Hansard, 2007-01-23

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 (2007) To (2007) Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 23 Jan 23 Jan Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo 30 Jan 02 Feb 06 Feb 08 Feb 13 Mar 15 Mar Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon 30 Jan 01 Feb Mr Ang Mong Seng 08 Feb 10 Feb

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for National Development what is the Government going to do with the budgeted sum of $80 million promised to be given to the residents of Potong Pasir in the last election, now that the Government is not releasing it to upgrade that constituency.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe Mr Chiam is

referring to the $80 million upgrading package offered by the PAP candidate. As the majority of voters in Potong Pasir did not support this plan, the PAP candidate did not have the mandate to pursue his proposal with the Government. Hence, there was no need for the Government to set aside any budget for it. I believe the Potong Pasir voters agreed with Mr Chiam See Tong's statement that "over a five-year term, he would be able to upgrade all 40 blocks" using his Town Council funds. Nevertheless, let me reiterate that the Government is committed to provide lift upgrading to all eligible blocks by 2014, including those in Potong Pasir. As part of this plan, Town Councils are allowed to use up to 10% of its sinking fund to carry out lift upgrading in blocks where the upgrading cost does not exceed $5,000 per benefiting unit. Many Town Councils have submitted proposals to do so. I note that to date, my Ministry has not received any such proposals from the Potong Pasir Town Council. This is in spite of Mr Chiam's electoral promise to carry out lift upgrading in Potong Pasir using his Town Council funds.

Sir, there are two supplementary questions. The first one is a direct one: why was the sum not released to the residents of Potong Pasir for upgrading? The second question is: does it mean that if we submit an amount for upgrading of Potong Pasir, the Government is willing to pay out that money?

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam has asked the reason for the fund not released to the Potong Pasir Town Council. I would just reiterate my point earlier on that the package was proposed by the PAP candidate and it was on the premise that, if he were elected, he would solicit Government's support for the $80 million. Since his proposal was

not supported by the residents of Potong Pasir, that package no longer exists. So there is no ground for the $80 million to be released to Potong Pasir residents.

Mr Chiam asked if he were to submit a plan, whether the funds would be allocated. As I have said, the Government will provide lift upgrading to all the blocks by 2014. That is a promise. If the fund that Mr Chiam is going to ask for falls into this group of flats, that is what the Government is prepared to look at.

Sir, I think it is not fair to give a vague answer. She said "by 2014". Does it mean that Potong Pasir will only get its share of upgrading by 2014?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the deadline of 2014 cannot be more explicit, and I do not think you can consider that vague. All HDB estates, including those under the PAP, have the deadline of 2014. I think none of us has any deadlines more specific than that.

It has already been said that the Opposition wards will always be last in the queue. So I am assuming that only in 2014, the money will be released to us. But, more specifically, I would like to ask whether the amount of $80 million is really an incentive for the residents to vote the PAP candidate, not for upgrading.

The $80 million is an electoral promise made by the PAP candidate, just like some of us have made our promise during the election to our residents as well, including Mr Chiam's promise to upgrade his 40 blocks with his Town Council's funds, it is in the same nature.

2. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim asked the Minister for National Development in

light of reports on the plight of families living in a tent and lorry, (a) what are the facts and circumstances of their inability to obtain public housing; and (b) what steps has HDB taken to resolve these cases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the two cases referred to by Dr Faishal were reported in the Berita Harian in late November and early December last year.

Let me highlight the key facts. Both of these cases have received housing subsidies in the past. One had made substantial profits through the sale of two subsidised flats - the most recent being in March 2005. His application for a subsidised HDB rental flat was rejected because he could not meet the eligibility conditions. There were no grounds to give him any special consideration. He and his foreign wife subsequently shifted to a relative's flat. The other case had defaulted on his mortgage payments on his flat, which he had purchased from the open market with a housing grant. When the bank repossessed his flat, he applied to HDB for a subsidised rental flat. His application was also rejected because he could not meet the eligibility conditions. As he is actually eligible for a HDB concessionary loan and will have some proceeds from the sale of his repossessed flat, HDB advised him to consider buying a smaller flat. He could also consider staying with his siblings or at temporary shelters run by VWOs. He declined to take up any of these suggestions.

Based on these facts, Sir, I believe you will agree with me that these two cases were homeless by choice, rather than due to circumstances beyond their control. The individuals may have spent their sale proceeds irresponsibly or decided that the

other housing options are not sufficiently attractive to them. As I have stated on various occasions in this House, HDB is prepared to help genuinely needy cases to rent or buy a flat from HDB. However, such appeals need to be carefully scrutinised to ensure that our limited housing subsidies are fairly distributed to those that need them most and are not abused. Individual homeowners must understand the implications of their decision to buy and sell their flats and take personal responsibility for these decisions. Although social services may also be offered to those genuinely in need, on a temporary basis, the Government cannot repeatedly provide assistance and subsidies to bail out financially irresponsible households, as it will only encourage such behaviour and deprive deserving families of help.

On its part, HDB will also provide financial counselling to help potential flat buyers better understand the long-term financial implications of their flat purchases. Starting from this year, HDB will require those applying for HDB loans to obtain a Home Loan Eligibility letter before they commit to a flat purchase. This is another measure by HDB to inculcate financial prudence and forward planning among flat buyers.

Sir, besides the measures highlighted by the Parliamentary Secretary, Dr Mohamad Maliki Osman, I am wondering whether the Ministry could also consider providing timely alternative public housing options to residents or families facing such circumstances, so that they can act as a buffer for them in facing the effects, in particular their children. Such measures would also help them to face the effects and at the same time, help them to rise again in the near future.

Sir, we recognise that when families are faced with such crisis situation, they need support. Often times, it is very difficult to make a decision on the kind of support that is to be given to such families. As far as options are available, I think there are several options that are already in place. Certainly one is the subsidised rental flats that are available. And we look at the eligibility criteria and conditions of the family to see whether they are eligible or we can waive some of these conditions to help them. Secondly, it is the market rate rental that is available to some of these families. But the third option, which is an option that very few families tend to fall back on, is really the option of their own extended families. We have to recognise the fact that, at the end of the day, if, as a society, we want to uphold the policy or the value that the family is the first line of defence, we must take a look at where the families are in supporting some of these households who are actually in need at the point in time. Often times, when we look at the individual cases, there is family support that is available and we explore with them, but they tend to not want to go back to the family for support. It is not easy to actually give support at that point in time because there are a lot of conditions that we have to look at and there are a lot of issues that we have to address.

So, I think, what is more important also at the end of the day is to look at upstream measures to try to prevent some of these families from getting into such difficulties. One of the issues we realise is that families do not respond early enough when the banks start coming to them for payments. They often wait till the very end before they respond. We need to try to educate some of these families to make sure that they acknowledge the problems that they face and come forward when the banks start taking action against them. Secondly, it is to ensure that families are aware of implications of the

actions that they take. When they take loans from the banks, for example, they must be aware of the financial policies that these banks operate in. We need to try to make sure that they understand the implications of this action that they take. Often times, most of these families take the bank loans without understanding what it means, when the rates will go up, and what happens after that. More importantly, what we are trying to do now is for HDB to try to educate these families at the onset of purchase. HDB officers will come forward and try to explain to these families that they actually understand what it means for them to take a bank loan and what it means for them should rates go up and, at the same time, HDB is working very closely with the banks to make sure that cases which are at risk of having their flats being repossessed are identified early, so that MCYS and other agencies can come forward to try to help these families.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned quite generally just now that many of these residents facing this situation were those who sold their flats and then used the proceeds not responsibly. Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that there are also many cases of residents who are in negative equity and, as a result of that, the banks are forcing sale? Therefore, they actually do not have excess cash to help them rent or buy a flat. These cases are increasing because of the policy change of allowing banks to handle HDB mortgages. In fact, I have a resident - now this is the fifth week - who has been staying at the void deck and has not been able to find an alternative accommodation.

Mr Singh, no speeches. What is your question, please?

My question is: do we have a solution for such people who

do not make any gain from the sale of the flat?

Sir, we review every case on a case-by-case basis, and that is why it takes some time for us to review those cases. When cases come to us, we have to look at the background, the history of it, and the level of subsidies they have taken. Yes, there are issues of families facing negative equity. But when we look back, many of them would have already had several subsidies and benefited from the subsidies. Often times, it is very difficult for us to make a decision whether we should give them further subsidies with regard to subsidised rental flats. So, it takes a while before we are able to understand the circumstances of each case. Often times, we offer them temporary housing in shelters that are available and run by VWOs. And, often times, these families reject such options. So, whether they choose to take up those options or choose to live in void decks, at the end of the day, is really their choice. Often times, when we face these families, the first thing we offer them is really temporary housing through the shelters. And our experience is that these families reject the shelters that are made available to them. Secondly, we explore related families that are available - their brothers and sisters, their siblings. And when we look at the case history, we realise there are family members who have got flats that they can actually accommodate these families, and they reject those options also.

So, is it fair for us then to ensure that the Government comes in and gives them the rental flats just because they reject all these other options? But I want to also emphasise in the House that HDB has been very particular in looking at each case and trying to understand the circumstances within each case. And if the case is really deserving and merits a

waiver of some policies, we will continue to try to help these families.

Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned earlier that home owners should be made aware when they take a bank loan. There are situations where they may not be able to service the mortgage loans. But is the Parliamentary Secretary also aware at the same time that for many of these families, they do not have a choice. When they applied for HDB loans they were turned down. The only alternative to getting financing for the flat is to turn to the banks. It is not as if they have a choice.

Sir, whether they have a choice or not really is dependent on them understanding the circumstances that they face at the point in time. The choice that they have is they are eligible for the first subsidised flat from HDB or a housing grant if they choose to buy a resale flat. Often times, these are not first-time cases. They came buying the second flat or the third flat, meaning that they are well aware of the number of subsidies they have already taken. Choices - do they have to sell the flat? It is up to them. The decision to sell the flat at that point in time really is up to the family. We can say that because they are in negative equity, they have to downgrade, therefore they have to sell the flat.

Yes, then we look at those individual cases. If they really have to downgrade because of financial reasons, when they come to us and say they cannot take a bank loan for whatever reasons, we will look at it carefully. And if the case merits support from us, we will look into it and will give them the concessionary loan that is required. I think many of the Members of the House have also seen cases where HDB has been sensitive to the circumstances surrounding those families and have acceded to the requests for concessionary loans. But there are also cases that HDB has rejected based on different circumstances. I think

the point to make here is that we will continue to look at individual cases. We will try to help individual cases. If they do merit consideration, we will try to help them.

Two supplementary questions, Sir. There are many residents, especially older residents, who cannot find jobs or they have jobs but their pay is low. But at the point when they apply for a flat, they could afford it because they have jobs. But circumstances change. Therefore, it is not so much an issue of financial planning as the fact that Singapore's economy is very volatile now. So when they sell their flats, the problem is that they have negative equity, they have medical bills to pay, especially if they are old, and the debarment period of 30 months kicks in and they do not get a rental flat. So in fact, we are giving them no option.

Your question, please, Ms Ng.

Can I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what are the options for older residents, especially those without jobs or with low pay, who do not have an option for rental flat? My second supplementary question is on the reverse mortgage scheme. Can the Ministry work closely with banks to offer this option so that residents need not be kicked out of their homes but can stay in their homes and receive a viable sum of money that makes sense to them?

Sir, on the issue of older workers, it is not whether they are older workers or they are not older workers. But we look at the circumstances of each case. Not only older workers are faced with certain difficulties when they lose their jobs. We look at the case based on the circumstances they are in right now, whether they have income or not and

whether they have sufficient resources. At that point in time, if they really need to downgrade, we will look at the capability of downgrading and the type of flat that they are able to downgrade to. If they are not eligible for another concessionary loan, we look at the situation again to see whether we can actually waive that condition. Like I have said earlier, we will look at the case individually. If Members of the House have particular cases that they think merit consideration from the Ministry, certainly HDB will look at it very, very carefully.

On the question of reverse mortgage, the scheme is already in place. There are a couple of banks that have offered reverse mortgages for elderly households to actually monetise their asset. However, I think at this point in time, as I recall, the take-up rate is pretty low because the concept of reverse mortgage has not sunk in in many of our elderly households. Secondly, it could also be concerns that have been raised by several elderly households that what happens if they outlive the tenure of the reverse mortgage period. There are several issues that have arisen with respect to the reverse mortgage scheme. But just to reassure the Member, the scheme has already been in place. There are a couple of banks that are already offering reverse mortgages.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, last question.

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware that in fact the bank loan offer is not a clear cut alternative? Because for those who want to borrow money and they have been turned down by HDB, they will have to go to the bank. In Singapore, for most of, if not all, the banks, they will only approve loans with a minimum of $100,000, and there are people who actually do not need the money and end up having to borrow so much and get themselves into difficulties.

This is one of the challenges that HDB faces. Are we, in HDB, the banker of last resort, take up all the other cases that the banks do not want to offer? It is always a challenge. We do recognise the policies of the banks and the banks have every right to decide on their own lending policies. HDB recognises these policies in the banks. When cases come to us for appeals, perhaps for reasons that their loans are too small or because their household income is too low, there are many reasons that the banks give them for rejecting their appeals for a bank loan, for such circumstances, we do look at them.

I would like to suggest to Members, where there have been cases that have been referred to HDB for appeals, if there are particular cases that they think are difficult or ought to be looked at more closely, do let us know. I would be able to give individual Members a history of the different cases that have been referred to us and to show how we have responded based on the different circumstances. For example, the inability to get bank loans because the loans are too small or poor credit records or various reasons, we have acceded to some of these requests. But, again, cases are very unique. No two cases are similar. So sometimes, Members may see two cases that are almost similar, but the decision made is different because the background to the case may be slightly different and Members may not be aware of the background to those cases. Sometimes, at the Ministry, we will inform the Members the history of those cases so that Members become more aware of the circumstances of those cases and how the decisions were made whether to accede to their appeals or not.

3. Mr Wee Siew Kim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs if he will update the House on the

activities of loan sharks, including (i) the number of police reports on harassment by loan sharks made by family members, neighbours and wrongly identified neighbours of debtors in the last 12 months; (ii) the trend of loan sharking and harassment activities over the last three years; (iii) the enforcement measures taken by the police in curbing illegal lending activities and harassment; (iv) the current procedures, deterrent measures and penalties for these criminals; and (v) the success rate of the police over the last three years and the expectations of the police force on future trends in this area of crime.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 2006, there were 10,221 reported cases of unlicensed moneylending (UML) harassment activities. This is an increase of 19%, compared with the corresponding period in 2005 when there were 8,568 reported cases. Similarly, the 2005 figures represent a 47% increase over 2004, which had 5,809 reported cases.

Sir, UML syndicates of today are becoming more elusive in their operations. In their bid to avoid detection and arrest by the authorities, they use technology and capitalise on electronic banking facilities to achieve "virtual" transactions, not only with their borrowers and debtors but also between syndicate members. By making use of the bank accounts and telephone numbers of desperate debtors, they are able to conceal their own identities.

Taking cognisance of this trend, Police has committed significant manpower for intelligence gathering, investigation and enforcement against these UML operators. At the same time, Police adopts a holistic approach in combating the UML situation in Singapore. Let me provide an overview of the measures we have adopted as part of a comprehensive plan to combat UML activities in Singapore.

Enhancing penalties in the Moneylenders Act

First, Members will recall that we enhanced the penalties under the Moneylenders Act. The penalties set out in the Moneylenders Act were enhanced effective from 1st January last year, to double the fines and imprisonment terms for first-time offenders of unlicensed moneylending. For repeat offenders, imprisonment was made mandatory.

In harassment cases, caning was introduced for offenders who commit damage to property during the course of harassment. Repeat offenders of harassment were made subject to mandatory caning when hurt to person or damage to property is caused.

Confiscation of assets of UML syndicates

Second, confiscation of assets of UML syndicates. Two offences under the Moneylenders Act have been gazetted as predicate offences under Schedule 2 of the Corruption, Drugs Trafficking & Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, or CDSA Act in short, on 9th September 2005.

In this way, unlicensed moneylenders who have been charged and convicted in court for these offences, may have their assets seized and confiscated. The prospect of seizure and confiscation of the assets of illegal moneylenders and their syndicate leaders would make UML more unprofitable and unattractive.

Use of CL(TP) Act against syndicate members

Third, Police has invoked the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act to deal with the members of these syndicated UML operations, whenever necessary.

Formation of the Anti-UML Task Force (AUML TF)

Fourth, at the enforcement front, Police formed a dedicated Anti-Unlicensed Moneylending Task Force (AUML Task Force) in the Criminal Investigations Department in July 2005 to take a more focused approach against unlicensed moneylending syndicates, instead of leaving it to individual Divisions to tackle the problem. Last year, a total of 168 ambush operations and nine intelligence-led operations were conducted against UML activities.

Apart from dealing with UML members, the Task Force is also on the look out for errant debtors who end up assisting or abetting UML activities. These acts of abetment include offering their bank accounts to UML operators, or registering for their prepaid SIM cards or other communication lines in their names for use by UML operators. Debtors who take loans from UML syndicates and subsequently sell their property to innocent victims without changing their addresses, can also be charged for offences under the National Registration Act.

Cancellation of the passports of known UML syndicate members

Next, let me touch on the passport cancellation policy against ex-UML syndicate leaders, which came into effect on 1st September 2005. By curbing their ability to travel overseas, ex-UML syndicate leaders are prevented from continuing to operate their UML businesses from abroad after their release from prison.

As at December last year, 28 passports have been cancelled. These ex-syndicate leaders would be subjected to a 10-year travel ban commencing from the date of their release from prison or, for

those who have been fined only, the date of their conviction.

Installation of CCTVs to deter UML runners from harassing debtors

Then another initiative which we have taken is this collaboration between Police and the Town Councils to install more CCTVs for general crime prevention which also serve to deter and prevent UML harassment activities.

Collaborative efforts with other agencies

Lastly, as part of the comprehensive approach in dealing with this problem, Police has been engaging various external agencies, such as the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Association Banks of Singapore (ABS), local banks, SingPost, HDB and IRAS to tackle the UML situation from various fronts, by tightening up on procedures and policies to limit the opportunity for exploitation by UML syndicates.

Mr Wee also asks about the current procedures in dealing with these UML cases. Presently, upon receiving a report of harassment by unlicensed moneylenders, uniformed police officers will be deployed to perform on-scene investigation. Officers will take photographs of the scene, and record statements and particulars of the witnesses, victims and the alleged borrower, if they are present. Officers will also obtain important evidence, such as debtor's notes and contact numbers, and pass these onto the Anti-UML Task Force, which will carry out further in-depth investigation, gather intelligence and mount operations against UML syndicates.

As for the success rate in tackling illegal moneylending, let me assure the House that Police is keeping to a very high tempo in its anti-UML enforcement efforts. Due to the secretive nature of the current modus operandi of UML syndicates, extensive intelligence gathering

and investigations are needed before we can arrest the perpetrators and bring down the syndicate. It therefore takes time for these efforts to bear fruit.

We have, however, managed to achieve some measure of success in dealing with UML syndicates. Last year, 2006, 294 persons were arrested for UML offences and harassment-related activities. This is an increase of 11% as compared to the year before in 2005. Also, last year, Police dealt with 39 UML syndicate members under the CL(TP) Act, which is an increase of 63% compared to 24 in 2005. And more importantly, in addition, Police smashed eight syndicates last year, compared to one the year before. And that is the nub because we have to tackle the syndicates so that we go to the source of the problem.

So Police will continue to closely monitor the unlawful moneylending situation, partnering the relevant agencies and members of the public to holistically combat the UML problem.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for a very comprehensive reply. But I raise this question because I sense the frustration of some of my residents on the ground. Some of them are innocent to the whole affair because they are not actually party to the loan. It seems that the modus operandi of most of these loan sharks is to harass

the neighbours, cause damage to property, deface the environment and bring indirect pressure. The problem is that statistics show that the trend is actually deteriorating. We appreciate that a lot of effort has been made. But how fast on the ground can some of these cases be solved and the success highlighted so that people feel safer?

Sir, the Member is absolutely right. This is a problem that affects all of us, something

that is very heart-rending to those who are affected. But let me assure him and the House and Singaporeans at large that when we spotted the situation worsening two and a half years ago, we geared up. Formation of the task force was a signal that we sent as well as all the other measures that we have taken. So, on our part, the Police will definitely do what it takes working with the various agencies to tackle the problem.

On the ground, residents can also maybe help themselves if they could, for example, form Neighbourhood Watch Groups. This is something that I have encouraged my residents to do, because it is not easy when somebody comes and harasses us and we call the Police. By the time the Police comes, the person would have disappeared. So, if residents are mindful that this is happening in their block and are alert to what is happening and perhaps SMS networks can be formed and direct links established with the NPP. Although this will not solve the problem, it will at least represent an effort on the part of residents to work with the relevant agencies.

My call, therefore, is that, yes, as the illegal moneylenders have geared up, we will also gear up. When we tackle this problem resolutely, we shall overcome.

4. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs what plans or programmes does the Ministry have, within the framework of the Community Engagement Programme (CEP), to promote greater religious tolerance and harmony at the grassroots level.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Community Engagement Programme is a long-term effort to ensure that our multi-religious, multi-ethnic society will stay united should a terrorist attack occur in Singapore.

To achieve this, we need to identify and work with community leaders who will help to ensure calm and unity amongst the different communities in a crisis. We will develop and sustain platforms for these community leaders to interact and forge closer bonds. We will also work with them to develop and validate actionable response plans to manage any communal tension that could arise.

Since the launch of the programme by the Prime Minister in February last year, MHA has worked together with the People's Association and other Ministries overseeing the five community clusters to develop the necessary supporting structures to facilitate the CEP efforts. We have also started engaging the community leaders and putting in place a national CEP response framework.

Let me briefly highlight some of these structures. In July last year, the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts set up the Media Emergency Forum. This forum provides a platform for open and frank exchange of views between local senior media editors and the Government on crisis issues. In October, the Ministry of Manpower set up the Tripartite Panel on CEP at Workplaces. This panel, comprising Government, business and union leaders, will reach out to businesses and unions on the importance of maintaining communal harmony at the workplace, especially in the aftermath of a crisis. Also in October, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports formed the National Steering Committee on Racial and

Religious Harmony. This is a national platform for ethnic and religious leaders to dialogue, build networks, and formulate strategies to strengthen engagement across ethnic and religious organisations. The National Steering Committee will also chart strategic directions and provide guidance for the reconstituted Inter-Racial Confidence Circles, which will act as the local platforms to lead in building inter-religious and racial understanding and in responding to tensions with religious or racial dimensions.

For the Community Engagement Programme to be sustainable, the key point must be that initiatives must come from the people. It is only when Singaporeans on the ground own these programmes that we can truly unleash the full potential of the CEP. The Government will help to connect people and provide support and resources so that they can sustain these initiatives.

In the past year, it is heartening to see communities answering the Government's call and taking the initiative to organise such activities. I think Members would either know them or know about them or have indeed participated in some of these ground-up activities. In September last year, the Chinese and Malay communities got together to jointly organise a job fair to provide job opportunities and skills upgrading courses for Malay workers. A number of inter-faith events, dialogues and forums have also been held. In this vein, in October last year, PM Lee officiated at the opening of the Harmony Centre at An-Nahdhah Mosque. The Harmony Centre seeks to promote greater inter-faith understanding and bring people of different religions together by hosting exhibitions, seminars and forums. Early this year, an inter-faith forum and dinner was organised jointly by the University Scholars Programme, Ba'alwie Mosque and Inter-Religious Organisation to discuss ways to enhance inter-faith understanding.

Moving ahead, we will be organising a National Seminar on the Community Engagement Programme for the community leaders from the various clusters. This seminar will help to build bonds between the community leaders across different clusters and familiarise them with the community response plans from other clusters. We will then be conducting a CEP exercise later this year to test and validate these response plans. MHA will be providing more details at the upcoming Committee of Supply debate.

Sir, how would the Minister engage the traditional religious leaders? Already, Muslim ustaz who got involved in the religious rehabilitation group have been labelled Government ustaz by some elements of the Muslim community. This may actually discourage other well-meaning religious leaders from getting involved or identified as part of the Government effort. How can the Ministry mitigate such labelling?

Sir, if the Member had asked this question and made this point several years ago, it would probably have been quite valid. But since then, as I have enumerated, we have bridged the gaps between the communities. We are not quite there yet, but certainly there is now deeper understanding and trust, and this is expressed in many activities that have been happening.

Sir, in light of the many activities that have been organised, even the initial scepticism that surfaced amongst the community when these religious leaders volunteered to join the programme, I think that has been overcome. Indeed, our moderate Malay leaders are now going to the ground to talk to the rest of Singaporeans.

At the COS debate, we will explain more on how, going forward, we will

continue to build this pyramid. I think we are going up. We have certainly improved in the last three to four years. But more can be done. Let us see how we can do more together.

Sir, may I just ask the SMOS, in assessing the effectiveness of our Community Engagement Programme, do we just measure by the number of activities and programmes, or are there any other indicators that we use to determine effectiveness?

Sir, it is not just the number of activities but the quality of the programme, the outreach of the programme and the objectives of the programmes achieved. For example, the programmes that I mentioned just now, some of these in fact surfaced from the ground. Just two or three days ago, a youth seminar was spearheaded by Taman Bacaan, a voluntary group out there. It was not initiated by the Government. Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed were there. Dr Muhd Faishal I think was also there. But they were not there to just tell their own stories. The students there shared their perceptions as students of what community engagement is all about and what building bonds amongst races is all about. We had students from the madrasahs and the JCs all taking part. This is only one example.

Sir, if we recollect in our own experiences, the examples that are happening on the ground, plus the clusters that have been formed and the initiatives that are surfacing, we can see that, qualitatively, we are progressing. But, like I have said, it is never done. It is work-in-progress, because we can never take this area for granted. So, let us continue to do more.

I am glad to have been part of the initiative which the Minister mentioned earlier. I would just like to make a slight comment based on the approach that has been taken for the CEP.

Are you asking a question or making a comment, Mr Zaqy?

I am asking a question as well. What are the programmes in place for the CEP to engage the new media segment? A lot of these programmes have been around traditional media and religious leaders, but what have we been doing in that space so far?

MICA has formed a cluster that will engage the members of the media and also the arts. And the Member is right, especially for young people, we need different platforms to reach out to them. So, in March, when we look at the MHA's budget and we talk about it in the COS debate, more of these plans will be shared.

5. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how much money was withdrawn from CPF accounts for tertiary education in the last five years; and (b) will his Ministry allow Singapore citizens who aspire to upgrade themselves during their mid-career to use their CPF to pay for their course fees.

The CPF Education Scheme, introduced in 1989, already allows members to withdraw money from their CPF Ordinary Account to upgrade themselves or support their children through full-time local tertiary education. The Member asked how much monies have been withdrawn. Under the scheme, the money withdrawn has to be repaid with interest, upon the conclusion of the course. Over

the last five years, 69,000 applications amounting to $490 million has been withdrawn - 95% for their children, and the remaining 5% for themselves or other family members.

Sir, will the Ministry allow Singaporeans who aspire to upgrade themselves during mid-career to use their CPF for payment of their course fees, especially for diploma holders who want to pursue a degree?

Sir, I have already replied that the current scheme allows them to do that.

Sir, what I understand is that university fees are allowed to be deducted from CPF but polytechnic fees are not allowed. Are they both not tertiary?

Sir, the Member is not correct. Nonetheless, there are some stipulations in terms of what the institutions are and whether they do part-time or full-time.

The issue is this. It is a limited pot. Yesterday, in this House, Members asked whether there was enough, how many members and their Minimum Sum, can they use it for Medisave, but it is still a limited pot. So we need to go back to the origin and the purpose for the CPF, ie, really for their retirement savings first, for their medical and housing. If we extend the use to other issues, I think we will deplete the pot.

From the point of view of Singaporeans wanting to upgrade and access to funding, there are a number of avenues that they can go to without having to touch their own CPF. I would be loath to open it up more to liberalise it and, in the process, deplete their funding. I take the point that it is an investment on the part of members and, even though it may be worthwhile, I would prefer for

funding to be opened up in other avenues. And indeed we have. For example, under the WDA programme, we give funding for mid-career professionals who want to change their careers, eg, to become nurses or teaching assistants or in IT and finance. We want to expand these courses. Obviously, these courses are not cheap. For example, a particular conversion course to be nurses costs about $20,000 a year, but it is money well spent. If it enables someone to change his/her career and extend his/her employability, it is worth it.

Sir, I think this is the route that is preferred, rather than liberalising the CPF scheme, which should be primarily targeted at retirement, medical and housing expenses.

6. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many people were in arrears with their income tax in the last financial year; and (b) whether his Ministry will consider deducting the income tax upfront from the salary instead of waiting till the end of the financial year.

): Sir, the number of income tax arrears incurred in FY 2005/06 was 67,364 cases as at March 2006. This is around 4% of the total number of assessments raised and represented 2.6% of the total value of tax assessed.

Sir, Singapore enjoys a high level of tax compliance and a relatively low rate of tax arrears partly because IRAS has made it convenient for taxpayers to firstly file and, secondly, to pay by providing various payment arrangements. About 55% of taxpayers have opted to pay their taxes

through monthly instalments using GIRO. In addition, where taxpayers face financial difficulties, IRAS will work with them to increase the number of instalment payments or even to defer tax payments where warranted. By taking into account taxpayers' individual circumstances, IRAS has facilitated tax compliance.

In 2005, the Ministry of Finance considered switching to a Current Year basis of assessment, ie, having the employer deduct the tax payments from the employees' salaries and remitting it to the tax authorities directly. The reasons were to bring about a better matching of taxpayers' incomes and tax expenditures and to enhance the effectiveness of the tax system as a fiscal stabiliser.

However, the feedback from the public consultation exercise that was conducted as part of the review was not in favour of switching to a Current Year basis of assessment. Taxpayers had concerns over the practical difficulties in estimating their current year's income in order to pay their taxes upfront, as well as the high compliance costs incurred by businesses and individuals as a result of the periodic filing and the withholding of tax required under the Current Year basis. In view of the feedback, the Ministry of Finance decided not to switch to a Current Year basis. The results of the review were announced in the 2005 Budget.

Nonetheless, my Ministry is prepared to reconsider this proposal should the reasons for adopting Current Year basis become more compelling in future.

7. Mr Michael Palmer asked the Minister for Education whether any steps will be taken to improve the standard of pre-school education and whether his Ministry intends to review and, if neces

sary, improve the present guidelines issued for pre-schools.

Sir, since 2000, MOE has been taking steps to raise the quality of pre-school education, while maintaining the diversity in the sector. To do this, MOE has been focusing on the following four main areas specifically:

Firstly, improving the quality of pre-school educators. This is the key to quality pre-school education. We must have competent and confident pre-school teachers who are able to design and conduct engaging lessons and stimulating activities for their pupils. As such, MOE has been working with kindergartens to ensure that their teachers upgrade themselves to attain the required professional training and development to enable them to be more effective in the classrooms.

Secondly, MOE also provides a kindergarten curriculum framework. The framework establishes the outcomes and goals for pre-school education in Singapore, as well as a set of internationally accepted and established principles of early childhood education. MOE has also disseminated a teachers' resource package to guide kindergartens in designing and conducting a suitable education programme for their pupils.

Thirdly, conducting workshops and sharing sessions. These were intended for pre-school educators to help them implement the principles of the curriculum framework. The workshops and sharing sessions guide teachers in pedagogical skills such as designing their education programme and profiling their pupils' progress.

And lastly, encouraging kindergarten leaders to conduct self-appraisal. This will

encourage kindergartens to work towards continual self-improvement. MOE assisted principals to do this by distributing a benchmarking tool called Standards for Kindergartens, and by conducting workshops and sharing sessions on self-appraisal. MOE also established a Kindergarten Manual to advise service providers and practitioners so as to give them a better understanding of the regulatory requirements and guidelines governing the operation of kindergartens.

MOE conducts regular reviews of teaching and learning in pre-schools in Singapore. These reviews inform MOE of the steps it can take to further help kindergartens improve the quality of teaching and learning they provide.

One of the areas MOE is looking into is enhancing the professional quality of the sector, for example, in uplifting teachers' proficiency in the English Language. More details of this initiative will be announced later.

Sir, can I just find out when the last curriculum review was done?

Sir, the last curriculum was issued in 2003.

Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, besides improving the quality of pre-school education, if the Ministry will be looking at how to improve the affordability of pre-school education, particularly for low-income families.

Sir, the Government has put in place the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) to subsidise the fees of eligible kindergartens for children from low-income families. As a criterion, the net household income should be $1,500 and

below. And the KiFAS provides 75% subsidy of the fees up to a cap of $65.

In addition, for families receiving KiFAS who are assessed of extra need, they can also be given a $200 start-up fund as a grant for attending pre-school. There are also other community funds available from self-help groups as well as committees such as CCCs, ComCare funds, Home Ownerships Plus Education (HOPE) scheme, and Mendaki's Education Trust Fund (ETF) for these families.

8. Ms Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what is the impact of the development of the Southern Johor Economic Region on Singapore and whether there are any Singaporean investors who have shown interest in any of the projects.

Sir, based on the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) for South Johor released by Malaysia last November, we understand that the development of the South Johor Economic Region (SJER) - or Iskandar Development Region (IDR) as it is also known - will cover an area of some 2,217 square kilometres. Under the development plan, various growth pillars and key projects have been identified for the region. The main sectors slated for development include electrical and electronics, petrochemicals and oleochemicals, food and agro processing, health and education services, and tourism, while major projects will include theme parks, residential areas and new administrative centres.

These plans to develop South Johor into a vibrant area of growth offer opportunities for our companies to invest in Johor and to build on the complementarities between Singapore and Johor.

A thriving economic region right next to Singapore will also allow us to enhance our value proposition to international investors and to sharpen our competitive edge vis-a-vis other economies like China and India. The Johor-Singapore combination is already regarded by MNCs as a competitive proposition for a wide range of economic activities and, therefore, IDR would strengthen this winning partnership.

Our companies are keenly monitoring developments for opportunities. Although we are not aware of any concrete indications on specific projects, this could be because the IDR initiative is still in the early stages.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if he has read the remarks by Johor MB Abdul Ghani and a couple of other Malaysian politicians. If so, what advice does he have for Singapore companies thinking of investing in the South Johor Economic Region?

I think any Singapore company wishing to invest overseas will have to weigh the country risk of the country that they are investing. I think most countries welcome foreign investors but, as we all know, there are different levels of welcome.

The Johor Menteri Besar, Abdul Ghani was reported as saying that the IDR project was capable of drawing investors on its own and was not dependent on Singapore's involvement. Later on, he clarified that, in fact, the Johor Government does not discriminate against any investors and that Johor welcomes all investments into the IDR including Singapore.

When we try to work out investment guarantee agreements for Singapore

companies, we do realise that there are different levels of welcome. At the basic level, of course, you do not want Singapore companies to be discriminated against. At the next level of welcome, you do want all foreign companies to be treated equally. Then, at the third level, of course, we try to get some advantages for our Singapore companies through bilateral agreements, for example, through FDA. And, of course, ultimately, if we can have Singapore companies to be granted national treatment, as though they are local companies, that, of course, is the ideal arrangement. So I think Singapore companies venturing overseas will have to evaluate the country risk and also what is the treatment given to them.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister: has the Johor MB sent any clear signal to our Singapore companies that they are indeed welcome?

Sir, I think it has been reported that Minister Mah, together with some of our officials, went up to South Johor recently and received a briefing by the South Johor and the Federal authorities on this development plan. We are still waiting for specific proposals from the Malaysian side. Of course, we will communicate this to our companies.

Sir, several years ago, there was a SIJORI scheme, where the Singapore, Johor and Riau cooperated together to try to create an economic cooperation among the three partners to achieve a win-win-win situation for all. I wonder whether it is possible to revive that sort of spirit amongst the three countries and whether we can have greater cooperation to achieve better progress for our people.

The economic fundamentals of SIJORI are still there, ie, the complementarities of Singapore with Johor, as well as Singapore with Batam,

Bintan and Karimun (BBK). These are fundamental economic conditions which enhance our competitiveness and are valid today as they were many years ago. For example, we continue to work with our Indonesian counterparts to promote the SEZ concept for BBK. And we also work with our Malaysian counterparts to promote the complementarities of Johor and Singapore to foreign investors.

As I mentioned in my reply earlier, many MNCs look at Johor and other parts of Malaysia and Singapore as a fairly compelling value proposition in the way they organise their value chain and in the way they organise their production. They believe that is the way in which we can compete with China and India. That is the reason why we have been able to attract the kind of investments that we are attracting to Singapore, more than $8 billion each year.

So the fundamental value proposition of Johor, Singapore or Singapore-BBK is still there and we continue to promote ourselves in that way.

9. Mr Michael Palmer asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports what process has the Ministry put in place in respect of the selection and training of our athletes for the Olympic Games in 2008.

Sir, sports excellence is one of the three pillars in the Sporting Singapore plan that was articulated by the Committee on Sporting Singapore (CoSS) in its report in 2001. In the past few years since the Committee's report, MCYS and the Singapore Sports Council

have been working closely with other key stakeholders in the sports fraternity such as the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) and the National Sports Associations (NSAs) to develop sports excellence strategies and programmes to prepare and support our athletes for the Major Games and other international competitions.

We have put in place various sports excellence systems and initiatives such as starting up the Sports School, enhancing financial support for our elite athletes, establishing partnerships with the NSAs in developing the athletes, and stepping up Sports Medicine and Sports Science support.

This is a systems-driven approach that has yielded results as our athletes have now consistently improved on their performances in recent years. We had our best ever showing at the 2005 South East Asian (SEA) Games when we returned with 42 golds, 32 silvers, and 55 bronzes. We have also registered our best ever performances at the Commonwealth Games and Asian Games, as you all know, capturing five golds, six silvers, and seven bronzes in Melbourne, and then eight golds, seven silvers, and 12 bronzes in Doha.

Building on such encouraging results at these Major Games, our aim is to raise our performance and improve on our achievements at the Olympics in the near future. Towards this aim, the SNOC has initiated a project focusing on the 2008 and 2012 Olympics, where elite athletes in select targeted sports have been identified for enhanced support and development, so that these athletes will reach their peak at the Olympics. The enhanced support includes more overseas training stints, additional coaches, other sports specialists, and so on. The efforts will be athlete-centred and will build on our existing Sports Excellence initiative. This initiative would dovetail into the

recommendations of the Sporting Culture Committee that I am chairing so that we can develop a sustained delivery system for champion athletes in the long term .

MCYS and the Singapore Totalisator Board would support the SNOC by providing funding for this project. This project would cost $7 million. MCYS would provide $2 million and the Singapore Totalisator Board would contribute $5 million.

Singapore's only Olympic medal was won by our weightlifter Tan Howe Liang in 1960 in Rome. Since then, while we have, on a few occasions, come close to securing our second Olympic medal, we have not been able to do so. Now that our sports excellence systems are in place, we will make a strong push in the next two Olympic Games in Beijing and then in London. If we succeed, it will be a proud moment to remember for the sports fraternity and for all Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to use Mandarin to address some of the key points.

Yes.

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] MCYS, the Singapore Sports Council and the Singapore National Olympic Council have jointly supported the 2008 and 2012 Olympic plans so that our athletes will be able to compete in the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games. We are putting our sights further. This is not just for the 2008 Olympics. This is a long-term plan. We need to have a very effective sports system and an environment so that we will be able to sustain our best or peak conditions for our athletes. So we need to have the National Sports Council and all the National Sports Associations to work together so that we

could have these good results. We need to have short-term, medium-term and long-term plans. We want to do better not only in 2008 but also in 2012, 2016 and even 2020. If we say that Singapore's economic progress is a miracle, I would hope that we could also have a miracle in our sports performances.

*Cols. 1195-1196.

Three supplementary questions, Mr Speaker. Firstly, would the Parliamentary Secretary care to elaborate on the factors used in selecting the sports for the 2008 Games? Secondly, would he like to name the sports he selected? And, thirdly, what does he think of the chances of winning a medal since he went into the history of our medals?

I would combine the naming of the targeted sports and the selection process together. In fact, there will be a press conference that will be hosted by SNOC tomorrow. So more details will be addressed there. But let me give an overview.

The selection process depends on the NSAs' recommendations as well. They have worked with their athletes, they know their athletes well, who have the potential, and who have not. From there, the recommendations will be given to the Project Committee, which is the 2008/2012 Olympic Committee, headed by the Vice-President of SNOC, Mr Ng Ser Miang. They have so far targeted four sports, and these four sports are badminton, table tennis, shooting and sailing.

What are the chances? Unfortunately, I did not bring my crystal ball with me. But I would say that chances are good. However, I would prefer to say that if we ever win a medal in 2008, it does not mean we have a good and comprehensive system that will continue to produce champions and heroes at the 2012 and 2016 Games. Because this takes a long-term plan and a strategy to build the

sports infrastructure, the culture and the environment. So, it takes time. Currently, we are starting to push and that is a good sign. So this is the first step that we need to take. That is the short-term plan aiming at 2008, and we need a medium-term plan for 2012 and a longer term plan for the next 10 and 15 years. The Sporting Culture Committee that was set up hopes to address the sporting blueprints moving forward.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just one last supplementary question. Since the Parliamentary Secretary spoke about long-term plans, are there any other sports which the Ministry may have identified, besides the four that he mentioned, for the long-term goal of developing them for the Olympic Games as well?

For any athletes between now and 2008 or now to 2012, if they show promises, we will not let any medal chance get away. We will continue to support any athletes who show potential, including archery that the Member, Mr Michael Palmer, is the adviser. Certainly, if they can shoot bull's eyes every time, we will take that into consideration and we will put them in the programme.

Just now the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that Singapore won 42 medals at Doha and eight were gold meals. Can he please tell us how many of these were won by foreign talents?

To represent Singapore, you must be Singaporeans. I am proud to say that a lot of the athletes that won the gold medals were trained under the current system that we have in place, for example, sailing. Sailing implemented a value system for sports since the late 1990s, and that has created a whole horde of good sailors and there are many more coming on board. It is all in the

pipeline. If you look at the age of the sailors, they are less than 20 years old, and they won five gold medals out of the eight. So, that is an example of the success of a good system that we are trying to build, not just for sailing but across all sports.

To answer Mr Chiam's question, all are Singaporeans. No matter where they come from at the beginning, as long as they come to Singapore, entrenched themselves in the system, and if it is a successful system, we will produce the champions.

Sir, I am not blaming anyone or saying anything about foreign talents. But I just want to know. He does not have to be defensive about it.

Mr Teo, you do not have to answer as this is not a question.

10. Mr Michael Palmer asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports whether his Ministry intends to assist athletes with disabilities to raise their profile and improve their performance and, if so, what measures will be introduced.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's disabled athletes have consistently performed well over the last few years and broken several records in the process. At the recent Far East and South Pacific Games for the Disabled (FESPIC) in 2006, which is the equivalent of the Asian Games, our disabled athletes returned with seven golds, five silvers and five bronzes. This was an improvement over the previous FESPIC in 2001 when they won three golds, two silvers and four bronzes. We also have a potential

Paralympics medallist in Theresa Goh, who recently claimed a world champion title in the 200 metres Individual Medley at the 2006 International Paralympic Committee (IPC) World Swimming Championships.

The Singapore Disability Sports Council (SDSC) is the national agency that champions disabled sports. MCYS and the Singapore Sports Council (SSC) support the SDSC in its drive to promote sports excellence among the disabled. Our various sports excellence strategies and support schemes are open to both able-bodied and disabled athletes. For instance, swimmer Theresa Goh is able to balance her career and sports training at Standard Chartered Bank due to SSC's Programme for Elite Athletes Career (PEAC). PEAC helps athletes integrate into the workplace by assisting in the planning, organisation and management of an athlete’s career in collaboration with corporate organisations, National Sports Associations (NSAs) and SSC. So we do not just take care of the sports but the after-sports career as well.

Some of you may also recall the front page news in the Straits Times on 12th January reporting that the Sports School has admitted its first disabled student Khristine Quek and has provisions to take in more disabled students. This is in line with my Ministry's philosophy of inclusiveness and opportunities for all.

Going forward, we aim to build on our success at FESPIC and better our achievement at the Paralympics. We will also continue to explore new ways to highlight the achievements of our athletes, so that they can inspire their fellow Singaporeans and serve as role models for our youth.

Sir, I am gratified to learn from the Parliamentary Secretary

that the Government supports both able-bodied and disabled athletes equally. My question to the Parliamentary Secretary is whether the financial incentives that they give are also equal and in the way we reward them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if we are comparing the award for the disabled athletes with those of the Multi-million dollar Award Programme (MAP), and those are supported by the Singapore Tote Board and also the private sector (APP), I believe that SDSC has also approached similar organisations and has also gotten support. The level of competition and the intensity may be different but we still want to recognise the efforts and hard work of these disabled athletes regardless, because they have performed, they have trained hard and they are passionate individuals, and we want to support them. So, there will be award and they have been able to seek funding, and the funding has been given to them. I hope that will actually spur the disabled athletes to scale greater heights.

Given that the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated the quality of treatment, do the awards given to the disabled athletes match the awards given to the other able-bodied athletes?

For the able-bodied athletes, the MAP award is actually a project initiated by SNOC and it is funded by the Singapore Tote Board and APP, as I have mentioned. So there was no direct funding from the Government, although we support it, we recognise the athletes. It will be the same for the disabled athletes. And we recognise their efforts, we continue to want them to be featured, to inspire others, and they have gotten funding from the same organisations.

Sir, would the Government be prepared to demonstrate the same level of commitment that they have shown with the able-bodied athletes by pressing private sector organisations,

be it the Tote Board or APB, to narrow the difference in the financial incentives that they give to successful athletes, whether able-bodied or disabled?

First, we must also look at whether narrowing the incentives will also equate to narrowing the level of competition that each of the able and disabled athletes faces as well. But what we should identify is that they are all passionate individuals, leaders of their sports and they are out to inspire others. As far as the Ministry's position is concerned, we recognise their efforts. In terms of narrowing the gaps, I think this is where the athletes and the associations have to work together and see what kind of support they can get from the private sector and from Tote Board and the other organisations that have been sponsoring the able-bodied athletes so far.

I hope SDSC, whatever support they need, whether it is within the sports training or after-sports career, as a Ministry, we fully support and recognise it. It is not just dollars and cents. It is what you can provide for the athletes and how you can give them the recognition. For a champion in sports, it goes beyond just monetary achievements. It is about achieving the best that they can and that in itself, we must give the recognition.

11. Dr Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Health if he will provide an update on the number of foreign nurses in public and private healthcare institutions and whether the employment of significant numbers of foreign nurses will continue, considering the attrition rate among local nurses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as at the end 2005, there were 3,527 practising foreign nurses in Singapore, of which 2,375 worked in the public sector and 1,152 in the private sector. They made up 22% of the total number of practising nurses here, that is, the foreign nurses. At 22%, this is a significant reduction from the 27% that they represented in the year 2003. 2006 data are not yet available but we would expect that trend to continue, that is, a declining trend.

As more Singaporeans have been attracted to the nursing profession, we are therefore able to reduce our dependence on foreign nurses. This is a good development. Nevertheless, we will continue to welcome foreign nurses to augment our local supply.

As for the attrition of local nurses, it has largely hovered around 7%-8% in the public sector. We will continue to improve the attractiveness of nursing as a profession, in particular, to enhance their career development path.

I just want to ask a supplementary question. Lately, there have been some cases which have been highlighted where some of these foreign nurses have not had their permits renewed. Is there a kind of a plan or trend where we are trying to decrease the number of foreign nurses by decreasing the number of permits?

Mr Speaker, Sir, all foreigners working in Singapore will be subjected to our permit rules or employment pass rules. I think this is also done with respect to the manpower needs of different sectors and industries. So, certainly, there is a recognition that, within the healthcare sector for nurses, we would need the complement of both local as well as foreign nurses. You would have to look at how the local supply of nurses, as it gears up, balances with our

dependence on the foreign supply. So, ultimately, it is for us to ensure that there is adequate total supply to meet the needs of Singaporeans as well as to meet the needs of the foreign patients who arrive on our shores.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what is the retention rate of these foreign nurses and if these foreign nurses are using Singapore as a stepping stone to greener pastures elsewhere and, if so, whether this volatile influx and efflux of nurses would affect the standard of nursing care in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned earlier, the attrition rate for the local nurses is about 7%-8% a year, and that for foreign nurses would be in the region of 20%-25% a year. So it is more than the local nurses. But the Member would also agree with me that the vast majority of them do stay on.

12. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health in view of the rising concerns over the harmful effect of trans fat on health, whether the Health Promotion Board will make it compulsory for all food producers to label the use of trans fat in their products so that consumers can make informed decisions when consuming such products.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mdm Halimah asked if we should require compulsory labelling of trans fat on food products. The Ministry as well as the Health Promotion Board are monitoring the situation of trans fat in our food supply and consumption pattern, and we will evaluate if we should impose more

stringent measures against trans fats usage.

Presently, if you look at other countries in the world, only Denmark has used legislation to limit the trans fat content of oil used in food and they limit it to 2%. Canada and the United States have imposed compulsory labelling. All other countries have taken a voluntary non-legislative approach as far as labelling of trans fat is concerned.

In Canada and the US, the consumption of trans fat exceeds 2% of their total calorie intake. In comparison for Singapore, we consume much lower, less than 1% of the total calorie intake; and this works out to less than 2 grams of trans fat a day. When we look at this in comparison with the World Health Organisation's recommendation of no more than 1%, then Singapore's consumption is within that, as opposed to the US and Canadian consumption which is twice that.

Nevertheless, we will continue to educate the public on the harmful effects of trans fat and to advise the public to cut down on fat intake. Since the year 2004, the Health Promotion Board has actively engaged our local food manufacturers to reduce trans fat in the manufacture of their goods and also to promote the use of voluntary labelling. Increasingly, food manufacturers have voluntarily listed the trans fat content of products such as in instant noodles, convenience meals, snack items and 3-in-1 beverages.

The Health Promotion Board's website publishes the trans fat content of more than 300 common food items. We will continue to update and expand the list to include products by brand names.

In addition, the Health Promotion Board's Healthier Choice Symbol (HCS) scheme, and that is the pyramid symbol

that you can see on certain products, is a form of positive labelling that helps consumers identify healthier food products that are lower in fat, saturated fat, trans fat, sodium and sugar. To date, about 150 products, including bread, biscuits, cookies, cakes and margarine, carry the Healthier Choice Symbol labels and contain zero or lower amounts of trans fat compared to the regular versions.

Over the next few months, the Health Promotion Board will work on nutrition claims that can be allowed on food products with low or negligible trans fat. So this would allow the manufacturers to make these claims, provided they satisfy certain criteria which are being worked out. And this would encourage the food industry to voluntarily reduce or remove trans fat in their products and would also result in voluntary nutrition labelling on products with low or no trans fat.

Sir, if there is no labelling and people will be consuming products that contain trans fat without being aware of it, over time, there will be the accumulative effect, and the accumulative effect will result in exceeding the safe limits prescribed by WHO. So would that not therefore mean that it is better for the Ministry to consider compulsory labelling, rather than to wait for this accumulative effect to take place because people are not aware that they are consuming trans fat? The second question I would like to ask is that the Minister of State mentioned about the Healthier Choice Symbol. Healthier Choice Symbol is very selective. Whereas if you opt for compulsory labelling, it is compulsory for all food manufacturers to alert consumers that their food products contain trans fat. So it is quite different when you talk about proactive methods through Healthier Choice Symbol as against the compulsory labelling. My third question to the Minister of State is: when will the Ministry consider trans fat labelling and, if

so, when will it be implemented after all the monitoring has been done?

Sir, I believe the Member would agree with me that the outcome that we all look for is a population of healthy Singaporeans. In other words, whatever we do, the end result must be that, given the advice that we offer through public education, given the regulation that we do, given the products that we allow to be sold, as well as the practice of good healthy lifestyles, the combination of all these things, that is the job of the regulators as well as the responsibility of the individuals and the households that we produce health in our population. So if we agree on this and we apply this model to this subject of trans fat, and we do so holistically and in a calibrated manner, then we say, "First, let us look at it. Should we be monitoring something like trans fat?" The answer is yes, because it has certain adverse effects on health. Are we doing it? Yes, we are monitoring it. What is the international standard for trans fat consumption? Then we look at the World Health Organisation, and they say, no more than 1%. Then we look at our own situation, and we say, "Where are we?" And we are below that. We look at countries that have compulsory labelling. Canada and the United States, they are more than 2%. So we therefore have a certain sense of where we stand vis-a-vis the technical safety standards and also in comparison with countries that have gone on to compulsory labelling because they are in a different situation.

Does it mean that because we are less than 1%, therefore we could be complacent? The answer is no. So what must we do? We must do a combination of education and of pointing people in the right direction as to what they should be buying and consuming. Are we doing that? The answer is yes. So since 2004, this education on trans fat and working with the manufacturers to increase the

stock and range of goods that is low in or contains no trans fat has been ongoing. So we will press on with this. If we are interested in a population that does not really go into all the details in everything that they buy, which I think it is the reality for most people, then we make life easy by having a symbol that they know that if I go this way, it will be safer than any other way. So this Healthier Choice Symbol is a layman's way to better health. I think we can do it this way and let people understand that this is the common man's way of achieving the same outcome - better health.

Then we come to labelling. Are we stopping here? Are we saying that there is no scope to consider labelling? The answer is we are considering it, besides the monitoring. As I explained, we will work over the next few months to see how we can do positive labelling. Why do we do this? In Singapore, just about everything we eat is imported, so we have to balance between wanting something that is safe, making sure that it is correct for our population's consumption, without unnecessarily either adding on to the cost of those things or limiting our own choices. So we have to think of ways in which we could tilt the playing field so that market forces work in our favour for our objectives. This is where if we can push in the direction of positive labelling, letting manufacturers know that we would allow them, subject to their fulfilling certain criteria, to advertise their products which contain lower or no trans fat, then that together with our efforts in the Healthier Choice Symbol programme would help to nudge our population towards consumption of the right choices of food. Over time, this is the way that accords with our market situation, our realities and still get us closer to the objectives of a healthy population.

Mdm Halimah, you have one minute left.

One more supplementary question, Sir. Would the Minister of State agree with me that compulsory labelling is also one way of empowering consumers to make informed choices and is one form of educating consumers as well? With compulsory labelling, at least the consumers know what they are consuming and that the items contain trans fat. They make an informed choice for their own health. Without compulsory labelling, a lot of the trans fat is hidden ---

Mdm Halimah, give time for the Minister to reply.

Sir, my question to the Minister of State is that, for all these reasons that are stated for compulsory labelling, when will the Ministry move towards compulsory labelling?

Sir, the Ministry is looking into this area of how to enable positive labelling. As I mentioned just now, we will continue to closely monitor the situation. We do not rule out any option but we will take those options and weigh the pros and cons and do the right thing at the right time.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22, Written Answers to Question Nos. 15-16 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 13-14 and 17 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

*Cols. 1189-1192.

Order for Second Reading read.

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

There has been greater awareness of the importance of governance of charities in recent years. The Council on Governance of Institutions of a Public Character (CGI) was set up in January 2004 to set the minimum standards of governance and to play an advisory role in promoting good governance for Institutions of Public Character (IPCs). The CGI submitted a set of 19 recommendations which cover fund-raising practices, financial controls and accountability of IPCs, amongst other items. The Government accepted 15 of these recommendations in full, another three with modifications, and the remaining recommendation for adoption as a best practice. The mandatory CGI recommendations came into effect from 1st July 2006.

Following the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) episode, the Government formed the Inter-Ministry Committee on the Regulation of Charities and IPCs (IMC) - I apologise for the acronyms. We set this up in October 2005 to review the regulatory framework for charities and IPCs. In arriving at its recommendations, the IMC studied the recommendations of the preceding CGI and the specific governance-related issues that were raised in the KPMG report on the NKF. After extensive public consultation, the IMC presented its recommendations in March 2006, and the Government accepted all its recommendations.

Guiding principles

As enunciated in the IMC report, the key guiding principles for our regulatory approach are as follows:

First, the regulatory approach should nurture a charitable sector that remains driven by the community.

Second, the boards of charities and IPCs are ultimately responsible for and accountable to all their stakeholders. The boards, therefore, need to take ownership in order to improve the governance of their respective organisations.

Third, the regulatory approach should encourage self-regulation within the charity sector.

Last but not least, the regulatory approach should not be a "one-size-fits-all" but instead will be stratified, with larger charities subjected to more stringent rules compared to smaller ones.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill before this House therefore seeks to amend the Charities Act to incorporate the IMC recommendations. I am also taking this opportunity to make some other amendments to the Charities Act in order to strengthen the regulatory role of the Commissioner to complement the implementation of these recommendations.

Sir, I would like now to draw the attention of the House to the main clauses of the Bill. I shall begin with those that relate to the IMC recommendations.

Expanded powers of the Commissioner

The IMC recommended granting the Commissioner additional powers in order to be more effective for the protection of charities and the public interest.

Clause 10 inserts a new section 25A which empowers the Commissioner to suspend or remove any trustee, charity trustee, officer, agent or employee of a charity from being a member of that charity. This section, however, shall not apply to an exempt charity.

Clause 11 inserts new sections 26A and 26B to empower the Commissioner to

make orders on the application of the property of a charity under certain circumstances.

Clause 15 inserts a new section 39B, within Part VIII of the Charities Act, to empower the Commissioner to prohibit, stop or restrict public fund-raising by a charity or person, including a commercial third party fund-raiser, where such a course of action is necessary in the public interest.

Consolidation of regulatory powers under Commissioner and Sector Administrators

Clause 17 inserts a new Part VIIIA, comprising new sections 40A, 40B and 40C, to provide for the making of regulations pertaining to IPCs and also to define the statutory role, functions and powers of the Sector Administrators. These are sectoral regulators appointed to assist the Commissioner in regulating the overall charity sector. The Sector Administrators cover six sectors, namely, the social service, education, arts and heritage, community and youth, health and sports sectors.

Establishment of the Charity Council

Clause 6 inserts a new Part IIA, comprising new sections 4A and 4B, to provide for the establishment and functions of the Charity Council. This is one of the key recommendations by the IMC. The purpose is to introduce people sector involvement in the regulation of charities and IPCs, especially in the promotion of good governance and best practices.

Sir, I shall now move on to the amendments arising from recommendations that were not covered by the IMC. I would like to assure the House, first of all, that we are very mindful of the need to refrain from over-regulation so as not

to stifle the charity sector while proposing additional amendments to the Charities Act. The additional clauses would not impose regulatory burdens on charities and IPCs but only seek to penalise those who commit offences under the Charities Act.

Sir, I will begin with the amendment to provide the Commissioner a discretionary power to refuse registration of, or to de-register, any charity.

Additional legislative amendments

Registration and de-registration of charities

Under the existing Charities Act, the Commissioner cannot refuse registration of organisations with purposes that are or that purport to be exclusively charitable. This may inadvertently lead to the registration of suspect organisations. The Commissioner is also unable to de-register any charity unless it ceases to exist, is no longer in operation, or its purposes have been changed such that they are no longer exclusively charitable.

To protect the public interest and to ensure that in future only bona fide organisations are registered as charities, clause 7 amends section 5 of the Act to provide for the grounds on which the Commissioner shall refuse to register an institution as a charity, or shall remove a registered institution from the register of charities, such as where it appears to the Commissioner that the registration of such an institution will be contrary to the public interest.

Sir, I would like to assure the House that the office of the Commissioner had sought public feedback on all its proposals to tighten the charity registration process during the last two months. The public and the charities in general have welcomed this move and supported the proposals on having conditions for

registering and de-registering. The conditions for registration and de-registration of charities will be provided for in the regulations which will be brought into effect after this amendment Bill is passed.

Objectives and functions of the Commissioner

In order to better define the objectives and functions of the Commissioner, clause 5 repeals and re-enacts section 4 for this purpose. In addition, clause 4 amends section 3 of the Act in relation to the powers, duties and functions of the Deputy Commissioner. Clause 4 also explicitly empowers the Commissioner to delegate specific powers, duties and functions to Assistant Commissioners.

Power to prosecute

Clause 20 inserts a new section 47A to provide for the prosecution of offences under the Charities Act by public officers authorised by the Commissioner with the consent of the Attorney-General. This is necessary because the powers of prosecution of charities are currently derived from the IRAS Act as the Comptroller of Income Tax is currently also double-hatting as the Commissioner of Charities. With the transfer of the Office of the Commissioner from IRAS to MCYS, it is necessary to amend the Charities Act so as to empower the Commissioner to authorise other officers to prosecute charities for regulatory non-compliance.

Power to compound

Under the current Charities Act, the provision for the composition of offences under section 47 provides an offender a chance to avoid prosecution and conviction in court for less serious offences. To minimise the number of offences that require prosecution, clause 19 amends section 47(1) to increase the maximum composition sum to 50% of the amount

of the maximum fine prescribed for the offence. This means that the maximum composition sum would be increased from the current sum of $500 to a sum ranging from $2,500 to $5,000 depending, of course, on the offence. The composition sum will be tiered according to the seriousness of the offence, with the maximum quantum being meted out only for the more serious offences.

Continuing offences

To ensure that the underlying obligations are met even though the offender has paid the fine, I propose to make provisions for penalties for continuing offences. Clauses 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 21 amend the Act to provide for the punishment of a continuing offence of a further fine not exceeding $50 or $100, depending on the offence, for every day or part thereof during which the offence continues after the conviction.

Protection from liability

Finally, clause 18 inserts a new section 46A to protect the Commissioner and other officers, and the Sector Administrators, from liability for anything done by them in good faith in the course of exercising their power, discharging their duty or performing any function under the law.

Sir, the charity sector is an integral part of the Government's "Many Helping Hands" approach as the charity sector plays a very important role in serving the community. The Government is, therefore, committed to facilitate the growth of the charity sector whilst not over-regulating the charities. Whilst the Government can put in place basic regulations for the sector, ultimately the best form of regulation is still self-regulation. Charities should ensure that they are well-governed in order to win the trust of the public, especially their donors and volunteers,

because, ultimately, the charity sector can grow only with strong public support.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.13 pm

Sir, before I begin, I would like to declare that I initiated the incorporation of an entity that is in the process of being registered as a charity.

The Charities (Amendment) Bill could not have come at a more appropriate time. The on-going law suit by the present board of the newly-constituted NKF against some former board members is yet again another reminder that organisations that raise money from the public in the name of charity should not be left entirely on their own to run their affairs with limited or no supervision. The NKF saga should no doubt serve as a salutary lesson for us and for which this Bill before us is an attempted response to fix a weakness in the system.

This Bill seeks to amend the parent Act by providing, inter alia, additional functions, duties and powers for the Commissioner. Besides, the proposed amendments also seek to improve the administration of institutions of public character.

I support the passing of the Bill mainly because I believe it tries to strengthen the foundations of our charities here in Singapore. The loss of faith by the public in the old NKF made it necessary for us to take steps to restore the trust and confidence in the process of raising funds from the man-in-the-street for charitable purposes, and to put in place safeguards to ensure that funds are properly spent. That said, I have some observations to make as a matter of principle when

looking at our policies in regulating charities.

First, one of the biggest challenges in formulating charity-related policies lies with striking the right balance. The principle that underpins our welfare approach is the many-helping-hands approach. Indeed over the years, many VWOs have emerged to work alongside the community and Government agencies, as part of the many-helping-hands, to help needy Singaporeans. These VWOs were able to undertake their work more easily because they could rely on the generous donations from the public. Yet, as we have seen with the NKF episode, it is unwise to expect that these charities will be able to regulate themselves effectively and meet the standards of governance expected of them by the public. There is therefore an expectation from the public that charities must now be more tightly regulated. The issue really is: how far should the state regulate these charities in the public interest without at the same time imposing too much fetter on these bodies to a point where it becomes counter-productive? The people who run these charities must be able to get on with the business of running these charities without at the same time having to worry too much about the regulator knocking at their door at midnight.

It would indeed be sad if these well-meaning volunteers decide to throw in the towel simply because the red tape is just too much.

Secondly, the other challenge, of course, is to provide these charities with sufficient clarity in rules to enable them to comply with what is required of them. I will expand on this later. But suffice to say, for now, that we do not want our charities to pore through voluminous amount of rules and bye-laws. Again, one would say that that would be an over-kill. What we should be concentrating on is to have a code with well-illustrated principles that would guide the conduct of these

bodies, rather than an elaborate list of chapters and verses. We want a culture of governance to evolve, rather than one that is dictated by rules and bye-laws.

Thirdly, and related to the point made earlier, is the issue of the increasing burden of operating cost arising from the new standards and regulations that these rules are expected to impose. To comply with these new provisions, charities will now have to seriously consider relying on more outside help. Any well-meaning charity that seeks to comply with these rules will think hard about getting professional help; whether it be in audit or otherwise. This would unnecessarily add to the operating cost of the charity as professionals, and I can vouch for that, are expensive to hire. Sir, the point is, well-meaning and dedicated charities are not necessarily your most well-endowed ones, financially. The challenge would, therefore, be how to strike a right balance without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Fourthly, our regulations that govern charities should work towards targeting, not only those who run charities, but also providing an adequate framework that allows supporters of these charities with enough information, both with respect to the work and the performance of these charities on a regular basis, in order that they may better understand and make better informed choices of what they do. We want our donors to make informed choices. In principle, charities that do not have properly defined programmes, or clearly established performance milestones and governance standards, will have a harder time explaining to their patrons why the next dollar should go to them. Donors, as much as consumers at the marketplace, must be given the ability to make informed choices about where they want to put their hard-earned money, even if it is meant to benefit the less fortunate. In other words, we should, as a matter of principle, emphasise more on

disclosure in the charity sector. By disclosing, the public will have a better sense of how their money is spent.

Against the broad canvas set by some governing principles that I would like to see governing our charities framework, I would now like to turn specifically to the provisions of the Bill.

Clause 5 of the Bill seeks to amend section 4 of the Act by seeking to provide greater focus on maintaining public confidence in charities and in promoting growth of the charity sector, promoting good governance and regulating for compliance. Towards this end, the functions of the Commissioner would include, inter alia, the determination of whether institutions are charities, and to investigate and take the necessary remedial action where there is misconduct on the part of the charity concerned. Additionally, to enable the Commissioner to discharge his functions, there are now more teeth being given to his office to, for instance, suspend the relevant person as a member of the charity and, as a final move, to register the charity concerned to the extent that it has been remiss or fraudulent in the conduct of its business.

Sir, I welcome the tightening of the existing Act. However, I feel that more could be done to take it some steps further. I can cite several examples where clearer legislative guidance would be of help. For instance, the amendment Bill gives the Commissioner wide ranging powers to determine if a particular organisation is indeed a charity. However, this begs the essential question of what is a charity in the eyes of a Commissioner and who should qualify. Previously, the Commissioner of Charities is unable to refuse registration of organisations as charities if they are set up exclusively for charitable purposes. Also, the Commissioner is unable to de-register any charity unless it ceases to exist or is no longer in operation or its objectives have

changed. Under the present amendment, the Commissioner is given discretionary powers not to register and to de-register an existing charity that does not meet the public interest requirements. The question really is: what is in the public interest? Is it to be determined, as they say, in the court of equity, by the length of the Chancellor’s foot? The extensive powers given to the Commissioner comes with the expectation that close guidance should be issued from his office in order to guide and help the public to better understand what the Government’s definition of a charity is. For instance, one would accept that any charity that expects to be registered must conform with the social mores of the time. One would not expect, for example, the Commissioner to register a society as a charity that is committed to the promotion of the benefits of voodoo magic in our society; or for that matter, a charity that is dedicated to the promotion of sexual freedom. While these examples may not obviously be supported, there are others, I am sure, that are less clear. I am thinking of, for instance, charities that are dedicated to the promotion of same gender unions or charities that strongly support the abolition of abortion. How and on what basis should the Commissioner decide whether such charities should be allowed to register and, if registered, guide the conduct of the activities of these societies or organisations with respect to their dealings with the public?

This leads me to a separate but related point. Presently, there is nothing in the amendment Bill that allows for appeal from the decision of the Commissioner. Following the amendment, it would appear that there is little recourse by way of an administrative appeal to the Minister if the Commissioner decides either not to register a charity or if he decides to de-register the charity. Ordinarily, it would not be unusual in an act for an appeal to

be made to the Minister against the decision of the department concerned. Unfortunately, such a statutory right of appeal is missing under the present amendment Bill. Is this omission intended by the Government? If it is, I should be grateful if the Minster could give an explanation as to the reason why it is missing.

Presumably, much of the work of the Commissioner will be guided by the Charity Council, the formation of which is contemplated by the present Bill. This brings me to the next point. Clauses 4A and 4B relate to the formation and functions of the Charity Council. Clause 4B, in particular, provides that it shall be within the remit of the council, inter alia, to advise the Commissioner on any question that he may refer it, to make such recommendations to the Commissioner and to promote self-regulation and good governance. These are indeed very heavy and onerous responsibilities for the council to discharge, and I welcome it. However, if it is the job of the Commissioner to promote public trust and confidence in the charities, much of that must surely begin with the necessity of appointing good men and women to the council. The composition of the council would be crucial as it would appear to be expected to play a part in helping the Commissioner to decide which charity operates in the public interest and the one that does not, and also to help set the standards of governance for these charities. Unfortunately, the Bill does not give much guidance as to how the Government should go about appointing people to the council. Should the council be expected to have a fair mix of established operators, Government representatives, donors and recipients so that there will be a fair balance in the views represented; should there be a code that governs the conduct of the council in the deliberations, in as much as charities are now expected to abide by a certain standard of conduct that will be

established by the Commissioner? I should be grateful if the Minister could throw some light on this.

Next, clause 39A provides that no person shall conduct or participate in any fund-raising appeal unless he has a permit or is exempted from having to comply with the provisions of the Act. "Fund raising appeal", under clause 39, has been defined as, and I quote:

"(a) an appeal, whether made expressly or impliedly, to any member of the public to give money or other property (whether for consideration or otherwise) which is made in association with a representation that the whole or any part of its proceeds is to be applied for charitable benevolent or philanthropic purposes; or

a receipt from any member of the public of any money or other property (whether for consideration or otherwise which is given in whole or in part for any charitable benevolent or philanthropic purposes)."

Looking at the prohibition in clause 39A and the definition of fund-raising appeal in clause 39, it would seem the net may be inadvertently cast more widely than it is intended. For instance, if a newspaper article were to highlight the plight of a family in financial difficulty, with a view to soliciting public sympathy and perhaps donation, would the journalist or the newspaper be impliedly appealing to the public to give money for a benevolent cause, something that is proscribed by clause 39A of the Bill? Additionally, if you were to give someone money out of sympathy, would the money that you give to the member of public for a benevolent reason be caught under sub-clause (b) which seems to prohibit such an activity?

Quite clearly, the situations I just described are not the sort of mischief that the Bill seeks to correct. Nonetheless, if you look at the way fund-raising appeal is

defined, it does give rise to a certain level of uncertainty which is unsatisfactory from a drafting point of view. I hope the Minister can shed some light on this.

Finally, the Bill seeks to define what an institution of public character ("IPC") means and to set out an administrative framework that allows the Sector Administrator to regulate charities, including approving institutions as IPCs, within their respective sectors. I support the streamlining of the administration of the charities and IPCs along the lines suggested by the Bill. However, if the administration of charities and IPCs are to be divided among the Sector Administrators, one question that arises is whether there will be any assurance that the quality of administration will be uniform across all sectors. In other words, would the bar to qualify as an IPC be the same across the sectors? What assurance will the public have that the standards, especially with regard to defining an IPC, be the same?

Sir, this amendment Bill is certainly a welcome and timely change to our Charities Act. We need to strengthen public confidence and trust in our charity sector. This is absolutely crucial to our approach of relying on many helping hands to support the needs of the poor and needy in our society. However, our strategy of leaning on voluntary groups to provide the needs does require, on our part, a certain delicate balancing between the need for tight scrutiny and transparency, and the need to provide some flexibility to the charities. How that balance should be calibrated would very much depend on the Commissioner and the Council that would seek to assist him in this task. For now, the Charities Act and its amendment seek to provide a robust framework within which the Commissioner is to undertake his work. The devil as, they say, is in the details. I do hope that over the months, the Commissioner will come up with clear

guidelines and codes of conduct and governance to let the public know what the expectations are, and not just leave them to second guess.

With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

3.27 pm

Sir, I propose to respond to the Member's speech in inverse order. I will deal with his specific points first and then return to the more general points.

The Member referred to clause 5, which sets out the duties, functions and powers of the Commissioner. Amongst the list of questions he submitted was the definition of a charity, how would the Commissioner decide what is in the public interest and why there is no formal route of appeal against his decisions.

The definition of a charity is actually a rather difficult one. I have discovered that it has actually taken almost 400 years of English case law, modified by local experience, in order to generate the list which is contained in the Bill. But just for the record, I would read out the list of what charitable objects are. First, the relief of poverty. Second, the advancement of education. Third, the advancement of religion. And fourth is a multi-limb clause - other purposes beneficial to the community, such as the advancement of health; the advancement of citizenship or community development; the advancement of arts, heritage or science; the advancement of environment protection or improvement; the relief of those in need by reason of youth, age, ill-health or disability, financial hardship or other disadvantages; and the advancement of animal welfare. So it is a very wide spectrum.

What we are trying to do here is not to redefine a charity, but rather to give

the Commissioner more flexibility, to see whether someone who puts up his hand and says, "I am pursuing one of these objectives", is really doing so in a bona fide organisation and in a way which is acceptable to the public. So it is really for the Commissioner to exercise judgment on behalf of the public interest.

How will the Commissioner decide then what is in the public interest? The key here is to consult the public widely that this is, at the end of the day, a community effort and, therefore, no one man, one council, one board or one Minister can or should unilaterally decide what is in the public interest. I give you that assurance that in the exercise of these powers, the Commissioner will consult widely. That is also why we set up a Charity Council to provide a ready avenue of people to provide opinions and guidance to the Commissioner in making these difficult decisions.

Thirdly, we have also set out, in our amendments, that the grounds on which he decides, to either de-register or refuse to register, would be set out. In other words, we would do this transparently and a decision would be out there for the public to see and to make their own judgments on.

Consequently, I decided that there was no need to set up a formal route of appeal to the Minister because the process would be done through wide consultation; the process would be published and everyone would be in the loop. But having said that, if anyone subsequently does feel aggrieved, he can still write to me. I promise Members that I will still take it up, look at it, discuss it with the Commissioner, discuss it with the Charity Council, and, of course, with the relevant stakeholders. Of course, in extremis, there is still the right of judicial review. I give Members that assurance that the Commissioner of Charities will

exercise this power flexibly, but carefully, and in the public interest.

His next point was on clause 4. I agree with him that in the establishment of a Charity Council, we must get people with standing in the community; people with experience in the voluntary sector; people with financial, legal, entrepreneurial experience; people who will bring diverse perspectives to bear on this very difficult and heterogeneous sector. I would tell Members honestly that it is difficult to assemble that Charity Council. And I am very grateful to the pioneer batch who has agreed to serve on this.

I agree with him that as they get into the saddle, they will also have to devise the work processes, the norms and the means of consultation because the key reason we chose to have a Charity Council, as opposed to just empowering the Commissioner with more teeth, is to send the message that we want this charity sector to be self-regulated and we want people from the community to come up and to help the sector stay viable and safe.

On the Member's specific question on fund-raising appeal - has the definition of this been too wide? He cited two examples - in a newspaper article and personal private donation. If a newspaper article is written to convey news, it is certainly not a fund-raising exercise. But I am aware that sometimes the way it is written sails very close to that definition. So far, no article has crossed that line. But, nevertheless, I think journalists will exercise the power of the pen responsibly, that they are meant to convey news, maybe to convey comments on an event, but they should not be embarked on a fund-raising exercise. If they wish to do so, then apply for a permit. Similarly, out of the goodness of your heart, if you make a personal donation to someone whom you happen to know and is in need, we are not going to deem this as a

public fund-raising exercise. So, again, I give him the assurance that commonsense will prevail.

On his point about sector administrators, I agree with him absolutely that there is a need to maintain uniformity of standards across all the sectors, and that is why, again, we need to make sure that when we start this system, there is a lot of consultation, collaboration and calibration across all the sectors. We are thinking of establishing an Accounting Standards Board under the aegis of ACRA which will help devise accounting standards which can be applied to these other non-corporate sectors as well. That will give everyone a common term of reference in order to generate their reports and in order to comply with the standards.

Let me come back to the more general points. I agree with the Member absolutely that we have to strike a balance. This is not one of those sectors where the Government can solve it by throwing lots and lots of red tape, and lots and lots of fines or penalties. This is a sector which depends on human compassion, generosity of spirit and the ability to self organise in order to keep it going. So what we are really after is to give people, ordinary members of the public, trust and confidence in the charity sector, and we believe this can best be done by having total transparency. In fact, the bulk of all the rules and so-called impositions that we are placing on the charity sector is really to provide more information. That was his fourth point.

If I could summarise, it is about trust and transparency, and provide all the information that the public needs, all the information that the donors and volunteers need, so that they have an assurance that their money and the time that they donate are put to good use and, if I may add, to also show the value of the services that have been delivered; in other

words, what is the output, ie, do not just show the input equation but show the results of your intervention and services to the community.

I agree with his second general point that there is a need for clarity in rules. The speech that I have just made, and I mentioned sections here and clauses there, that is not the way in which we will govern the sector, but good examples, work examples or problems from the past will be written up, discussed and presented, so that people know what to do and what not to do in the future. And the Member is quite right, it is really about generating culture, rather than creating new codes. That is what we hope to achieve in this collaborative approach between Government, the voluntary welfare sector and the Charity Council.

On the third point, will more charities need professional help, specifically more on auditing and accounting services, and, therefore, will that raise cost? My answer to that is, that is why we are choosing a tiered and not a one-size-fits-all approach because you will then end up with a very rigorous and onerous system, which the small fledgling charities would not be able to afford.

So I would give him the assurance that it will be a light touch for the small start-ups but, certainly, as an IPC or a charity grows bigger and behaves, to all intents and purposes, like corporations, it must then be subject to the more onerous standards which we expect of a company or a corporation.

I agree with his fourth point which is that all the supporters of a charity or an IPC deserve more information. The currency is money and time from supporters and, in return, the charities must provide information to the supporters - information on how your money is spent,

information on the output and the effects of the programmes which you have funded.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill, unfortunately, has come at a time when perhaps we are reacting to events which have caused public consternation. But even if you put that aside, I think the direction in which we are amending this is still correct and is appropriate for the future that we are trying to steer the charity sector towards. So, remember the fundamental points - that it is about self-regulation, it is about trust, it is about transparency and confidence.

I want to thank the Minister for his comprehensive response to my comments on the proposed Bill. I just have a point of clarification to make. The Minister said earlier that the Commissioner would decide on what a charity is after he has extensively consulted the public, to get a better sense. So we have, through a process of public consultation, come to an understanding of what exactly is a charity that meets the public interest. Perhaps the Minister can clarify how the Commissioner - or perhaps it is early days - may want to go about undertaking this work.

As I said, the specific objects of charity are already fairly well defined. What I am more concerned about is someone who looks through this and says, "Ah! I can set up a charity for the welfare of children because it seems to fit." What I am more concerned about is whether that organisation is really out to do the service that it purports to be. Having said that you are going to do that service, are you really organised - do you have the people, the volunteers, the expertise, and the funding in place? So, it is more a check on bona fides rather than a question of whether a certain objective is charitable or not because that, I believe, is fairly well

established by convention over the last 400 years.

Sir, in my speech, I also alluded to the slightly more difficult categories which change with the social mores of the time. One accepts that education is one of the categories of charity which is well recognised by common law. But what if you turn the education or the benefits of promotion of same gender union in a marriage as a charitable cause? Then, who defines whether that is a charity which is in keeping with the changing values of our time?

Is that a hypothetical question or is there an application pending? If there is an application pending, I do not want to pre-judge it at this point. The Member is right that ultimately there is a judgement call. Like all judgement calls, you cannot make everybody happy. The Commissioner will have to ensure that his decisions are consistent with his assessment of where the public, in general, stands on a particular issue. I cannot be more specific than that. But you have to ensure that it fits with the public policy, as stated by the Government and the mores, the values and the views of the general public. And because we live in a diverse society, it is impossible to cater to every single view, some of which may be on the margin or even extreme.

Sir, in the industry today, I think there is a perception of risk in dealing with the charity sector. If you look at a lot of IPCs, they are facing difficulties in getting auditors to audit their books at a reasonable rate. Many have already increased prices or even backed out of this market, sad to say. So, what plans does the Ministry have to work with the industry to address this?

That is a valid observation. I think, after the recent

events, auditors have realised that this is no longer just a small act of charity. Auditing an organisation is a serious job and comes with all the accountability and responsibility of auditing any other company or commercial entity. With this realisation, auditing firms which in the past would devote very little bandwidth and, therefore, could agree easily, now have to be more cautious in their commitments. But having said that, I think a new equilibrium will arise. Yes, in some cases, auditing fees have gone up. But in so far as I see it, the fee is a reasonable one that recognises the serious responsibility and accountability that come with the job. I think that is something which we should not begrudge them because it is a job, and their professional standing is on the line. How can we help? There have been some suggestions, for instance, to make sure that the financial year for charities perhaps not be in sync with the commercial sector because when everybody is jam-packed the last minute and you are short of staff. So, we will look at creative ways in which we can reduce the load on both the charity sector as well as the auditors who are performing this service. But, at the end of the day, I am saying it is a professional service and one that we should pay a fair rate for. Expectations are then set and the key thing is you assure them that when someone signs off on the annual report, you know it is a fair and accurate representation of the state of affairs in that organisation.

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 Vivian Balakrishnan].

Bill considered in Committee.

The citation year "2006" will be changed to "2007", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

Clauses 1 to 23 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.45 pm

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

Sir, the Bill seeks to amend the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act (LTA Act) to enable the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to market its expertise overseas.

Let me elaborate on this new function and highlight the key provisions in the Bill for the proposed amendment.

Currently, LTA markets its expertise through its subsidiary, MSI Global Private Limited (MSI), set up under the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation Act (repealed in September 1995 when LTA was formed). There is no provision in the LTA Act that allows LTA to market its expertise overseas. This is because, except for two situations, LTA's functions under the LTA Act are geographically confined to Singapore. Hence, LTA's powers are correspondingly limited. This is in contrast to

other statutory boards, such as JTC, which have been expressly empowered by its respective legislation to export its expertise.

With the expected growth in demand for land transport infrastructure construction, especially in China and India, the amendments to the LTA Act, namely, clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, will provide LTA with the flexibility to market its expertise overseas as and when such opportunities arise.

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.

The citation year "2006" will be changed to "2007", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

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

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

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Introduction

Sir, this Bill amends the Air Navigation Act for the following purposes:

First, to increase the maximum penalties for offences on aviation safety and aviation security;

Second, to provide for the personal liability of persons managing a corporate body or office bearers of an unincorporated association where an offence is committed by a corporate body or an unincorporated association under certain circumstances;

Third, to increase the maximum composition fine for offences that have been made compoundable; and

Finally, to empower Singapore aircraft accident investigators and their advisors to enter and inspect any place, building or aircraft for the purposes of effectively investigating into an aircraft accident occurring in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now go through the clauses of the Bill to elaborate on these amendments.

Background

Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 3 of the Act to increase the maximum penalties for non-compliance with Orders made to regulate the safety and security of air navigation. These Orders are made to implement the international safety and security standards and recommended practices contained in the Annexes to the Chicago Convention, to which Singapore is a party.

The current maximum penalty of a $5,000 fine or an imprisonment term of one year or both is not commensurate with the possible catastrophic consequences of aviation safety and security violations. As an aviation hub, Singapore must assure the travelling public, other stakeholders and also potential entrants into the aviation system that we are committed to uphold the highest standards of safety and security.

The proposed amendments to section 3 of the Act increase the maximum penalty which can be imposed under an Order to a fine of $100,000 or five years' imprisonment, or both. This will enable subsequent amendments to be made to Orders to introduce stiffer penalties for aviation safety and aviation security offences, making our penalties for such violations comparable with those of the major aviation States.

The intention is to increase the maximum penalty for the most serious safety offences under the Air Navigation Order to $50,000 or two years' imprisonment, or both, for the first offence, and $100,000 or five years' imprisonment, or both, for the second and subsequent offences. Examples of such serious safety violations include: (1) an airline allowing its aircraft to be operated without a valid Certificate of Airworthiness; (2) an airline scheduling a pilot for duty beyond his or her maximum flying duty hours, which may cause fatigue, hence creating the risk of a major aviation accident and possible loss of lives; (3) an aircraft maintenance and repair company failing to service an aircraft to the required safety standards.

To enhance aviation security, which is another critical area in support of our overall aviation hub operations and in light of the global threat against civil aviation, we intend to raise the deterrent effect against any breaches of security measures by airlines operating at Changi. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has reviewed the penalties for security-related offences and intends to increase the maximum fine for offences under the Air Navigation (Aviation Security) Order from $5,000 to $10,000.

Clause 3 of the Bill also amends section 3 of the Act to empower the Minister to make an Order relating to the investigation of any accident or incident

involving air navigation and, in particular, authorising the entry, inspection and examination of any place, structure or aircraft. Such powers of entry and inspection are essential to the effectiveness of an investigation into an aircraft accident or incident occurring in Singapore. This is in line with the guidance of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) that investigators should, through legislation, have immediate and unrestricted access to all relevant evidence without requiring prior consent from judicial bodies or other authorities. Major aviation states like the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States also provide for similar powers.

Clause 4 repeals section 12 which is no longer necessary in the light of the amendment of section 3 by clause 3.

Clause 5 of the Bill inserts a new section 27A to provide for persons managing a corporate body or office bearers of an unincorporated association to be liable to be prosecuted for an offence committed by the corporate body or unincorporated association if the offence was done with the consent, connivance or attributable to the neglect of the person. This will encourage persons managing corporate bodies or unincorporated associations to adopt responsible practices at a more systematic level and conduct more due diligence checks so as to comply with the safety and security standards and measures stipulated by CAAS and SPF under the Act. These standards are in accordance with the international standards and recommended practices contained in the Annexes to the Chicago Convention.

Clause 6 amends section 28A(1) to increase the maximum sum which may be collected from a person for compounding an offence under the Act which is prescribed as a compoundable offence.

The maximum sum is increased to take into account inflation as this amount has not been amended since its insertion into the Act in 1987.

Hence, clause 6 of the Bill amends section 28A of the Act to increase the maximum sum from the existing $200 to $5,000, or half of the maximum prescribed for the offence, whichever is the lower. The latter formula is modelled after section 199A of the Criminal Procedure Code and will cater to less severe offences which do not warrant the maximum composition sum of $5,000.

These amendments would enable the SPF to enhance compliance with the security directives by the aircraft operators. To illustrate, an aircraft operator currently has to ensure that its security measures, such as flight pre-checks, access to unattended aircraft, security of boarding passes, security of baggage, catering and cargo, staff training and quality control, are all in place. Any failure to implement those measures constitutes a breach of the security directives issued by the Singapore Police Force and is an offence under the Air Navigation (Aviation Security) Order. Depending on the severity of the breaches, the Police may choose to either compound or prosecute an offender, particularly where it concerns recalcitrant offenders or where there are aggravating circumstances. The proposed increases are reasonable compared to the penalties prescribed in major aviation states for similar offences.

Clause 6 also inserts a new subsection (1A) to make it clear that no further proceedings will be taken against the person compounding an offence, on payment of the composition fine.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments that I have presented today are necessary to ensure that the Air Navigation Act

remains relevant to our needs. They will contribute to public safety, enable us to maintain Singapore's excellent reputation of high aviation safety and security standards, and strengthen Changi Airport's position as a leading global air hub.

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.

The citation year "2006" will be changed to "2007", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this Parliament, pursuant to section 7 of the Civil List and Pension Act (Chapter 44), resolves that the Schedule to that Act be varied by deleting the figures "$2,507,200", "$117,000", "$2,733,200", "$1,108,500" and "$92,800" in the second column and substituting for them the figures "$2,661,700", "$132,000", "$2,724,400", "$1,301,500" and "$64,500".

Sir, I propose an additional provision of $325,400 be supported for the Privy Purse under Class I Expenditure for FY 2006 in view of higher bonuses and higher expenditure on utilities. This will increase the Class I expenditure for FY 2006 to $2,797,300 and Class III expenditure to $1,301,500.

For Class II expenditure, I propose a revised provision of $2,724,400. This is $8,800 lower than the budgeted provision of $2,733,200.

For Class IV expenditure, I propose a revised provision of $64,500 which is $28,300 lower than the budgeted provision of $92,800.

It is therefore necessary to vary the provisions in the Schedule to the Civil List and Pension Act (Chapter 44) as indicated in the motion before the House.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Parliament, pursuant to section 7 of the Civil List and Pension Act (Chapter 44), resolves that the Schedule to that Act be varied by deleting the figures "$2,507,200", "$117,000", "$2,733,200", "$1,108,500" and "$92,800" in the second column and substituting for them the figures "$2,661,700", "$132,000", "$2,724,400", "$1,301,500" and "$64,500".

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Adjourned accordingly at

Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 3.00 PM

asked the Minister for Education if there are plans to incorporate cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training into the school curriculum especially from secondary school level onwards as many cardiac arrests happen in the community and not in hospitals and healthcare institutions.

The effective execution of CPR requires both technical skills and mental readiness. An individual trained in CPR further needs experience and maturity to assess whether a crisis situation needs one to effect an appropriate intervention through CPR or not.

In secondary schools, First Aid is a core component in all Uniformed Group (UG) training programmes. The First Aid course is at the basic level which includes teaching students to render first aid treatment for cuts and bruises, and the dressing of wounds. However, the First Aid Course does not include CPR. CPR requires additional training and certification. Only Uniformed Groups like Red Cross, SJAB and National Civil Defence Cadet Corps that have trained instructors include CPR as a compulsory training component as part of an extended First Aid package.

CPR requires judgement and technical expertise to be appropriately and effectively executed in a given crisis situation. The training of CPR requires skilled instructors who need to be re-certified every three years. Likewise, trainees need to be re-certified regularly.

It would therefore be best left to professional bodies with qualified trainers to promote CPR within the community rather than to incorporate CPR into the school curriculum.

asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance if he will consider allowing foreign maid levy tax deduction for singles who have the responsibility of looking after their aged parents as currently only married women or those separated, divorced or widowed with children, who can claim child relief, are eligible for such tax deduction.

The Foreign Maid Levy Relief was intended to encourage married women to continue working and raise families. It is not meant as a general relief for any household that may need help from maids. This is why the Foreign Maid Levy Relief is only available to married working women.

There are other ways in which the Government supports Singaporeans who are looking after their aged parents. First, there is the Parent Relief. The relief is $5,000 per parent if the parent is living with the taxpayer and $3,500 if the parent is not. Second, those who need to engage a maid to help them care for their aged parents pay a lower maid levy as they are eligible for a $95 per month Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Concession. Individuals can claim the concession as long as their parent, parent-in-law, grandparent or grandparent-in-law is a Singapore Citizen or Singapore PR, aged 65 years and above, staying in the same household. Both the Parent Relief and Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Concession are available to singles.

asked the Minister for Manpower as dual-income families may place their children and their domestic foreign workers (DFW) at their parents' house while they are at work, (a) what is his Ministry's position on this, given that current policy dictates that the DFW works only at the employer's house; and (b) whether there have been any cases of prosecution or disciplinary action taken against such employers.

Under the Work Permit (WP) conditions, foreign domestic workers (FDWs) are only allowed to work for their employers at the address stated in their WP cards. This restriction is necessary as some FDWs had complained that they were being exploited and over-worked by errant employers who required them to take care of two or more households.

However, the Ministry is aware that some employers prefer their FDWs to take care of their children under the supervision of family members, such as parents or parents-in-law, while the employers are at work. For these cases, MOM is prepared to exercise flexibility to allow such an arrangement. However, this must be done with the FDW’s agreement and employers must ensure that their FDWs do not end up having to perform the full load of household chores of both households.

Between January and October 2006, 28 complaints of this nature were made to the Ministry of Manpower. In 16 of the cases, the employer was warned. Three of them were fined and four of them were prosecuted. The remaining five cases are still under investigation.