same time, we need to ensure a fair and objective method of appraisal, a system which would map out a career progression

Let me also add that we need to reassure the Justices' Law Clerks and ex-JLCs that the changes will consolidate the JLC programme. But, at the same time, we also need to let the non-JLCs know that they are not left out, and they will have an equal chance of being recognised and promoted if they prove themselves. So these are some of the areas that we will have to look into when the review committee is appointed.

that make the career in the Legal Service challenging and exciting.path, and maybe even provide mentoring for individual officers.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.25 pm

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

Objective

Members may recall that last year, we amended the Moneylenders Act to introduce higher penalties to curb the rise in illegal moneylending activities and related harassment cases. I informed Members then that those amendments were part of a larger exercise to update the Moneylenders Act.

The Moneylenders Act was enacted way back in 1959. Its main objective then was to regulate moneylending so as to put a stop to malpractices that were carried out by unscrupulous lenders. That objective of preventing such practices remains.

However, in recent years, the moneylending business in Singapore has seen vast changes with the introduction of new and more sophisticated business financing and consumer credit services. Therefore,

Furthermore, the global fight against money laundering and terrorism financing also requires us to have suitable powers in our laws to allow for more specific measures and guidelines to be put in place for moneylending activities. The current framework, for example, does not allow for rules and guidelines to adopt the Recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force. The Financial Action Task Force - or FATF as it is popularly known - is an inter-governmental body whose purpose is to develop and promote policies, both at national and international levels, to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. Having provided this backdrop of the developments, let me touch on the salient features of the Bill.

Proposed amendments affecting the Registrar

Clause 4 (new sections 10A and 10B)

Clause 4 includes two new provisions to enable the Registrar to more effectively administer the Act. He will have the power to issue notices to moneylenders to provide information or documents, and the power to enter premises and inspect documents. Failure to comply with the Registrar’s notice or obstructing the Registrar’s entry will be an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment.

Clause 3 (amendment to section 10)

Under clause 3, the Registrar will be given the discretion to suspend a licence in appropriate cases, instead of only having the power to revoke it.

Proposed amendments affecting the Minister

Clause 5 (amendment to section 36)

Under clause 5, the Minister will have the discretion to revoke, in whole or in part, an exemption granted to an entity when there is a breach of any condition or rule or if it is in the public interest to do so.

The Bill makes it clear, however, that any revocation will not affect any moneylending transaction entered into before the date of the revocation.

Clause 6 (repeal and reenactment of section 37)

Sir, the current limited rule-making powers of the Minister will be repealed and replaced by a modern set of powers that will enable him to, amongst others, prescribe rules for all moneylenders or specific classes or descriptions of moneylenders.

The rules can cover measures to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism, as well as various aspects of moneylending businesses, including the maximum amount that a moneylender can lend to a borrower. These rules can also be extended, where appropriate, to regulate entities that have been granted discretionary exemptions from the Act. In proposing these amendments,

we need to update the regulatory framework in the Act to allow it to remain effective in dealing with these and future developments. This is especially so with new business models that are different from traditional moneylending as we know it, but which do not come under regulatory frameworks, like those governing banks, finance companies and the securities industry. Amendments are necessary to allow us to impose rules on both licensed and exempted moneylenders to have greater consistency with financial institutions in the regime governing personal loans.

we continue to be mindful of the need to strike a balance between preventing people from spending beyond their means on the one hand; and providing access to

Conclusion

In conclusion, Sir, these amendments will enable the Government to more effectively regulate moneylenders and to establish a more consistent regulatory regime for personal loans. They will also help us in our fight against money laundering and terrorism financing.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.30 pm

credit for those who are in genuine financial need and who do not have access to social assistance schemes or legitimate channels of lending on the other.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the proposed amendments to the Moneylenders Act.

The Moneylenders Act was most recently amended in November 2005, and those amendments focused on illegal moneylending, enhancing the penalties for illegal moneylending and making it an offence to harass debtors. Those amendments, together with the setting up of the Anti-Unlicensed Moneylenders Task Force, had netted returns. It has been reported that five heads of moneylending syndicates have since been arrested.

The current amendments, however, focus on updating the regime for the legal moneylending business, and these amendments are both welcome and timely. The current Moneylenders Act is an old piece of legislation. It was modelled on the Straits Settlement Moneylenders’ Ordinance of 1935, which was, in turn, based on the English Moneylenders Act of 1900. The business environment and the circumstances

In the High Court decision of City Hardware Pte Ltd v Kenrich Electronics Pte Ltd, Justice V K Rajah had, in his judgement, noted that the time had come for a holistic review of the Moneylenders Act against a wider backdrop of modern consumer credit policy relevant to Singapore.

Under the proposed amendments, the old section 37 of the Moneylenders Act will be repealed. The new section 37 allows the Minister to make a wide range of rules in respect of the moneylending business. This, I think, is an important first step towards being able to have a holistic revamp to the moneylenders’ regime.

The proposed new section 37 allows the Minister, for example, to make rules in a variety of situations, such as prescribing the maximum amount that may be lent to a borrower or a class or a group of borrowers. It also allows the Minister to prescribe the class or prescription of borrowers to which the moneylenders may make a loan and to prescribe the maximum rate of interest that may be charged for any loan or class of loans. The amendments signal a new approach to legal moneylending. The ability of the Minister to make rules in the categories suggested under the proposed new section 37 indicates that there will be a differentiation in the classes of people to whom loans can be made. This, in turn, means more flexibility in the credit business. The old regime was more of a situation where one size fits all, whereas the ability to make the rules proposed in the new section 37 would allow for recognition of the different classes of borrowers and greater flexibility and responsiveness to the moneylending business. This is important in today’s credit environment where there is a wide

The proposed new sections 10A and 10B are also to be welcomed. The proposed new section 10A empowers the Registrar or an officer authorised by him to require the moneylender to provide information or documents.

The new section 10B empowers the Registrar or an officer to enter premises used by a moneylender to carry on business in order to inspect the premises and documents found on the premises.

This power to request information is important because it lends teeth to investigation and enforcement. It will make it harder for offenders to disguise or hide any breaches of the Moneylenders Act. It would also help to clamp down on money laundering or possible terrorist financing activities.

The proposed amendments are a move in the right direction to provide a more holistic approach to the business of legal moneylending. But it is hoped that this will not be the end of the process. Constant review and updating of the Act to keep apace with the fast-changing consumer credit industry will provide a good foundation for the legal moneylending business.

Sir, with this, I support the amendments.

against which credit is advanced have changed greatly since then.range of consumers, ranging from the relatively uninformed to those who are savvy about consumer credit.

Sir, I thank the GPC Chairman, Ms Indranee Rajah, for her support of the Bill.

Essentially, she makes two key points. The first is with regard to new sections 10A and 10B. She is absolutely right. They will sharpen the teeth of the Registrar of Moneylenders requiring moneylenders to provide information and documents and also enable him and his

As I said in my speech, the moneylending landscape has evolved since 1959 - a point, I think, also made by Ms Rajah. So we do need to finetune our legislative framework to cater to this. Indeed, there are also new challenges like money laundering and terrorism financing. So, as part of a responsible member of the FATF, we also have to ensure that our legislative framework satisfies the requirements of the grouping.

As for the need to amend the Moneylenders Act further in lieu of what Justice V K Rajah had said in the case mentioned by Ms Rajah, she is right that these amendments are useful first steps. For example, the enhanced scope and the rule-making powers granted to the Minister will enable him to take into account the new landscape, something that both myself in my speech and Ms Rajah's had mentioned. Since its enactment in 1959, previous earlier major amendments had dealt mainly with enhancing powers to deal with illegal moneylending, harassment and other like situations. So these amendments under consideration are really the first set of amendments which addresses the wider issue of the framework governing legal moneylending since the Act was first enacted in 1959. So let us see how these amendments work out before we assess the need for further amendments.

On the point not quite arising from the Bill but related in a way, because as I said

Sir, I think I have answered the key points raised by Ms Rajah.

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.

officers to enter premises and inspect documents. But as important, together with the enhanced powers of the Minister, to make rules under section 37, these new provisions will not only provide greater efficiency and inject more flexibility to the administration of the Act, they also enable Singapore to adopt the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force, something which I had mentioned earlier.when I moved the amendments to the Moneylenders Act in November last year, when we tackle illegal moneylending, we take a holistic approach. I am happy to report that arising from the tougher punishment regime that was put into the Act last year and also actions taken both by MHA, the Police and other related agencies, the ground situation has indeed improved. In particular, the Police's resources have been beefed up, concentrated in the Unlawful Moneylending Task Force residing in CID. And as has been said, three raids have been carried out and actually, two syndicate heads have been arrested. We will push on with these measures.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.40 pm until 4.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Objective

Sir, the Electricity Act was passed by this House in 2001 to provide a legal framework for the governance of the electricity market. The Act creates, amongst other things, a competitive market framework for the electricity industry and a regulatory regime to ensure the security and reliability of supply of electricity to the public.

Since the liberalisation of the electricity market in 2001, there have been changes in the structure of the electricity market. The vertically-integrated business of generation and transmission undertaken by PUB in the past has been separated into the competitive generation business and the monopolistic transmission business. Going forward, the Government needs to be prepared for any changes in the ownership structure of the transmission business that could affect the security and reliability of our electricity supply. This will require new provisions in the Act.

In addition, the Act has to be amended to enable the regulator, the Energy Market Authority ("EMA"), to carry out its functions and duties more effectively. Let me now explain the proposed amendments.

Licensing regime

Clauses 5 and 7 of the Bill amend sections 6 and 9, respectively, to enable EMA to license SP PowerGrid Ltd ("SPPG"), which manages the grid operations for and on behalf of SP PowerAssets Ltd ("SPPA"), the transmission licensee which owns the grid assets.

Currently, SP PowerGrid operates under a management service contract with SP PowerAssets. While EMA can impose penalties on SP PowerAssets for violations under the Act, it does not have regulatory powers over SP PowerGrid. Since the electricity grid is critical infrastructure whose failure can have disproportionate effects on the economy, there is a need to also license SP PowerGrid to ensure adequate control over the grid infrastructure.

Security safeguards

Clause 13 of the Bill introduces a new Part IVA to the Electricity Act, which will allow EMA to control ownership changes in electricity licensees and other entities involved in the transmission business. Electricity licensees involved in the transmission business will also be required to obtain EMA's approval for the appointment of persons to key management positions. These provisions will enhance regulatory powers over the ownership and management of the grid. Similar provisions are found in other legislation, such as the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act.

Power to obtain information

Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 4 to broaden the scope of EMA's power to obtain information and documents and also allow EMA to retain any document or information without payment. These provisions are also found in the Telecommunications Act and will better enable EMA to acquire from the market players information that EMA requires to carry out its functions and duties effectively.

Improvement to penalty framework

Amendments have also been proposed to strengthen its penalty framework in the Act for effective regulation of the

Ambit of market rules

Clause 15 of the Bill amends section 46 to require the wholesale market operator, that is, the Energy Market Company, to modify the market rules governing the electricity market in accordance with EMA's directions. Currently, EMA does not have the power to require the Energy Market Company to modify the market rules if the market rules are incompatible with or do not give effect to the prevailing energy market policies. The amendment to section 46 will therefore facilitate the effective implementation of such policies by EMA in a manner consistent with EMA's functions and duties under the Act.

Clause 16 of the Bill amends section 47 to subject the Market Company and market support services licensees, ie, SP Services, to financial penalties for breach of market rules. These companies provide important services to the electricity market, and should be subject to the same penalties as market participants.

Revised appeal process

Clauses 17 and 21 of the Bill amend sections 59 and 98, respectively, to provide that the effect of any decision or direction by EMA which is the subject of an appeal will not be suspended by reason of the appeal, unless the appeal is against the imposition of a financial penalty or its quantum. This will ensure that EMA's decision or direction will be complied with during the course of an appeal, while not subjecting the appellant to financial burden. This is similar to existing provisions in the Telecommunications Act and the Competition Act.

Clause 21 of the Bill also amends section 98 to empower the Minister to refer appeals of a technical or specialised nature to an Appeal Panel established by the Minister. Such an Appeal Panel must comprise at least three persons, as required under section 65 of the Act, but the appointment of one or more of such persons to the Appeal Panel may be by reason of their technical or other specialised knowledge relevant to the appeal. The decision of the Appeal Panel will be final.

In addition, clause 21 adds provisions on the details of the appeal process under section 98, such as the requirements to lodge an appeal to the Minister within 14 days and to provide adequate details of the grounds of the appeal. These will allow appeals to the Minister to be dealt with expeditiously.

Works by electricity licensee

Clause 14 of the Bill amends section 31 to specify that an electricity licensee must first seek the approval of EMA to carry out any relevant work in relation to an electric line, electrical plant or other matter specified in the section which is owned or operated by another electricity licensee. It is also expressly stipulated that the right of an electricity licensee to carry out any work under section 31 is to have effect notwithstanding any agreement which prohibits the carrying out of the work.

These amendments will prevent generation licensees from relying on contractual arrangements to thwart the transmission licensee's entry into their land to, amongst other things, develop the transmission system for the purpose of facilitating entry of new generation licensees. To guard against any abuse of powers by the transmission licensee, EMA's approval of such works must first

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments will help meet the changing demands of an increasingly competitive electricity market while enhancing the security and reliability of infrastructure critical to Singapore. At the same time, they will strengthen the regulatory framework and enable EMA to carry out its functions and duties effectively.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

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

electricity industry. Clause 5 amends section 6 to provide for an additional fine of up to $12,500 for each day an offence of carrying out a licensable activity without an electricity licence continues after conviction.be obtained by the transmission licensee. In addition, the grant of EMA's approval will not prejudice the right of a generation licensee, as owner or occupier of the land in which the works are to be carried out, to lodge an objection to EMA under section 31 of the Act. The decisions of the EMA under section 31 are final.

Order for Second Reading read.

4.15 pm

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

The Bill before this House seeks to amend the Enlistment Act to increase the maximum quantum of fines for Enlistment Act offences and to provide for the extension of Exit Permit controls to pre-enlistees aged 13 till 16 1/2.

The Enlistment Act applies to all Singaporeans and Permanent Residents from age 16 1/2 to 40, or age 50 in the case of officers. The Act covers the registration and enlistment of those liable for National Service. It also covers the requirement to apply for Exit Permit or notify MINDEF when going overseas. Those who fail to comply with the provisions of the Enlistment Act are dealt with in the civil courts. On conviction, they are currently liable to face a jail sentence of up to three years, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.

In line with the recent review of the SAF Act, we have also reviewed the Enlistment Act to update the penalty regime. In addition, MINDEF is proposing amendments to effect changes to the exit control measures governing pre-enlistees so as to facilitate the application for biometric passports by pre-enlistees.

Review of penalty regime

Let me first deal with the penalty regime. As Minister Teo Chee Hean has said in his Ministerial Statement on 16th January this year, the case of Melvyn Tan had highlighted an inadequacy in the penalties imposed on NS defaulters, especially those who default for long periods. MINDEF has reviewed the current penalties and considered whether the three-year maximum jail sentence is adequate, whether we should specify a mandatory jail sentence and whether the maximum fine that can be imposed is adequate.

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

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

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

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

Where the defaulter has reached an age when he cannot be called up for NS at all, a jail sentence up to the maximum of three years may be appropriate.

In all instances, we expect that the Court will take into account whatever aggravating or mitigating circumstances there may be in each case to determine the appropriate sentence.

However, the maximum fine quantum has remained unchanged since December 1970, while salaries and wages have increased substantially over the years. It is therefore timely to update the maximum fine quantum in order to maintain the deterrent value of the fines. To this end, this amendment Bill seeks to raise the maximum fine quantum provided for under the Enlistment Act from the current $5,000 to $10,000. This is in line with the maximum fine quantum provided for in the amended Singapore Armed Forces Act.

Review of exit controls

Let me now move on to the amendments pertaining to exit controls, which are prompted by the impending switch to biometric passports.

Currently, pre-enlistees from age 11 till 16 1/2 are issued passports that are valid for only two years at a time. If they require passports of extended validity, ie, more than two years, their parents will have to furnish a bond as a guarantee that they will return to fulfil their NS obligations. The bond quantum is $75,000 or half the combined annual income of both parents, whichever is higher.

From age 16 1/2 till enlistment, the exit control is tighter. Passport validity is restricted to only one year at a time and those going overseas for three months or longer will have to apply for Exit Permits under the Enlistment Act. They are also required to furnish a bond of the same quantum as applicable to those below 16 1/2, ie, $75,000 or half the combined annual income of both parents, whichever is higher.

In view of the introduction of the biometric passport later this year, MINDEF has reviewed the exit control regime for

What this means is that if we continue with the current passport control regime of restricted validity to one or two years, pre-enlistees will have to apply for new passports every one to two years at some cost and inconvenience to them.

To reduce costs for pre-enlistees, MINDEF has decided to allow pre-enlistees to have passports of the normal full validity period. However, as exit controls are still necessary to deter potential NS defaulters and to serve as a strong psychological reminder of their NS obligation, MINDEF will require pre-enlistees aged 13 to 16 1/2 to apply for Exit Permits if they intend to be away from Singapore for three months or more. Those who require Exit Permits of two years or more will be required to furnish a bond. This is similar to the current arrangement where a bond is required if the pre-enlistee requires a passport validity of more than two years. There will be no change to the Exit Permit and bonding requirements for pre-enlistees aged 16 1/2 till enlistment.

As Exit Permits are required only for long trips of three months or more, the majority of pre-enlistees will not be affected by this. In fact, the majority of pre-enlistees will benefit from the new exit control regime, as they will be relieved of passport controls, and given the full passport validity of five years.

Currently, pre-enlistees from age 11 till 16 1/2 are not covered under the Enlistment Act. Therefore, to effect the

We also recognise that some young pre-enlistees may not be sufficiently mature to understand their obligations under the Enlistment Act, or that their parents or guardians may have been instrumental in making decisions affecting such pre-enlistees which resulted in contravention of the Enlistment Act. We will thus be introducing a new offence in the Enlistment Act under which parents and guardians can be made liable for the Exit Permit offences of their children or wards of ages 13 to 16 1/2 so that the penalty can be imposed on their parents or guardians when the circumstances warrant it. The penalty regime for the offence will also be a fine of up to $2,000.

Key aspects of Enlistment (Amendment) Bill

Sir, I would now like to highlight key aspects of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 4 propose to increase the maximum fines that may be imposed by the court for Enlistment Act offences from $5,000 to $10,000. The higher maximum fine will allow for an appropriate level of punishment to be meted out based on the seriousness of the offence committed.

Clause 3 proposes to extend the requirement for Exit Permit to pre-enlistees aged 13 to 16 1/2. A pre-enlistee who contravenes this requirement shall be liable, on conviction, to a penalty of a fine

The amendments to the Enlistment Act will ensure that the penalty regime for NS defaulters remains effective. It will also allow MINDEF to effect changes to the Exit Permit requirements governing pre-enlistees, so that they would not be inconvenienced when the biometric passport is introduced. Together, these measures will help to deter potential NS defaulters and ensure that those who default on their NS responsibilities are adequately punished under the law.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

jail sentence, we do not consider it necessary at this time, as the circumstances of the cases vary widely. However, as explained in the Ministerial Statement, MINDEF will be asking the public prosecutor to press for a jail sentence in serious cases of NS defaulters, and explain why we consider a jail sentence appropriate in a particular case. Serious cases include those who default on their full-time National Service responsibilities for two years or longer from the time they were required to register or enlist, or from the time their exit permits expired for those granted deferment, whichever is later. We believe that it is in the public interest that such NS defaulters face a jail sentence, unless there are mitigating circumstances.pre-enlistees. One of the features of the biometric passport is that its validity period is encoded in its chip in the passport, and in accordance with international requirements, cannot be changed once it is issued. Thus, unlike the current passports, the biometric passport cannot be extended by stamping, and would have to be replaced on expiry. changes that I have just mentioned, pre-enlistees aged 13 to 16 1/2 have to be brought under the ambit of the Enlistment Act. They will, however, not be subject to other provisions in the Enlistment Act. The penalty regime for Exit Permit offences for those aged 13 to 16 1/2 will be only a fine of up to $2,000, with no custodial sentences. They will, however, be subject to heavier penalties should they continue to be in breach of the Enlistment Act after that age. not exceeding $2,000. Clause 3 also makes each parent, guardian or person having custody of a pre-enlistee aged 13 to 16 1/2 accountable for the pre-enlistee’s Exit Permit offence. Those found guilty of the offence shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in amending the Enlistment Act, we should ask what is its origin. On independence in 1965, our fledgling nation had had to start the SAF from scratch. As Singapore citizens, it is our duty and obligation to defend our own country. Our survival depends on it. There is no other way.

The Enlistment Act is therefore a necessity, as Singapore is a small country with limited manpower and resources. Some people call us "The little red dot". So be it. In the context of defence, population constraints mean that we cannot afford a standing armed force of regular officers and men. Even if we tried, there would not be sufficient numbers nor quality to form a modern regular force. Hence, the conscript SAF based on National Service.

Sir, having established the critical need for National Service, we must take it upon ourselves to implement National

The first principle, the universality of service, ie, National Service should be applied across-the-board to all male Singapore citizens within a certain age group. No one should be exempted, except on stringent and objective medical grounds.

The second principle is that of equality of treatment and sacrifice. Whether one is a hawker's son, a taxi driver's son or a tycoon's son, all of us have to go through National Service. All go through the same training, all are treated equally. This is the principle we hold close to our heart. We go through the same route march and we run up Peng Kang Hill together.

With this background perspective, I support the raising of the maximum fine quantum under the Enlistment Act from $5,000 to $10,000. Bearing in mind that we have about 100 unresolved cases of National Service defaulters a year, it is the right step forward to further deter would-be defaulters. It is also measured and fair, as there are no compulsory jail sentences. Custodial sentences, if appropriate in the circumstances, are left to the discretion of the courts to decide.

Sir, I also support the extension of the Exit Permit control to pre-enlistees aged 13 to 16 1/2 years old. This, I believe, is a consequential change, as National Service has been shortened to two years and the deferment policy for further studies has been revamped. Indeed, the clear-cut and uniform deferment policy is much welcomed. It is fair and it is seen to be fair by all. Its simplicity is its virtue. In my mind, it underlines the two fundamental principles of National Service which I mentioned earlier, ie, the universality of service and equality of treatment and sacrifice.

But doubling the fine is not the complete picture or answer. It fails to answer nor provide a solution to the question why Singaporeans or some Singaporeans abscond from National Service. It is more important for us as a nation and as a society to cultivate in our young a love for the country, to imbue in them the virtues of patriotism, honour, loyalty and commitment. If they have these, they will feel so ashamed to run away from National Service. They will not do it. It will never cross their minds. They will be honour-bound and duty-bound to do their part for our country, and this is what National Service is all about. The Government and society at large should therefore give even greater emphasis to National Education and Total Defence. May I, therefore, ask what would MINDEF and the Government do in this direction?

Sir, loyalty to nation and commitment to National Service would then be so pervasive that it would be a natural thing

Service fairly and impartially. We have to bear in mind two fundamental principles.

for all young and able-bodied male Singaporeans to bear arms and defend our own country. There will be no two ways about it.

Sir, I support the amendment.

4.30 pm

Sir, let me thank Dr Ong Chit Chung for his full support of the Bill.

He has supported the spirit of our amendments, endorsed the increase in fines, backed the signals that we are sending to Singaporeans in terms of emphasising our NS liability. Sir, I agree with him fully that this is part of the picture. Penalties are adequate, but each time we have to impose a penalty that is allowed by this Act on someone, in a sense it is a failure on our part to convince everyone of the need for NS. And he is absolutely right because we are

He has made the point that if we can move further and convince every Singaporean, every male liable Singaporean, liable to do NS, that not to fulfil those liabilities, one should feel ashamed and therefore, everyone will do it. That will be the ideal state. I agree with him. How do we do this?

For MINDEF and SAF, let me assure him and the House that we do not depend on the law to increase the buy-in for National Service. That will be the wrong approach. We have to make those two years that we put our sons through worthwhile. That is why in the debate in this House, we said that NS can only be for critical needs - critical for security and the nation's survival. Yes, there are nation-building elements in NS but we should only have the right to call up our sons to fulfil a critical security need.

Second, we must make sure that their time is adequately spent, that training is realistic, that our young men can understand why they are doing it and how they can be effective. It must be not a tokenistic exercise where you just spend your time in NS. We strive to reach the point where every family says, "I understand why NS is needed and I am proud to do it", I think we are getting there.

For the parents in this House who have been through passing-out parades, I think you understand what I mean. To see your sons in the parade square with great pride and cheering with gusto, the camaraderie, for them to be transformed from boys to men, stirs our hearts and our feelings. And with time, this will be a national trait where we find that NS is no longer a sacrifice but a privilege.

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. - [Dr Ng Eng Hen].

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

a small nation, we depend on a conscript NS army.

Order for Second Reading read.

4.36 pm

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

This Bill seeks to amend the CPF Act to allow more members on the CPF Board and to clarify certain existing policies. This Bill also allows excess amounts from the Medisave Account to overflow into the Special/Retirement Account. Further amendments will enable a small group of members who are terminally ill or have serious medical conditions which result in severely impaired life expectancy, on a case-by-case basis, to withdraw some of their CPF savings. Finally, amendments are sought to allow families of CPF members who have passed away to settle their final hospitalisation bills using the deceased member’s CPF account. Clause 3 expands the maximum number of CPF Board members from 12 to 15, and appoints the CEO of CPF Board as an ex-officio member. This amendment will allow CPF Board to tap on a greater range of expertise from its Board members, for example, in areas such as investment and fund management.

Clause 4 delegates the approving authority of CPF inspectors from the Minister for Manpower to the CPF Board of members.

Clause 11(a) amends section 24 of the CPF Act to clarify the existing position where the statutory trust is not created when members use their CPF monies to purchase insurance or for investments. It also clarifies that all CPF monies, including monies invested under CPFIS, whether being transferred to and from, or being held with agent banks or any other parties, are protected from any set-off of any nature. It also clarifies that notwithstanding the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, CPF monies withdrawn by bankrupt members for existing housing loans after bankruptcy are also protected from creditors’ claims.

Clause 12 amends section 25 of the CPF Act to clarify that the Intestate Succession Act and Administration of Muslim Law Act will apply for non-Muslims and Muslims, respectively, if no CPF nominations have been made.

Sir, currently, Medisave Account contributions in excess of the Medisave Contribution Ceiling, or "MA overflows", are automatically transferred to the Ordinary Account of the members. As announced in July last year, the MA overflows will instead be channelled to the members' Special Account or Retirement Account with effect from 1st July this year. As interest rates for the Special/Retirement Accounts are higher than Ordinary accounts, members will enjoy better returns on these savings. Clauses 5(d), (e), (f) and 14(a) provide for this. At the same time, the changes allow the Minister to reverse such MA overflows back into the Medisave accounts under exceptional circumstances when members are in need due to large medical expenses.

Sir, the majority of Singaporeans rely on their CPF savings to fund their retirement and medical needs for their old age.

The amendments proposed will also allow withdrawals by members who are terminally ill before the age of 55, or with chronic and serious illnesses that lead to severely impaired life expectancy, what we call SILE, in short. The CPF Board will allow withdrawals by such members who have been medically certified to have only a few more months to live, on a case-by-case basis, and where applicable, subject such withdrawals to sufficient funds being set aside in their CPF for their medical and other needs for their remaining life span as the Minister may specify.

The main purpose of clause 6 of the Bill is to amend section 15 of the CPF Act to allow the Minister to impose the terms and conditions governing withdrawals of CPF savings by members who are permanently physically or mentally incapacitated, of unsound mind, or terminally ill or have severely impaired life expectancy. Clause 6(e) of the Bill will allow couples under the Combined Minimum Sum Scheme to revoke their combined Minimum Sums so that the member with the medical condition can withdraw his or her savings under the new provisions while the healthy spouse will set aside the individual Minimum Sum applicable to him or her. The rest of clause 6 together with clauses 2, 7, 8 and 10 provide for consequential amendments for this policy change.

Sir, currently, a deceased member’s Medisave cannot be used to pay his last hospitalisation bill if authorisation was not given by the member or committee of the person before his death. This may create hardship for the family of the deceased member who has to pay the medical bill, especially if the family members are not nominated to receive the deceased member’s CPF monies. In principle, it is also inconsistent with the purpose of Medisave, which is to first provide for a member’s medical expenses, and not for bequest.

Clause 9 inserts a new section 16(A) to allow a family member or committee of the person to authorise the use of the deceased member’s Medisave for the member’s last hospitalisation expenses. Clause 6(c) specifies that the nominees of the deceased member will only be entitled to the balance of the CPF monies after deducting the final hospitalisation expenses.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.42 pm

As average life expectancy has increased, we have also appropriately adjusted upwards the Minimum Sum and reduce the amounts that can be withdrawn at age 55 years, to cater to the fact that on average, the median life expectancy for those at the age of 62 will be 81 years for men, and 84 years for women. However, the current CPF Act does allow withdrawals by a member, or a committee of his person or of his estate, who is physically or mentally incapacitated from ever continuing in any form of employment.

Sir, I welcome the many positive changes that are being proposed under this Bill. The CPF scheme is an important and integral part of our social security system and it cannot remain static. Changes have to be made to take into account new needs and to cover any shortcomings or gaps that are discernible as a scheme is implemented. So I view these changes positively and urge the Ministry to consider other areas where refinements are needed.

Sir, one need that has to be addressed, and which has not been touched upon in this Bill, is the generally lower CPF savings rate that women today face. Women are living longer, require more medical attention but have lower

Sir, I would therefore like to suggest that the CPF Board undertake a comprehensive study on this issue and, in particular, look into ways of strengthening the CPF savings rate for women so that they too can age with greater security. The study could, for instance, look into ways of incentivising husbands to top-up their wives' CPF accounts. There have also been concerns about wives not knowing when their husbands nominate other beneficiaries other than themselves. The CPF study could also consider the possibility of requiring wives to be notified should the husband decide to nominate a beneficiary other than herself.

I wish to call upon the CPF Board to undertake the study and for this purpose, to consult with as many stakeholders as possible who are knowledgeable and can contribute ideas on how to better strengthen the CPF savings rate of our women. I believe that this is an important and urgent task and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to this request and even set a timeline for the commencement of such a study and the completion of its report.

Sir, let me now touch on the three amendments proposed under this Bill which I consider significant and to seek clarifications from the Minister on some areas. The first is the amendment to

savings rate. For instance, in 2000, males aged 50-54 had an average of $66,123 in their CPF accounts before retirement while their female counterparts had only $39,211. And this is a problem that is not only confined to older women although those in their 50s to 80s face bigger challenges. Even younger women may continue to face the prospect of lower savings when they grow older because of the lower labour force participation rate of women. In 2000, for example, only 55.5% of women aged 15 were part of the labour force compared to 81.1% of men in the same category.section 15(2) which increases the number of grounds on which a CPF member may withdraw his CPF money. The existing law is very rigid. A member can withdraw his CPF money only if he is found to be

physically or mentally incapacitated from ever continuing in any employment, which is extremely limiting. Before a member who is physically or mentally incapacitated can withdraw his CPF money, he has to show that he completely cannot perform any work.

With the new amendment, the Minister is given greater flexibility to approve other situations where physical or mental incapacity exists but is not of such a nature that prevents the person from ever continuing in any employment. The addition of sub-paragraphs (f) and (g) are also welcome changes. These two sub-paragraphs provide two additional grounds for a person to withdraw his CPF money. A person who is either suffering from a medical condition leading to a severely impaired life expectancy or someone who is suffering from a terminal illness or disease could now also apply to withdraw his CPF. These changes would greatly help a needy CPF member to provide for himself and his family, and lessen their financial burden.

However, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister on the reasons why there is no corresponding amendment to section 28, which deals with the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) and section 40, which deals with the Dependants' Protection Insurance Scheme (DPIS). Both sections 28 and 40 provide for the HPS or the DPIS to assist a CPF member when he becomes incapacitated. Under section 28, his outstanding HDB housing loan will be paid for by the HDB, and under section 40, his family will enjoy insurance benefits when he is incapacitated or dies.

The word "incapacity" under both sections 28 and 40 are defined in the same way as the existing section 15(2). In other words, like the existing section 15(2), a person can enjoy the benefits of the HPS and the DPIS only if his physical or mental incapacity is of such a nature that it prevents him from ever continuing in any employment. I would like to seek the Minister's clarification as to why sections 28 and 40 have not been amended to bring them in line with the amendment to section 15, so that the Minister is given the flexibility to decide on the types of situations where a mental or physical incapacity is deemed sufficient for a member to benefit from the HPS or the DPIS.

Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister on the reasons why the new grounds stated under sub-paragraphs (f) and (g) for the withdrawal of CPF money are not applied to the HPS and DPIS? In other words, if a person is suffering from a medical condition leading to a severely impaired life expectancy or he is suffering from a terminal illness or disease, why is he not eligible to benefit from the HPS or the DPIS? Although in these situations, he may be allowed to withdraw his CPF, the point is that he may not have any CPF to withdraw, but his condition makes it impossible for him to continue providing for his family or to pay for his outstanding HDB monthly payments. The Minister's clarification on this discrepancy between the amended section 15(2) and the existing sections 28 and 40 would be appreciated. Could the Minister also provide information on how many people have benefited from the DPIS and HPS schemes, and how many have been allowed to withdraw their CPF on the ground of physical or mental incapacity?

The second amendment which is worth noting is the amendment to section 13(6), which now allows the amount in a person's Medisave account that is in excess of the prescribed limit to overflow

However, Sir, there could be some CPF members who do not have much savings in their Ordinary Account and who may need the money and now find that they cannot use it for their HDB instalments. Can the Minister give some indication as to how many people are likely to be affected by this change and what can be done to assist them?

The third amendment that I welcome is the new section 16A, which now allows a CPF member or a prescribed person to authorise the withdrawal of a deceased person's Medisave to pay for his medical expenses incurred before his death. Under the current provision, CPF money of a deceased member does not form part of his estate and accrues to the person whom the CPF member has nominated to receive the money upon his death. The problem arises if this nominated beneficiary refuses to pay for the hospital bills of the deceased member. With this change, the Medisave can be deducted even without the nominated recipient's approval so long as it has been authorised by the deceased member before his death, or it is authorised by a prescribed person. There is, however, one point that I would like to raise here. To ensure greater clarity so that all Singaporeans understand better, perhaps the Minister could explain who are considered as prescribed persons who

Finally, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for the rationale for not amending section 29(5), which continues to deny those who are 65 years old and above from the benefits of the Home Protection Scheme. On the one hand, we have been actively promoting policies to encourage Singaporeans to work as long as possible as we are living longer. On the other hand, we have policies such as this one, which is unfair to older Singaporeans. Even if they work and are able to pay for the Home Protection Scheme premiums, they cannot enjoy the protection provided under the Scheme. I think it is time the MOM reviewed this policy and end the discrimination by removing the current age limit.

4.52 pm

into either the Ordinary Account, Special Account or Retirement Account. In the existing provision, the overflow from the Medisave is only allowed into the Ordinary Account. As we now live longer, it makes sense to allow for overflows into the Retirement Account or Special Account, which is paid a higher interest rate and which will be used only for a person's retirement. It does not make sense, because in the current provision, the overflow goes into the Ordinary Account, and the person can then use it to buy shares or to purchase a bigger home.could authorise the deduction from the balance standing in the Medisave account of a deceased member to pay for his medical bills after his death. Are these family members or does it also include Government agencies? A clarification from the Minister would be really useful.

Sir, let me, first, thank Mdm Halimah for supporting the Bill, as well as her studious study of the many intricacies of the Bill, which shows that she does her homework and she reads the Bill quite closely.

She asked a number of questions which I would like to address, in terms of adequacy of women's CPF balances. She is quite right that women, on the whole and in general, have lower CPF balances than men. This is really a function of how long they work and their participation in the labour force. She rightly points out that the labour force participation rate for women is lower.

How do we increase their balances? We do not need a committee to study this. They just have to work longer and contribute more. If they do not

How do we get them to work longer? I think there are issues that we can consider. We have considered this issue in a number of committees. We do note that the increase in labour force participation rate of women has actually increased faster than men, because they started from a lower base. So that is good news in terms of what she has asked for.

Can it go up higher? Yes. Do we want to? I think so, because I would view CPF adequacy not just for men and women. While she is quite correct to say that CPF balances for women are lower than men, I think we miss something if we treat it as a gender issue, and I do not want to quite completely approach it as a gender issue.

Our CPF system is predicated on families - both men and women and children, supporting one another within that family. So if we can get family members of a household to have adequate CPF monies and we have allowed flows and use of CPF funds in other aspects - that will be our first approach. Because I really do not see anything wrong if indeed in a household, theoretically, the breadwinner is either male or female, and having enough to support the whole family. So it should not be a gender issue. But Mdm Halimah is right to say that the labour force participation rate of women is lower and contributions are lower, and this is something that we need to help move up. I think we can do that through a number of ways.

She also touched on the nomination procedure for CPF members. Should we also inform the family if they have not been nominated? That is quite a loaded

She has asked for clarifications on sections 28 and 40, which is on the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) and the Dependants Protection Insurance Scheme (DPIS). Let me just quickly state that there is no discrimination and there is no discrepancy. The reason why there has been no consequential amendment is because HPS and DPIS are pooled risks. For individual accounts, if you are severely ill with a terminal disease, we now say that you have to set aside a certain sum for your remaining lifespan, but you can take out the rest of your money. There is no pooled risk.

For the Dependants Protection Insurance Scheme and the Home Protection Scheme, you are actually pooling the risks. So if I allow a larger pool of members who are at greater risk - in other words, I say now I include not only those who are permanently incapacitated from ever continuing to work and include the terminally ill and the severely impaired life expectancy, then, obviously, more people within the Dependants Protection Insurance Scheme and the Home Protection Scheme will be able to claim. And when there are more claims and more pay out, the obvious happens - premiums have to go up. So it is really a

Do we have a scheme that keeps the premiums very low, as a basic scheme, to cover dependants and home protection? Or do we add terminal illness and the severely impaired illness above 65 years? There is a trade-off. And our figures show us that, contrary to what she has said in terms of affordability, there is a sharp fall off when the premiums go up, especially for those who are ageing. So I think we want to be careful and be mindful that it serves a scheme as a basic protection. By all means, members can buy riders on it but with their own money. Also, remember that there is a trade off to what we take in premiums from Medisave, DPIS, HPS and retirement adequacy. So I think it is a necessary trade-off and we think that this is the right balance. But the reason why there have been no consequential amendments is not one of discrimination. It is just an economic factor.

She has asked for numbers in terms of those who are physically incapacitated, terminally ill and of unsound mind. It is about 700 a year. She has asked who in the family members can withdraw for the member's last hospitalisation. I tried to look for details. Specifically, the spirit of it is that we want the member's last hospitalisation bill to be paid from his Medisave account. So, sensibly, since he is already deceased, his immediate family will be able to authorise. Can someone, in lieu of the family, decide? I think the spirit of it is that we want the deceased member's last hospitalisation bill to be paid with his money. Let me go through and see what we have actually crafted in law, but that is the spirit.

Sir, on a general note, I agree with her that CPF rules need to be changed from time to time, because of our changing

contribute, they do not build up their CPF balances.question and an explosive one. I will be responsible for telling on a lot of CPF members, and I am not sure I want to be that popular or unpopular. We have to think seriously on it, because it also touches on issues of disclosure. Do I maintain the balance between privacy of that person's account who he can nominate, as in a will? For example, in a will, if you are not willed into it, you are not informed. We have said that the nomination procedure should be made simple. But if I trade off that balance in terms of privacy and tell the immediate family that they have not been nominated, then everyone will know. So I think this is something that we have to consider.trade off between how expensive the premiums of that particular scheme, and this includes those above 65, which I have dealt with in this House.demography and needs. But I think these measures that we have done, although small, are significant to alleviate the use of CPF monies when appropriate.

May I seek a clarification from the Minister? The Minister mentioned about this spirit of the law in withdrawing the CPF monies. On the withdrawal from the CPF account of the deceased to pay for the last hospitalisation bill, the Bill is crafted in such a way that it allows a "prescribed person" to be able to use the CPF for the payment.

Sir, the current situation is that if someone goes to a hospital and he has not authorised his family members to use his own Medisave and then he passes away, the family cannot use his Medisave to pay for his last hospitalisation bill. And it is made worse if that person has chosen someone else to give his CPF monies to. So, the remaining family members have no access to the deceased member's CPF accounts to pay for his last hospitalisation bill as they do not have the authority to take the CPF monies because they are not the nominees. So the amendments allow the family members to use his CPF funds to pay for his last hospitalisation bill.

Can I just seek some clarifications from the Minister? First, I would like to clarify that I am in full support of strengthening the family and in using the CPF as a tool to strengthen the family. In fact, the suggestion that I have made for a study to be done on the situation of CPF savings for women is intended to contribute to that objective, ie, strengthening the position of the family. This is precisely because if someone else is nominated other than the wife, obviously the children will suffer. If the husband dies and the money does not go to the wife and the children, the entire family suffers as a result of that. That is the basis of the recommendation that I have made. And I

My second question, Sir, is this. The Minister said that you cannot have similarity. Under the existing provisions, there is similarity between sections 15(2), 28 and 40. When he said the changes to section 15(2) cannot be extended to sections 28 and 40, my question is: is there any other mechanism to help those who are faced with a terminal illness or, as stated under the new amendments, who are faced with the prospect of a shortened life expectancy, and they are not able to pay for the their mortgage payments or take care of their livelihood or that of their dependants? Are there some provisions to help them, because that is the raison d'etre, as I understand it, of the HPS and the DPIS?

Sir, I really hope for some clarifications from the Minister on these points.

hope that the Minister would look into some of these issues because I think these are really important issues. Increasing the labour force participation rate is one way, but I think we are not going to be able to completely address that issue when we deal with this aspect of low CPF saving rates for women. So we need to look at other ways as well.

Sir, we will take into account the Member's suggestion to review the nomination process. But from what I understand, it is not the nomination process but who gets nominated. If it is my own view, obviously, I would believe, like many of the Members of the House, that you should nominate your dependants, ie, your family. But do you want to, in some ways, enforce it so that members who do not, get called up, and those who are not nominated, get informed? So, it is not a simple question to answer.

In terms of the Home Protection Scheme and the Dependants' Protection

For the Home Protection Scheme, it is not so much a problem for the terminally-ill ones because there is a shortened lifespan. I agree with her that for those who have shortened lifespan but still have many more years to live and cannot work, it can be a problem.

For the Dependants' Protection Scheme, I think that the insurance companies, who will respond flexibly now that it is privatised, will allow people to pay more premiums to be able to take from the Dependants' Protection Scheme, and if you buy with a higher premium with loosening criteria, if you like, to benefit from the DPS.

For the Home Protection Scheme, the premiums are still low, and I would say that members do buy concurrent insurance. So, the answer to that is for those who feel that they want to be provided for, to buy other insurance products that will cover this risk.

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. - [Dr Ng Eng Hen].

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

Scheme, as Mdm Halimah knows, the Dependants' Protection Scheme has been privatised. She has asked a more important question - a practical one - how then do these members who are terminally ill or have severely shorterned lifespan be catered to? Let us accept a trade-off. The answer is that as it is insurance-based, they can always buy riders for that.

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Overview of the Bill

The Bill seeks to achieve three key objectives. First, to change the tax regime for fruit machines in private clubs, as announced by the Prime Minister in his recent Budget Statement.

5.08 pm

The basis of taxation will be changed from deemed turnover computed by formula from the amount of coins remaining in the cash box of the fruit machine, to actual turnover. The current tax regime was introduced in the 1950s when meters in fruit machines could not accurately capture the turnover of the machines. Fruit machine technology has moved on since then, and so should the tax regime. The rate of taxation will be set initially at 12% of actual turnover, which is the revenue-neutral rate based on survey data. MOF, however, will monitor the actual revenue impact of the new tax regime and is prepared to consider adjusting the rate of taxation accordingly, as the basic purpose of the change in the tax regime is to update the basis of taxation rather than to gain extra revenue. The new tax regime will take effect in a few months, after the clubs have made the necessary adjustments to their systems.

Second, the Bill formalises the transfer of the regulation of private lotteries, including fruit machines, from the Ministry of Finance (MOF) to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). This transfer took place administratively in April 2004, to harmonise the regulation of all gambling activities under the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Third, the Bill enhances the powers of the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) and MHA, to better facilitate the collection of private lottery duties and the regulation of private lotteries.

Sir, I will now go through the key provisions of the Bill.

Key provisions

Clauses 3 to 6 formalise the transfer of regulatory functions from MOF to MHA. In particular, clause 3 inserts a new section 2A to allow the Minister for Home Affairs to appoint a Permit Officer to regulate private lotteries, including issuing a permit to operate private lotteries, in place of the Commissioner of Estate Duties. Clause 5 also amends section 4 to allow the Permit Officer the discretion to suspend a permit, in addition to revoking a permit.

Sir, I now move on to the tax regime for fruit machines. Clause 8 amends section 7 to change the tax from 30% of deemed turnover to 12% of actual turnover. Clause 3 inserts a new section 2B to allow the Minister for Finance to appoint a Commissioner of Betting Duties to collect private lottery duties, instead of the Commissioner of Estate Duties.

Sir, the next few clauses facilitate the collection of slot machine taxes and the regulation of private lotteries through a penalty system. Clause 9 introduces penalties for failure to keep and submit proper accounts to the Commissioner of Betting Duties. Clause 10 increases the penalty for conducting a private lottery without a valid permit, to be on par with penalties for similar offences under the Common Gaming Houses Act. To specifically address the illegal operation of fruit machines at "bogus" clubs, the penalty will increase with the number of fruit machines found. Clause 10 also creates a presumption that any person found in possession of fruit machines

Clause 11 repeals and re-enacts section 11 to empower the Permit Officer to authorise a police officer to enter premises and search, seize and retain machines and documents. Clause 12 repeals and re-enacts section 13 to extend the power of the court to order forfeiture of machines and documents and to allow interested persons to show cause to the court why forfeiture should not be ordered.

Clause 12 introduces a new section 13A to empower the Commissioner of Betting Duties and the Permit Officer to compound offences. This is in line with the Ministry of Law’s decriminalisation drive.

Related amendments

Sir, the Bill also makes two related amendments to the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Act and the IRAS Act. Clause 15 amends the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Act to allow the Commissioner of Betting Duties to collect betting and sweepstake duties, instead of the Commissioner of Stamp Duties. Clause 16 amends the Fourth Schedule of the IRAS Act to provide for the appointment of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue as the Commissioner of Betting Duties to collect private lottery duties and other betting and sweepstake duties.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

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

without a valid permit will be presumed to be conducting a private lottery and thus be guilty of an offence.

Order for Second Reading read.

5.12 pm

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

Background

During the National Day Rally last year, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would be stepping up investments in R&D to strengthen our intellectual and knowledge base. More than $13 billion has been earmarked for R&D support through various agencies over the next five years. The Prime Minister also announced in his Budget Statement for FY2006 the establishment of the National Research Fund under the Prime Minister’s Office. The Government expects to inject $5 billion into the Fund over the next five years, starting with $500 million in this financial year. This Bill provides for the establishment of the Fund, the National Research Foundation Board to manage and administer the Fund, and the Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council to guide and advise the Government on all aspects of R&D activities and innovation in Singapore.

The focus of the National Research Foundation would be on "R&D that matters" and the ultimate success would be seeding new and innovative enterprises

Another way of validating our research efforts is through indicators. Today, we use input indicators which are shown to be closely related to the level of innovation.

and industries for Singapore’s economic benefits. Encouraging R&D collaborations between private and public sectors is one way to tap on the knowledge created in the universities by the commercial sector. We can also rely on companies to decide where the most commercial potential lie, and by investing in the relevant technologies validate that the research money is well spent.

Looking at the experience of other countries, it will be a challenge to select good outcome indicators. But the National Research Foundation will actively study this and come up with good indicators for adoption.

I shall now touch on the specifics of the National Research Fund. Setting up the Fund as a dedicated statutory fund facilitates the funding of R&D projects on a sustained basis, without subjecting it to the vagaries of year-to-year budgetary pressures and any possible breaks of funding in a year where there is a change of Government. Many R&D projects will require multi-year commitments, so that the assurance of continuous funding is critical.

Main provisions in the Bill

Sir, I shall now highlight the main features of the Bill. Part I of the Bill defines the scope of research and development, and its related activities. These definitions are consistent with widely accepted international norms as to what R&D means, and are in line with the OECD definition.

Part II of the Bill establishes the National Research Fund as a Government fund, and sets out the purposes for which moneys in the Fund may be used. The

First, encouraging the development in Singapore of innovative products, processes and services;

Second, increasing investment by the public and private sectors in Singapore in research and development activities that will make Singapore more internationally competitive;

Third, promoting the technological advancement of the public and private sectors in Singapore through a focus on research, development and innovation; and

Fourth, creating an environment that is conducive to increased commercialisation of new processes and product technologies.

This Bill also sets out the sources and permitted uses of the moneys in the Fund. Funding can come from private and public donations, as well as contributions from the Consolidated Fund. It also envisages income from the sale of any property produced, or from dealing with patents or other intellectual property rights in respect of inventions made, in the course of any research and development activity paid for with money from the Fund.

Part III sets out how the Fund is to be administered. It entrusts responsibility for the administration of the Fund on the National Research Foundation Board. It also provides for the establishment of the Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council (RIEC), whose main function is to oversee the promotion of all aspects of research and development activities and innovation in Singapore.

Part IV of the Bill contains several general provisions ranging from regulation-making to the proper conduct of officers exercising functions under the Bill.

The Bill also provides for consequential amendments to the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) Act, and the Singapore Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) Act. These are set out in the Schedule. At the time A*STAR and SPRING were conceived, there was no national body like the RIEC to make high level decisions on research, innovation and enterprise for the whole of Government. Their respective Acts had given A*STAR and SPRING coordinating functions over scientific research and innovation at a national level. The consequential amendments in the Bill will ensure that both A*STAR and SPRING must now have regard to the policies and directions of the RIEC when carrying out their respective statutory functions.

Sir, the establishment of the National Research Fund, the National Research Foundation Board and the Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council will set the stage for accelerating the build up of an excellent R&D community and a vibrant and prolific innovation culture in Singapore.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.18 pm

Fund's objects comprise four main thrusts:

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am very delighted that the Prime Minister, in his Budget round-up response, has asserted that R&D would be a key pillar to strengthen Singapore's foundation for sustainable growth and enhancement of our competitiveness.

The recently announced $13.55 billion five-year Science and Technology Plan with three targets of (1) increasing national R&D spending to 3% of GDP by 2010; (2) increasing the private sector

Sir, as we move forward in an increasingly globalised knowledge-based and technology-driven economy, I believe a country's ability to generate talent and continuously create value will be the primary determinant of who gets ahead in the intense economic race. Therefore, beefing up our R&D capability is a critical piece of securing our economic future.

In going through the provisions of the Bill, I have a few clarification requests which I would like the Second Minister for Finance to address. First is with respect to Part I, clause 3(2) of the Bill. This clause contains the listing and definition of activities which are not considered as systematic, investigative and experimental in nature. I presume that the activities under this clause are deemed to be non-R&D activities and therefore are ineligible to receive funding. While I agree that many of the items may be classified as such, I have reservations over activities, like market research and development and pre-production initiatives, such as demonstration of commercial viability being categorised as non-R&D.

Sir, viewed from a private sector perspective, such activities are crucial to prepare products and bring them early to market. With product cycles today getting shorter than ever, first mover advantage is a key competitive advantage. Therefore, I believe, as the hon. Member Dr John Chen does, that it is crucial that we devote special effort, including funding and resources, to the commercialisation of R&D result. Commercialisation sows the seeds which leads to wealth creation and growth and, subsequently, sinks in the pillars for enterprises to become mature and large innovative companies. Just R&D alone

Sir, I know for a fact that the Government has attempted to boost entrepreneurship with a variety of incentive schemes. A*STAR, for instance, has the commercialisation of technology (or COT) scheme but it only funds development activities of the research institutes under A*STAR itself. Unfortunately, it does not extend assistance to SMEs, or technopreneurs, who may be interested in tapping into and commercialising the research results of these institutes. I see it as beneficial if this policy could be reviewed and changed so as to enable companies, particularly local SMEs, to ride on existing R&D efforts, instead of having to reinvent the wheel themselves.

However, I would like to see that our SMEs are able to reap a fair share of the huge funds set aside for R&D. As I already said in my speech during the debate on the Budget Statement, MNCs know very well what to do to take advantage of the funds. But how do we make the various schemes more easily accessible to our SMEs so that more could become the MNCs of the future? We must never forget that they form an integral part of our enterprise eco-system and provide significant employment to our workforce.

Second, Sir, I applaud the wide ranging purposes and objects of the establishment of the research fund, as outlined in clauses 5(1) and 5(2) of the Bill. With respect to the purposes of the fund, I have the following comments and

Considering that one of the key goals of NRF is to generate more talent to support a knowledge-based economy, what is the connection between R&D spending to enhance science and technology and talent generation? The production of graduates and post-doctorate students transferable to industry is widely understood to be an important sector for technology transfer, but most Government-sponsored alliance programmes assume this to happen naturally, rather than setting specific targets or KPIs.

Where agencies, such as A*STAR, are given hefty incremental budgets to propel R&D activities, there has to be a higher degree of governance and accountability of fund expenses. I know the National Research Foundation Board will be charged with this responsibility but, since billions of dollars are involved here, I would like to suggest that the Board be required to submit a quarterly report to ensure transparency and proper appropriation and application of the fund.

Additionally, there should be a clear and transparent framework to ensure that funds and resources are invested in the targeted domains so that optimum benefits could be extracted from the investments. The framework should include both top-down and bottom-up approach. The former ensures that there is proper overview and supervision that resources are appropriately directed, while the latter draws expertise from seasoned researchers to identify emerging domains that we should be investing in.

Third, Sir, Prof. Ong Soh Khim expressed her concern about discrimination and more favourable treatment being granted to foreign researchers and scientists, in comparison to home-grown research talent. If these were true, it goes against the spirit of wanting to generate more local talent and does not augur well for Singapore's future. It calls for a review of the approval procedures for research grants to ensure that a fair and more level playing field exists as Prof. Ong has asked for.

On that note, Sir, I wholeheartedly support the NRF Bill.

5.28 pm

share of R&D to two-thirds; and (3) increasing research manpower to catch up with countries like Sweden and Japan, is very laudable and I am sure is the envy of many countries in the region.without such infrastructure support cannot achieve this. There are obviously risks in supporting such activities, but not doing them leads to shelving and decay of the R&D product which, ultimately, would become worthless when they are overtaken by new competing technologies. I would like the Minister's assurance that adequate funds would be set aside for commercial exploitation of research results.concerns, some of which were also raised by several hon. Members of this House during the Budget Statement debate. I would like to echo the concern raised by Prof. Ivan Png on the need for sharper performance measures. As he correctly stated, most of the measures currently in place are input based, such as fixed asset investment derived from R&D spending and total value-added. To evaluate the effectiveness of policies, we really should know the incremental value-add of the policies. Hence, I would like to propose that we consider outcome measures, such as: (i) the incremental value-added or value created by companies arising from the R&D funding inputs, (ii) the incremental investments and business spending derived from the extension of R&D incentives and grants by Government agencies, such as A*STAR and the Economic Development Board.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am delighted to hear that the Government shall soon be establishing a National Research Fund (NRF) for the purpose of funding and administration of research and development activities by Singaporeans. With the introduction of the NRF, this may be the much needed impetus to encourage and stimulate further innovations in the technological, scientific and multimedia industries in Singapore.

The Prime Minister mentioned, in his Budget speech, that R&D is one foundation upon which Singapore’s key

The United States and Japan have long and established records of leading advances in science and technology that serve to improve the human condition. I believe that Singapore, with its excellent infrastructure, financial resources and manpower capabilities, is similarly positioned to become a strong contender and a central repository, or knowledge hub, where ideas and innovations flourish. The introduction of the NRF is one step towards reaching this goal; however, some refinements to the Bill can still be made.

I support the focus on R&D in the biomedical sector, as befitting my role as a medical doctor, and also an entrepreneur with a keen interest in the commericalisation of biomedical innovations. In its report for 2005, A*STAR reported that, "The Biomedical Sciences (BMS) industry's manufacturing output grew to about $18 billion in 2005, which is a 9.8% increase over 2004. Pharmaceuticals accounted for 88% of the total while Medical Technology enjoyed a strong 10.6% growth to reach

competitiveness will be built upon, and I agree wholeheartedly.

S$2.1 billion in output. Employment also expanded by a healthy 8.6% to cross the 10,000 mark. Of the 10,200 jobs in the BMS manufacturing sector, 62% are in Medical Technology."

Since the BMS initiative was launched in 2000, the manufacturing output, value-added and employment for the industry have grown strongly over the past five years with compounded annual growth rates of about 23%, 19% and 12% respectively.

This figure looks set to grow, as an increasing number of multinational pharmaceutical and medical equipment firms set up operations in Singapore. Providing the underlying foundation for the BMS industry is the strong base of

Drug discovery;

Bio-imaging;

Stem cells;

Cohort studies; and

Biomarkers.

I support the continuing funding of these key research areas, as these translational programmes will interface with our basic biomedical core capabilities to further strengthen the BMS industry cluster.

Figures from the Economic Survey of Singapore conducted in 2005 also showed that private sector expenditure on R&D increased from S$2.1 billion in 2003 to S$2.6 billion in 2004, accounting for 64% of total expenditure on R&D work.

The clinical-research base would therefore be enhanced with the much needed R&D capital transfusion provided by the NRF, serving to boost Singapore’s R&D levels and contribute to our knowledge base. This is indeed timely.

However, what are the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that we will be using to measure the success of our funding measures? At the national level, we have aimed to increase the Gross Expenditure on R&D (GERD) to 3% of GDP in the next five years. This aim is to close the gap in R&D investments with innovation leaders, such as Sweden, Finland, and Japan.

We have also aimed to increase the private sector’s share of GERD to two-thirds over the long term, from the 2004

On the agency front, we have also used criteria, such as the number of PhD students trained and graduated, patent application numbers, and scientific publications as KPIs to measure our R&D efforts.

I believe that an important KPI of our National Research Foundation is to improve the innovation activity of our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and to promote private-sector R&D activities. We have a multitude of programmes and schemes to address technology innovations in SMEs. However, there is a limited take-up rate of these initiatives, as well as low R&D activities in SMEs. Most SMEs, lack the know-how and capability to absorb and develop new technologies. Most are either technology followers or technology-indifferent, with only a minority possessing the technological foundation and skilled personnel to take advantage of technology.

Any SME that focuses purely on technology innovations is viewed as "high-risk", similar to the "Dot-Com" companies, which "burn" a lot of money with no visible return to their investors. Biomedical companies that focus on drug or device development also fall into this category, as they consume a lot of resources but do not provide immediate financial returns.

In a commentary made in 2004 by Sir Peter Williams, the Chairman of the UK Engineering and Technology Board and Chairman of the UK National Physical Laboratory, he said:

"We recognise that R&D is only one indicator of innovative activity within a company, as the DotCom boom has taught us that technology and investment success are not guaranteed bedfellows. It is financial success which both a manager and investor alike seek - not scientific achievement."

"It is nevertheless this link between science, engineering and technology (SET), R&D, and wealth creation, which is often a prerequisite for success, as shown in a study led by the Engineering and Technology Board of the UK, in partnership with the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering."

They observed that SET intensive Small Caps and spin-outs emerging from UK universities have provided one of the fastest growing investment sectors, with the FTSE Small Cap index out-performing the FTSE 100 since market recovery commenced in early 2003.

The Science and Technology Plan 2010 also quoted the importance of SMEs in their report. They mentioned:

"SMEs, because of their small size and less entrenched modus operandi, hold great potential as a source of creativity and innovation. In the US, four out of 10 highly innovative firms are small firms. Indeed technology innovation can provide a powerful platform from which SMEs launch into the competitive economic landscape of the 21st century."

As I scrutinised the NRF Bill, two key concerns emerged. Firstly, how can the NRF be best directed to the private sector? Secondly, it is hoped that the RIEC will consider how best to utilise strategic private and public sector partnerships, eg, establishing linkages between the higher institutes of education and the private sector companies in sharing best practices in research development, to allow the best possible

I would also like to emphasise the importance of allowing more private sector companies, regardless of their sectors, to be given the opportunity to tap into this Fund, as long as the basic criteria outlined for application of this Fund are met.

Further, I would like to highlight the importance of allowing Singaporeans based overseas, such as those working in research institutes abroad, to tap into the NRF fund for the purpose of conducting investigative research for data collection that would assist in scientific and technical breakthroughs. Under Part III, clause 2 of the NRF Bill, the "activities taken to be systematic, investigative and experimental" as described within, are important points that should be adhered to, but their scope could be widened to allow overseas Singaporeans the same leeway to use the Fund to carry out relevant R&D activities.

On Part IV, clause 14(2) in the NRF Bill, I find the penalty for the breaching of confidentiality clause or of falsifying records too low. Because of the premium that must be placed on guarding the intellectual property of patented products, I would like to suggest that the monetary fine of $5,000 be increased to $10,000 to serve as a better deterrent.

I hope the esteemed NRF Board and the RIEC will be able to advise the public on how soon the Fund will be made available, and also to outline the criteria that must be met by private and public sector companies in order to qualify, and successfully apply for this Fund.

basic science research capabilities established by BMRC. Five key areas of research have been identified by BMRC where Singapore could play a critical role:level of 64%. The last objective is to increase the research manpower to support our R&D thrusts and the higher level of R&D activities, where the current level is about 98 Full-time Employee (FTE) Researcher per 10,000 labour force. The aim is to catch up with countries like Sweden and Japan and also to ensure an adequate supply of manpower.leverage on R&D opportunities provided by the fund. I hope that the RIEC will provide us with the guidelines very soon.