Hansard, 2007-07-16

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2007) To (2007) Mr Teo Ser Luck 27 May 28 May 12 Jun 15 Jun Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed 27 May 30 May 15 Jun 30 Jun Mr Lee Yi Shyan 31 May 02 Jun 12 Jun 21 Jun 22 Jun 27 Jun Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 31 May 04 Jun Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 01 Jun 01 Jun 10 Jun 14 Jun 19 Jun 20 Jun 25 Jun 28 Jun 03 Jul 07 Jul Miss Penny Low 01 Jun 10 Jun Mdm Cynthia Phua 02 Jun 02 Jun 08 Jun 14 Jun 18 Jun 23 Jun Mr Zainudin Nordin 03 Jun 10 Jun RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew 04 Jun 19 Jun Mr Ang Mong Seng 07 Jun 09 Jun 03 Jul 06 Jul 01 Sep 03 Sep Mr Yeo Guat Kwang 09 Jun 15 Jun 07 Jul 10 Jul Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 10 Jun 16 Jun 19 Jun 27 Jun 10 Jul 14 Jul 23 Jul 02 Aug Column: 985Mr Liang Eng Hwa 10 Jun 23 Jun 06 Jul 08 Jul Dr Lim Wee Kiak 10 Jun 14 Jun Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 11 Jun 17 Jun 27 Jun 28 Jun 29 Jul 03 Aug Mr Goh Chok Tong 11 Jun 12 Jun 13 Jun 15 Jun Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong 11 Jun 14 Jun 04 Jul 07 Jul 20 Aug 24 Aug Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon 11 Jun 15 Jun Mr Chan Soo Sen 12 Jun 15 Jun 21 Jun 23 Jun 26 Jun 01 Jul 24 Jul 28 Jul 31 Jul 04 Aug Mr Gan Kim Yong 12 Jun 13 Jun Dr Ng Eng Hen 12 Jun 23 Jun 27 Jun 28 Jun 14 Jul 16 Jul Dr Balaji Sadasivan 13 Jun 22 Jun Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien 13 Jun 17 Jun 26 Jun 29 Jun Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 13 Jun 17 Jun Mr Sin Boon Ann 16 Jun 24 Jun 08 Jul 11 Jul Mr Charles Chong 17 Jun 20 Jun 09 Jul 12 Jul Mr Lim Swee Say 18 Jun 20 Jun 28 Jun 03 Jul Mr Mah Bow Tan 18 Jun 20 Jun 26 Jun 29 Jun Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M 18 Jun 21 Jun Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman 19 Jun 22 Jun 19 Jul 27 Jul Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 19 Jun 21 Jun 22 Jul 25 Jul Mr Arthur Fong 20 Jun 23 Jun Mr Alvin Yeo 21 Jun 22 Jun 26 Jun 27 Jun 01 Jul 08 Jul Dr Lily Neo 21 Jun 26 Jun Column: 986Mr Lee Kuan Yew 22 Jun 30 Jun 16 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 27 Jul Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong 26 Jun 14 Jul Dr Ong Chit Chung 26 Jun 29 Jun Mr Baey Yam Keng 27 Jun 29 Jun 14 Jul 15 Jul Mr Lee Hsien Loong 27 Jun 28 Jun Mr Lim Hng Kiang 27 Jun 28 Jun 04 Jul 07 Jul Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim 27 Jun 28 Jun 14 Jul 15 Jul Mdm Halimah Yacob 28 Jun 03 Jul 26 Jul 03 Aug Mr Matthias Yao Chih 28 Jun 01 Jul Mr Wee Siew Kim 28 Jun 29 Jun 26 Aug 02 Sep Mr Wong Kan Seng 28 Jun 01 Jul Mr Khaw Boon Wan 30 Jun 01 Jul Mr Lim Boon Heng 03 Jul 14 Jul Mr Seah Kian Peng 04 Jul 07 Jul 10 Jul 14 Jul Ms Ellen Lee 06 Jul 08 Jul 10 Jul 16 Jul Dr Teo Ho Pin 06 Jul 10 Jul 27 Jul 29 Jul Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo 09 Jul 10 Jul Mr S Iswaran 09 Jul 13 Jul 23 Jul 27 Jul Mr Inderjit Singh 10 Jul 12 Jul Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 12 Jul 15 Jul Dr Ong Seh Hong 13 Jul 14 Jul 23 Jul 27 Jul Mr Seng Han Thong 13 Jul 15 Jul 18 Jul 19 Jul Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 15 Jul 21 Jul Mr K Shanmugam 16 Jul 16 Jul Mr Ong Kian Min 16 Jul 24 Jul Dr Lee Boon Yang 22 Jul 24 Jul Mr Teo Chee Hean 30 Jul 04 Aug Ms Lee Bee Wah 18 Aug 24 Aug Column: 987Dr Fatimah Lateef 19 Aug 25 Aug 27 Aug 30 Aug 23 Sep 01 Oct 02 Oct 09 Oct 23 Nov 26 Nov 30 Nov 02 Dec 03 Dec 08 Dec Dr Lam Pin Min 30 Nov 09 Dec

Mr Liang Eng Hwa

Mr Lee Kuan Yew

Dr Fatimah Lateef

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

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

1st June,2007 (1) Competition (Amendment) Bill (2) Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill (3) Financial Procedure (Amendment) Bill (4) Singapore Armed Forces (Amendment) Bill (5) Employment of Foreign Workers (Amendment) Bill (6) Environmental Pollution Control (Amendment) Bill (7) Radiation Protection Bill (8) Gas (Amendment) Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in light of the rejection of the Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) between Indonesia and Singapore by the Indonesian Parliamentary Commission for International Affairs and Defence, what are the implications on both the extradition treaty and the DCA.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is true that a number of Indonesian DPR members have rejected the Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) even before the Indonesian Government has officially submitted it to the DPR for ratification. Some claimed that the DCA infringed on Indonesia's sovereignty. Others denounced the Extradition Treaty (ET) and DCA agreements as an unfair deal for Indonesia. Many strange allegations were made against the DCA and against Singapore during hearings in the DPR.

Sir, please allow me to reiterate some key points about the ET and DCA. The two leaders, Prime Minister Lee and President Yudhoyono, agreed in October 2005 that the ET and DCA would be negotiated as a package with a balance of benefits for both sides. Their intention was for the conclusion of these two agreements to elevate relations between Indonesia and Singapore to a higher plane. It was in this spirit that Singapore negotiated the ET and DCA with Indonesia.

As to be expected, the negotiations were complex and took many rounds. It was important for both countries to

benefit from each of the two agreements, taking into account each country's sovereignty and core interests. After nearly two years of negotiations, with both sides showing goodwill and making compromises along the way, we eventually agreed on a package of agreements on 23rd April 2007. This package comprised the ET, the DCA and four Implementing Arrangements or IAs. The four IAs were the Military Training Area IA and three other IAs on specific joint projects involving the three Services. The final round of negotiations was carried out by the Foreign Ministers, Defence Ministers and Defence Chiefs in Singapore. All the main documents, namely the ET, DCA and the Military Training Area IA, were initialled that evening in an atmosphere of relief and celebration which was well covered by the international media. It was agreed that the main agreements would be signed in a formal signing ceremony in Bali on 27th April 2007, by the Foreign Ministers, Defence Ministers and the Defence Chiefs respectively, and witnessed by PM Lee and President Yudhoyono. We would have signed the other three Implementing Arrangements on that same day, but, at the Indonesians' request, purely for administrative and logistical reasons because they were not able to get all three of their Service Chiefs together for the Bali signing, we agreed that they could be signed in a separate ceremony by the Service Chiefs of both countries in Jakarta on 7th May 2007, to be witnessed by the two Defence Chiefs.

As the whole package of agreements had been agreed to by both sides, we were therefore most surprised when Indonesia asked Singapore to make substantive changes to the IAs after the main agreements had been signed. There were also arguments from the Indonesian side that the agreements were incomplete.

Sir, as I have pointed out, the ET, the DCA and the four IAs were negotiated and concluded as parts of a carefully balanced package. Insisting on substantive changes or introducing new elements afterwards means that there was no agreement in the first place. In effect, the entire package would be unravelled. This would make future negotiations with Indonesia, or with any other country for that matter, difficult if not impossible because there would be no finality even after an agreement had been reached.

Some DPR members have asked the Indonesian Government to accept the ET but reject the DCA. This is not possible as both agreements were negotiated and concluded as a package, a point which has been publicly acknowledged by both Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda and Defence Minister Juwono Sudarsono.

Singapore's position is a clear and simple one. We have to abide by the sanctity of agreements once they are concluded. While maintaining this principle, we have nevertheless tried our best to be helpful to the Indonesian Government without reopening settled agreements. We have therefore conveyed a proposal to Indonesia on 22nd May 2007 suggesting a way forward. We are still waiting for Indonesia’s response to our specific proposals. At a breakfast meeting on 12th June 2007 in Singapore, Foreign Minister Hassan assured me that there is no intention by the Indonesian side to reduce the substance of what has already been agreed. He said, however, that Indonesia needed some clarification of details to facilitate the implementation of the DCA.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are aware that the dynamics of Indonesia's domestic debate are complicated and that the Indonesian Government may need more

time before tabling the ET and DCA to the DPR for ratification. In the meantime, it is in the interest of both countries to continue strengthening bilateral cooperation in other areas. We are after all close neighbours with a high degree of inter-dependence.

Sir, Mr Michael Palmer has also submitted a question on the DCA to the Minister for Defence. Details on the DCA will be covered by the Minister for Defence.

Thank you, Minister, for the comprehensive reply. When the agreements were signed in Bali, it was hoped that it would bode better relations between Indonesia and Singapore but, given the opposition from the legislators in Indonesia, even the governors from Riau and the Riau Islands, and various allegations made, I wonder whether the Minister can give us an assessment of whether these two agreements would indeed spell better relations or give us new areas of dispute and friction.

Can I also ask the Minister whether he thinks there is political will at various levels to move forward on this and to make sure that at the end of the day both sides will have a balance of benefits?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there was hope when we entered the negotiations - there was certainly a lot of hope when we signed the agreements - and we continue to be hopeful that we will be able to work through the remaining problems, and have these agreements ratified by both sides and come into effect. On our side, there is no lack of will. On the part of President Yudhoyono, there is no lack of will, but we recognise at the same time that the politics of Indonesia are complicated and that sometimes, we may need a certain passage of time before some of these

things can be done. But we remain hopeful and patient.

asked the Minister for Defence what is the present status of the Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) with Indonesia, given the fact that a DCA was signed between Singapore and Indonesia, and how will the Minister move forward so as to implement the DCA that was signed with Indonesia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as stated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his answer to an earlier Question today, the Extradition Treaty, DCA and the four associated Implementing Arrangements (IAs) to the DCA were negotiated and concluded as one package. Let me give the House a sense of how this carefully negotiated package came about, a flavour of the discussions. The negotiations were complex and took many rounds.

The meeting on 23rd April discussed and finalised all outstanding matters pertaining to the ET and DCA, and it involved all the key players from Singapore and Indonesia including the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, the Ministers of Defence, the armed forces chiefs and the Chief Negotiators of the ET and DCA. All the key people were there. This was a protracted meeting that started in the morning and lasted well into the night, during which all remaining issues in the ET and DCA were extensively discussed and settled. This was done with goodwill and patience on both sides as we worked towards an agreement, making sure all the matters were covered and settled. Both sides had ample opportunity to raise any issues of concern for discussion. At the end of the meeting on 23rd April, the ET, DCA and its four associated IAs were

finalised, completed and agreed upon by both sides as a complete package. In fact, that night, we issued a joint statement with Indonesia which said, "both sides made significant progress and were able to reach agreement on all the remaining issues". The joint statement reflected the spirit of goodwill in which the package had been negotiated and the good faith in which it had been concluded by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Ministers of Defence and the armed forces chiefs of both countries.

Since then, however, Indonesia has indicated that it wants to impose substantive changes and new conditions on Republic of Singapore Navy training in Area Bravo. Naval training is not something new. It had been an integral part of the previous MTA which we had with Indonesia. During the many rounds of negotiation since October 2005, training for the Republic of Singapore Navy had always been a subject of discussion. The focus of the discussions was not on the type of training which had previously already been conducted under the old MTA but, rather, the focus was on which area the naval training should take place in. Several possible areas for naval training were considered, and both sides finally agreed on 23rd April after extensive discussions that the area for the naval training would be in what is now called Area Bravo. The training itself was never in contention or a subject of discussion, only where it would take place.

The media has also reported comments about the interpretation of Article 6 of the DCA and how this relates to the IAs. During the series of negotiations leading up to the meeting on 23rd April, both sides agreed to have four IAs to the DCA. An IA for Area Bravo was never raised during the course of the

negotiations. If there was a need to impose any new conditions on naval training or to conclude a separate IA on naval training, Indonesia had ample opportunity to raise the matter for discussion during the negotiations, before the carefully balanced overall package was finally settled and agreed to on 23rd April. Singapore's view therefore is that the package of agreements that was concluded on 23rd April is complete, and that what is already contained in the DCA and its four associated IAs is sufficient to implement the DCA.

Nevertheless, as mentioned by my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, out of goodwill and in the spirit of cooperation, Singapore made a proposal to Indonesia on 22nd May 2007 suggesting a way forward. This was a significant step and a sincere attempt to resolve this matter finally and conclusively. We are still awaiting a reply from Indonesia on the specific proposals in our offer. We welcome the assurances from Indonesia that it does not wish to change what was agreed, and look forward to being able to conclude and implement the agreements.

Singapore values the long-standing relationship that has been built up between the SAF and the TNI. This close relationship strengthens regional security and has served both sides well for many years, especially in times of crisis when we have come to each other's assistance. We are committed to working together with our counterparts in Indonesia to ensure that this relationship remains strong and positive .

Sir, I believe the Indonesians have indicated that they want a cooling-off period before they come back to the table. Is there any indication of a timeline? Will we have to wait for a year or so before this matter is concluded?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, we have made them a serious proposal on 22nd May. We are hopeful that the Indonesians will be able to study the proposal and come back to us with a substantive response to the points that we have put forward in our proposal. We have no indication how much time the Indonesians may need for this. We do understand that they have their own processes and considerations but we do hope that they will come back to us so that we will be able to move forward and conclude this agreement. We are certainly committed to doing so.

Sir, the Indonesian media has been reporting the specifics of what the Indonesian side has been thinking on the issue, including the specific areas of disagreement. Can I ask the Minister to please enlighten us on this way forward that has been proposed to Singapore because it is puzzling when we say that we do not want to make any substantive changes when the Indonesian does, and we say that there is a solution put forward? Can the Minister please enlighten us?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not privy to the internal considerations of the Indonesian government and the people in its various branches of government. I also can only read what has been communicated in the newspapers and some of the statements do seem a little self-contradictory. But we do hope that Indonesia will look at this substantive offer that we have made which we believe would address most of their concerns and come back to us with a substantive response to this proposal. We believe that this is a good way forward.

We also believe that the best way forward is to be able to communicate with each other substantively in this manner rather than to make statements in public which, one side or the other, may not

know how seriously to take it because some of them are quite clearly polemical and we should not be conducting negotiations in that way.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what are our options if this DCA does not go through. What are the long-term implications to our forces in terms of training and whether we have other alternatives? If we have other alternatives, would the Minister consider these alternatives now rather than to wait until then?

Mr Speaker, Sir, these training arrangements with Indonesia have been going on for many years. As I told the House before, I participated in the first-ever exercise with Indonesia in 1974, probably dates me a little. But we had training arrangements with Indonesia to train, for example, in Pekan Baru area since the 1980s. We signed the military training agreement with them in 1995. And we have had very good interactions with Indonesia through these years. We have been able to work together in times of crisis. I recall many of them because I was directly involved in things like the rescue of hostages in Irian Jaya; I was involved during the search and rescue operations in the Musi river when the SilkAir aircraft crashed; and I was also involved in the tsunami relief operations. So I remember all these things very vividly and distinctly. And the thing that struck me about all these events was how closely and fraternally the TNI and SAF were able to work together because we personally knew the people on the other side. I think that has been the great value of the close exchanges and interactions that we have had with Indonesia. And this is the main reason why we feel that we would want to continue with the Defence Cooperation Agreement to strengthen our relations with Indonesia. The relationship is an important one for us from the strategic

level and also from the ability to work with each other in a comfortable, friendly and familiar way.

In terms of training of the SAF, we have other training alternatives. We have training agreements, DCAs and MOUs of various kinds with more than half a dozen countries. We are able to train there and to train with their forces and we appreciate very much the opportunities these various countries have given us to train the SAF there. These arrangements will enable us to continue to maintain the operational readiness and training levels of our soldiers, sailors and airmen.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as in any offer, there should be a validity period. Shall we impose this validity period? I know that we are very serious about this whole thing but, on the other hand, when I look at the Indonesian side, I think they are taking their time just balancing to see what is of benefit to them. We have done so many things for them, helping them all this while but yet I think they are dragging their feet. I think that we should impose a validity period.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think in such matters, a certain amount of goodwill and patience is always necessary. We try our best to understand the internal processes that are going on in the Indonesia of today and to accommodate them as much as possible. So for this process, the approach that we will take is to exercise as much goodwill and as much patience as possible, continue to demonstrate our will to want to work closely with Indonesia, and to conclude a good agreement with them. I think this is the only way that we can progress and move forward in our relations with our friends in Indonesia.

3. Mr Hri Kumar Nair asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law in relation to the recent incident where a prisoner was given three strokes of the cane in addition to that provided in his sentence (a) how did the error occur; and (b) what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of the same or similar errors.

4. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law what is the approach of the Government in taking responsibility for mistakes in the administration of justice, such as clerical or administrative errors which result in unnecessary or excessive punishment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, can I take Question Nos. 3 and 4 together as they are related?

Yes.

Thank you. I will first answer Ms Sylvia Lim's question which is a general question, ie, what is the Government's approach in taking responsibility for clerical and administrative mistakes made in the administration of justice that result in unnecessary or excessive punishment?

Sir, in answer to that question, let me say that it is clear that there can only be one approach to that situation. When such a mistake has indeed occurred, the Government must, of course, accept responsibility. Each and every mistake must be taken seriously - we cause an investigation, identify the causes and take remedial actions to ensure that it does not recur. Indeed, this has been the approach

which we have taken. And where compensation is due, the Government will be prepared to offer reasonable compensation. In short, we take responsibility, and put it right.

Let me now turn to Mr Hri Kumar's question. His specific question is about the case involving Mr Dickson Tan, which has been the subject of some media publicity. The first part of his question is how did the error occur?

Sir, Mr Dickson Tan was charged with four counts of abetting an unlicensed moneylender to harass a debtor. He pleaded guilty to two of the charges, was convicted and sentenced on 28th February 2007 to three months' imprisonment and two strokes caning (for one charge) and six months' imprisonment and three strokes caning (for the second charge), that is, a total of nine months' imprisonment and five strokes of the cane, as the sentences are to run consecutively. (The two remaining charges were taken into consideration). There is no dispute that the sentence was legally correct. It was pronounced in open court and recorded accurately in the case file and notes.

The error occurred at the stage when transcribing the sentence from the case file onto the Warrant of Commitment. The Warrant of Commitment notifies the Prisons Department the sentence that was passed on the offender. When preparing the Warrant, the Court Clerk erroneously entered the sentence for the second charge as six months' imprisonment and six strokes of caning instead of three strokes, thereby giving rise to eight strokes of the cane, instead of a total of five strokes. Unfortunately, the sentencing District Judge also did not spot the error when he signed off on the Warrant.

The caning sentence was administered to Mr Dickson Tan on 29th March. The

Court Clerk who prepared the Warrant became aware of the error on 2nd April following an enquiry from a member of Mr Tan's family. The Court Clerk then alerted the District Judge, who in turn reported the matter to the Senior District Judge.

The second part of Mr Hri Kumar's question asks what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of the same or similar errors.

Before answering that, let me add that when the matter was brought to the attention of the Senior District Judge, he took the matter seriously and immediately directed investigations to be carried out.

Those investigations revealed how the error had arisen which I have explained. In the course of the investigations, statements were obtained from the Court Clerk as well as the District Judge.

The Court Clerk, in his statement, admitted his mistake and apologised. The Court Clerk expressed his remorse over the incident and asked to resign on 12th April. The Subordinate Courts considered instituting disciplinary proceedings against the Court Clerk but after considering his overall performance record in the Court, which was good, and that this was his first mistake which was not wilful, allowed him to resign.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand from the Courts that the primary responsibility for preparing a Warrant of Commitment lies with the Court Clerk. Unfortunately, the District Judge who signed off on the Warrant did not detect the error. The Chief Justice has directed that the District Judge be formally cautioned and that after he has cleared his outstanding criminal cases, he would be taken off judicial work which involves the signing of Warrants of Commitment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me inform the House that the Chief Justice has himself looked into this matter. He has written to the Senior District Judge to express "deep concern" about what happened in this case and to impress upon the Subordinate Courts' Judges and Court Officers the seriousness with which he views avoidable mistakes of this nature. Moreover, notwithstanding that this kind of mistake was a rare occurrence, the Chief Justice has said that he takes this seriously as it may affect the excellent reputation and standing of our legal and judicial systems which have taken many years to build up. The Chief Justice has directed a review of all administrative procedures within the Courts so as to put in place a system to avoid mistakes of this nature in the future.

The Chief Justice has also directed that the Courts work with the relevant agencies - Prisons, Police and the Attorney-General's Chambers to ensure that a comprehensive system of checks by all agencies is put in place to prevent mistakes of this nature. All these are now being done.

I understand that the Subordinate Courts have already taken additional steps and refined their checklists. For example, Warrants of Commitment will now be checked twice at both levels by another Court Clerk not involved in the preparation of the Warrant and by a second District Judge.

The Courts are also considering automating the process of preparation of Warrants of Commitment with built-in system checks so that such errors do not recur.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me end by putting his matter in perspective. The Subordinate Courts deal with some 200,000 criminal cases every year, some involving

sentences of imprisonment, some involving fines, some involving caning, and some involving a combination of these sentences. So, bearing in mind 200,000 cases a year, this kind of clerical mistake is an extremely rare occurrence. But as I have said publicly, even if these mistakes are rare, even if there is only one case, it is one case too many. We have to put it right and ensure that it does not recur. I think that is the way to uphold and strengthen the hard won reputation of our legal system for integrity and justice which we have built up over many years. I know that this is also the attitude of the Chief Justice, the Senior District Judge and other members of the Judiciary. Measures have been put in place to strengthen the system and to ensure that this sort of mistake does not recur.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister could clarify some paragraphs in the statement issued by the joint Ministries of Home Affairs and Law on 30th June, released to the media. In that statement, there were certain paragraphs saying that the prisoner was asked at various points in the procedure whether the sentence was correct and he did not protest.

I would like the Minister to tell the House whether it is actually the position of the Government that the prisoner also owes a duty to check the correctness of the Government's actions and, in that sense, he is not free from blame in this incident.

Let me explain, Sir, that the position of the Government is not that the prisoner had any contributory negligence. If she read the statement clearly, it was upfront that the error was the error of the official of the court.

Now, why did we put in those points in the press statement? The reason is because that press statement was in response to press queries on that day

concerning allegations by members of the family that prior to the carrying out of the sentence, either the prisoner, Mr Dickson Tan, or members of his family, had actually objected to the imposition of the sentence. And the reason why the press statement had to set out the sequence of events is to show that, from the viewpoint of the Prisons, this was not true. In fact, we had to explain that the Prisons has a sequence of steps. From the moment the prisoner is admitted up to the carrying out of the sentence - in fact, I have gone through with the officials the sequence of steps - there are many stages where the prisoner is interviewed. He is asked to confirm that he does not wish to appeal, the sentence is read out to him, he is asked to affirm whether he understands and so on. In fact, I have seen some of the documents where in fact his confirmation is there, that he understood, that he did not object. So, it was in response to allegations that he had objected, and that is the reason why we had to bring out those paragraphs in the statement.

Sir, two supplementary questions. The Minister spoke of the Subordinate Courts reviewing its processes. I was wondering whether he could enlighten us on when that process is likely to be completed. The second question is whether the Minister could update us on the status of the settlement talks with the family.

Sir, I believe the Subordinate Courts have acted very promptly and some of the measures I have already mentioned in my answer to his question. They have already been instituted. Some checks will have to be done in consultation with other agencies, which are involved in investigations, in prosecution, and I know that the Senior District Judge has, in fact, met with the key agencies. I think I can confidently tell the House that these measures will be done expeditiously.

As to the settlement talks or the progress of the mediation, there was a mediation hearing last week and I understand that it has been adjourned to enable both sides to consider and reflect on the positions taken by each side. I also understand that the nature of these mediation proceedings is that they are confidential. And if they succeed and a settlement is reached, that is one scenario. If they do not succeed, there is a possibility that they might go to the courts. So, either way, I think it is best that I do not go into details of what actually is offered and what was said by each side in the negotiations.

Sir, there has been an allegation by the prisoner's family that after the caning took place, he attempted to write a letter to his family informing them of the mistake that had taken place. The allegation is that the Prison authorities stopped the letter from going out to the family. I would like to ask the Minister whether this allegation has been investigated and the facts have been found about this allegation.

Sir, I have inquired from the authorities - the Ministry of Home Affairs - and it is very clear that there is no truth in this allegation. No letters were prevented from reaching the recipient intended by Mr Dickson Tan.

Ms Lim, last question from you.

Sir, I wonder whether the Minister could further clarify on this issue of compensation. In his earlier statement, he mentioned that the authorities first became aware of the mistake on 2nd April when the family telephoned the court to inquire about the case. I would like the Minister to tell us when was the first offer of compensation made. And was that urgency brought about because of a threat of a law suit against the Government?

Sir, I do not have the details on that aspect of the chronology. [Please see clarification during sitting on 17th July 2007*. ] But I do know, from my discussions with the Attorney-General's Chambers, that as soon as the Attorney-General's Chambers became aware of the error, an official from the Attorney-General's Chambers did meet up with Mr Dickson Tan and his family to (a) apologise for the error, and (b) to offer settlement terms. As far as I know, it was well before any threat of legal proceedings was in the air.

*Cols. 1221-1222, 17th July 2007.

5. Mr Inderjit Singh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, in light of the recent pullouts by the University of New South Wales in 2007 and John Hopkins University in 2006, (a) if he will explain why Singapore has not been able to retain its foreign universities; and (b) whether he is confident that we will be able to continue to attract reputable universities to set up campus in Singapore.

6. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how does the pullout of the University of New South Wales Asia affect Singapore as an education hub; (b) what were the considerations that led to this pullout; and (c) how much of this can be attributed to the expectations of the Economic Development Board in terms of student enrolment.

7. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the Ministry's plans to make Singapore an education hub; (b) how has the withdrawal of the University of New South Wales from Singapore affected Singapore's image as an education hub; (c) what are the reasons for the University's decision to withdraw from

Singapore; and (d) what were the University's needs which the Economic Development Board was unable to accede to.

8. Prof. Thio Li-ann asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how much has been spent by the Government on the UNSW Asia project and what are our outstanding liabilities to third parties such as banks, construction companies and other service providers; and (b) what is being worked out with UNSW in relation to financial compensation payable to Singapore.

9. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) during the negotiations between the Economic Development Board (EDB) and University of New South Wales (UNSW), what safeguards were taken to mitigate the risk of UNSW pulling out from Singapore; (b) how were the interests of enrolled students protected; and (c) in view of UNSW's public statements on its liability and losses arising out of its pullout and its duty to report to the Australian Parliament, whether EDB remains bound by confidentiality obligations and, if so, why.

10. Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in the memoranda of understanding with foreign educational institutions setting up in Singapore, how is due emphasis given to secure adequate commitment to these projects so as to ensure that they are not easily abandoned.

Sir, with your permission, may I take Question Nos. 5 to 10 together?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their questions and interest in the UNSW project and the

broader issue of what this means for Singapore as a global education hub.

Let me first give the background of the UNSW project. After one-and-a-half years of feasibility study, UNSW assessed in 2004 that it was viable to establish a private comprehensive university in Singapore. This meant that the university would offer a full range of programmes in Science and Technology, Business, Arts and Social Sciences, and at both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. UNSW submitted its formal proposal to EDB in July 2004. Following discussions, EDB agreed to support UNSW's proposal.

When UNSW accepted EDB's support package in February 2005, it was on the basis that although UNSW would start off at an interim campus, it would eventually set up a new university campus here and enrol 10,000 to 15,000 students at the steady state. EDB saw a new campus as a clear demonstration of UNSW's commitment to the Singapore project, thus providing a good basis for its funding support. The acceptance of the EDB support package was signed off by the then Vice-Chancellor of UNSW, Professor Mark Wainwright.

Following the appointment of Professor Fred Hilmer as Vice-Chancellor of UNSW in June 2006, UNSW approached EDB to increase the support package. Professor Hilmer considered as inadequate the previous package which UNSW had agreed to. In August 2006, EDB agreed to increase the support package in return for UNSW's commitment to a ten-year student enrolment target of close to 5,000 students, the acceleration of the development of a new campus at Changi and additional R&D activities. In December 2006, Professor Hilmer signed off on the increased support package. UNSW proceeded to invite and accept student applications to the Singapore campus for its first intake in March 2007.

It also continued to build up its staff strength.

But in March this year, UNSW found that the first intake for UNSW Asia was far below its expectations. It had enrolled only about 150 students, less than half of its business plans' projected intake of 300. UNSW also expected the second intake to be significantly below earlier projections. UNSW thus reviewed its operations in Singapore again, holding extensive discussions with EDB.

UNSW eventually proposed a significantly scaled-down plan of achieving an enrolment of about 2,000 students in 10 years, half of what UNSW had agreed to in the revised package of December 2006. Moreover, UNSW was now unable to provide the assurance that there would be a permanent campus in Singapore, even on a reduced scale. This called into question UNSW's ability to deliver on its original intent of about 10,000 to 15,000 students at the steady state. EDB and UNSW explored various scenarios and options but could not agree on a revised package.

On 19th May 2007, EDB informed UNSW that it could not agree to the revised support package proposed by UNSW. However, EDB made several counter-offers to help address UNSW's concerns. First, EDB was willing to give UNSW two years, until April 2009, to decide whether to develop the new campus at Changi. Second, EDB offered not to claw back the grant and loan incentives that it had disbursed to UNSW for the Singapore campus if UNSW agreed to carry on operations and meet a set of interim targets until it made its decision on the new campus in April 2009. Third, EDB offered that if and when UNSW should submit its campus proposal, EDB would assess afresh the proposal for a support package, with support commensurate with the benefits of the project to

Singapore. In the end, UNSW decided to cease operations because of what it perceived as an unacceptable level of financial and operational risks. UNSW announced its decision on 23rd May 2007.

Before we come to any conclusion of the UNSW decision, let us step back and keep in perspective a few fundamental points. First, investors know their business better than the Government. In this case, UNSW - as the investor and the operator - is in the best position to assess the viability of its business plan and to decide whether to start a comprehensive university in Singapore. Second, Government's role is to facilitate and support investors in their decisions, not to second-guess or guide those decisions. In this instance, EDB's job was to facilitate UNSW's investment by providing it a level of support commensurate with the benefits of the project to Singapore and putting in place appropriate safeguards if the agreed milestones are not achieved. Since public funds are being used to support this investment, EDB is mindful that the project creates sufficient benefits to Singapore in terms of jobs and economic value. This is because we want to make every investment dollar count.

Mr Speaker, Sir, UNSW's decision is a business decision.

While we as Government can play a role in giving support to investors who want to set up operations in Singapore, we cannot issue a blank cheque. We must ensure that public funds are well utilised and yield strong benefits to Singapore. EDB's support package for UNSW was therefore premised on the basis that UNSW would undertake a long-term commitment to establish a university of significant scale in Singapore that will create new economic value. EDB's grants and loans are conditional on UNSW achieving pre-

agreed milestones such as student enrolment, failing which they become recoverable.

To date, EDB has disbursed S$15 million in loans and S$17.3 million in grants to UNSW. As UNSW will not be able to meet the performance indicators that it committed to EDB in 2004 and 2006, UNSW is required to return the disbursed loan and grant to EDB. The disbursed loan is backed by a bank guarantee. EDB is currently discussing with UNSW on the recovery of the disbursed grant. The Government does not have any outstanding liabilities to third parties with regard to the UNSW project.

We regret UNSW's decision to pull out, but this is their business decision and we will have to respect it. The Government's bigger concern was the impact of UNSW's decision on the students. EDB therefore worked closely with UNSW and the Ministry of Education to assist the affected students. UNSW has assured us that it would mitigate the impact on the students. It has offered scholarships of between S$12,000 and S$22,000 per annum to the students who choose to go to the UNSW Sydney campus to continue their studies. This is to help with the living costs. To date, 116 students out of the 143 students enrolled for Semester 1 at UNSW in Singapore have opted to study in UNSW Sydney campus. For students who wish to remain in Singapore, EDB and the Ministry of Education have been working closely with UNSW to provide alternatives. NUS, NTU and SMU have helped by extending their deadlines for the UNSW Asia students to apply for admission. They have offered 24 places to the students who meet their admission norms and of these, 17 offers have been accepted to date.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the closure of UNSW Asia will not dampen our aspirations to become an educational hub. Not all

investment projects will succeed. But that should not stop us from constantly seeking new investment projects that can add value to Singapore. We will continue to bring in new projects and build on the base that we already have. Today, we have more than 16 foreign universities and 41 preparatory and boarding schools (comprising 38 foreign system schools and three privately-funded schools) in Singapore.

More recently, we have also successfully attracted a range of reputable foreign educational institutions to set up their campus in Singapore. Recent additions include institutions such as the University of Nevada Las Vegas, the New York University Tisch School of the Arts, Duke Graduate Medical School, and foreign system schools such as the Bhavan Indian International School, the Delhi Public School and the Chinese International School. These institutions are doing well here. In all, there are currently 80,000 international students in Singapore today.

The market for international education, especially in Asia, is growing rapidly. Singapore is well placed to seize a strong position in this market: we have high education standards, a secure environment and good quality of life, and a unique East-meets-West cosmopolitan environment. These will stand us in good stead, as EDB seeks to bring in more reputable foreign institutions and enrich the education landscape in Singapore.

Sir, I have two supplementary questions. First, on the issue of 10,000 to 15,000 students at the steady state. My question is: when did we expect them to achieve that level of enrolment? My second question is: how realistic has EDB been to expect a foreign university to achieve an enrolment of 10,000 to 15,000 students, especially if you look at it in the light of

how long it took our universities to achieve that kind of enrolment rate? Were we unrealistic in expecting any university to achieve that kind of rate?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned just now, it is not our job to evaluate the business plan of the investor. In this case, UNSW came to Singapore and they had a very unique and bold plan to set up a private comprehensive university. So, they were not looking for setting up a small niche area. They wanted to set up a comprehensive university, including science, engineering, arts, and social sciences. So, it was a unique proposition. And to make that work, they had to build up a critical mass - because it is an expensive endeavour to build up a comprehensive university, and you need the scale - and, therefore, they proposed an eventual enrolment of 10,000 to 15,000. Of course, we realise this would not be achieved overnight, and the intermediate target was about 5,000 to 6,000 within the first 10 years, and then they build it up gradually. But they must show the commitment, build up the campus, recruit the staff, and meet the milestones, building up to this eventual target of 10,000 to 15,000.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for the very comprehensive answer. I understand surely that it is not the Ministry's role to evaluate the business plan. But, however, I understand that all business plans must have contingencies before the Government itself gives out any funding or grant. I am sure the Government has evaluated in terms of their plans and any contingency if the enrolment drops below the projected numbers. So, I am wondering whether these contingency plans were evaluated and, if they were, why these contingency plans were not implemented.

The support package that EDB provided for UNSW was, essentially, in two parts. One was loan to help build the campus, and that loan was backed by a bank guarantee. So if they do not build, of course, we can recall the loan. The second support package was a set of grants to help them build up their capabilities, particularly in the science laboratories. So, of course, if they do not build the science laboratories, the grants are not disbursed. We also gave out some grants to help them build up the initial capacity, and they were the grants that were disbursed at the early stages, so that they could start up their operation and build up initial capacity. So, the grants were given for different milestones, and for those which were given at the startup to help them come in, those were the grants that were disbursed, and that is the S$17 million that we have to recover now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, two supplementary questions, please. May I ask the Minister whether there is enough synergy between MTI and MOE in dealing with all educational issues, be they educational hub, foreign universities or students? Secondly, will the Minister consider setting up a one-stop centralised controlling authority among the stakeholders - MTI, MOE and ICA - to advise, implement and regulate policies?

Our plans to promote Singapore as an education hub is a whole-of-government plan. We work very closely between MTI, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Home Affairs and all the other agencies. As Members will hear later from Minister Tharman, we worked very closely in helping UNSW to set up its operations here and, also, we worked very closely when they decided to pull out. There are different roles by the different agencies and this is to be expected. We do have a one-stop coordination of all the various plans

involving all the various Ministries and agencies.

I want to ask the Minister concerning the 143 students who are affected. From his answer, I am happy to hear that 116 are going to Sydney, and he mentioned that 24 have met the criteria and are being offered places by NUS, NTU or SMU. If my mathematics is right, there are three unaccounted. I want to ask what is happening to these three and whether special efforts can be given to these three students who are unaccountable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to assure the Member that his arithmetic is right. But, in fact, there could be more than three unaccounted for because there could be double counting. In fact, the students have no obligations to report to us. So, even though we try to reach out to the students and collect the statistics, not all the students will tell us what they have been offered. So, our statistics are not complete. Out of the number, there could be double counting and, in fact, there could be more than three not accounted for in the numbers that I have given out.

Sir, I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, I would like to ask the Minister, of the grants that were already disbursed, how much was disbursed where the milestones have already been reached, which will make them non-refundable to Singapore. My second question is: in the course of the various negotiations and discussions with EDB, I would like to ask the Minister what pre-emptive measures and steps were taken to minimise the impact on students. Because, at the end of the day, I think these students stay in Singapore to study in UNSW and those plans have been fundamentally changed. So, I would like to know when we negotiated with the university, how much consideration was given to their interests.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I explained just now, the grants were disbursed, essentially, as startup grants to build up the capacity and, because they have not met the required commitments, these grants can be clawed back. So, we are discussing with UNSW Asia to see how they can return us the grants that were disbursed to them.

As for the students and the very sudden closure, this is something unfortunate. Even up to May, we were still discussing with the UNSW Asia how to continue the operations. But, at the same time, we cannot provide them with a blank cheque. Obviously, they must show commitment to undertake the milestones and the projections as indicated to us. As I said in my reply, we were prepared to give them two years to let the operations settle down. Then, they can give us a new plan with the scaled-down projection and we will support them commensurate with the benefits that the new scaled-down plan will give to Singapore. But the university decided that they are taking on a high level of operational and financial risks, and so they decided to close down. Once they had made the decision to close down, both sides worked very closely to try and mitigate the impact on the students. I must say UNSW Asia went out of its way in providing the scholarships, in talking to the students, to make sure that the students' welfare was taken care of. On our side, EDB and the Ministry of Education also worked closely with UNSW Asia to make sure the students were looked after.

Can the Minister clearly let us know what is his assessment of the recovery of the amount of $17 million that has been granted? I note that the sum has been spent. But how can you recover it? The second question is this. We know that there are many Singaporean students who have

taken the foundation course, and I understand that the university is still continuing with this foundation course. Would our own universities recognise these students who have undertaken the foundation course for the next year's university entry as well?

We are still in the process of discussing with UNSW Asia on the recovery of these grants. So, I cannot give an estimate of how successful we will be. As far as the foundation course and the future admission to our local universities are concerned, I think this can be better answered by Minister Tharman later on.

I would like to ask the Minister, in view of this incident and the experience that we have gained, how else and how differently would EDB and MOE be engaging future foreign universities to come to Singapore in our pursuit of making Singapore an education hub.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our strategy to build up Singapore as an education hub covers a wide spectrum. Today, we have about 80,000 foreign students in Singapore. 25,000 are, in fact, enrolled in our primary or secondary schools and junior colleges. Another 25,000 foreign students are in our universities and polytechnics. The third 25,000 are in our private educational organisations - those private schools run by the private companies. Another 5,000 are in the foreign system schools catering for the expatriate children. So, we have a comprehensive approach. We are also marketing and targeting another group, which is really executive training for those in the different professions and careers. So, with this wide range, we will continue to build up on making Singapore attractive, not just in our own public and private schools but also in the foreign

universities that may set up

niche areas that can be very successful in Singapore in the graduate programmes and in other specialised areas. UNSW came in with a very unique proposition, and that is, a totally private comprehensive university with a big campus. If another university comes in with that plan, with a well-thought out strategy to develop that, I think that would add to the menu of our options in Singapore and we will consider it very seriously. But, at the same time, I do not think our education hub strategy is lacking because of the absence of a private comprehensive university. We will still go for the other areas that we have shown to be very successful and continue to build on these areas.

11. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry was informed in advance of the closure of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and, if so, whether more could have been done to prepare the affected students; and (b) what assistance has the Ministry extended to the affected students in securing fair compensation from UNSW for their losses and in securing places in local institutions.

12. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Education , in the light of the exit by University of New South Wales (UNSW) from Singapore, (a) what are the safeguards the Government can offer to students enrolled with foreign institutions here from being left in the lurch; (b) whether these institutions are required to post any financial bond with the Ministry to ensure their specific performance; and (c) whether the Ministry is aware of any student taking legal action against UNSW for breach of contract.

13. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education in view of the recent closure of UNSW's campus in Singapore (a) how many schools have closed in the past five years due to financial problems; and (b) what will the Ministry do to ensure that private schools/education institutions have feasible business plans and sufficiently robust financial positions to enable them to meet their education obligations to their students.

14. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Education when will his Ministry set up a national accreditation body to assess and monitor the quality of private schools in Singapore.

15. Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Education whether his Ministry will consider providing tertiary fee subsidies similar to those provided for students at local universities, to those pursuing their degrees at accredited privately-run tertiary institutions as well as those run in collaboration with foreign universities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 11 to 15 together?

Please do.

Sir, I would like to thank Mdm Halimah Yacob, Mdm Cynthia Phua, Dr Lily Neo, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Zaqy Mohamad for their Questions on the closure of UNSW Asia and related issues regarding private educational institutions.

Earlier on, the Minister for Trade and Industry had provided a comprehensive reply on negotiations between MTI and UNSW. MOE was informed of UNSW's decision to close its Singapore campus two days before the public announcement

on 23rd May 2007. As soon as we learnt of UNSW's decision, our top priority was to help the affected students. MOE worked with EDB, the three Singapore universities and several private education providers to provide options for affected students who wished to remain in Singapore to pursue their degree programmes.

The three Singapore universities - NUS, NTU and SMU - and the private education providers set up a one-stop centre at the UNSW Asia campus to facilitate enquiries and applications by the affected students.

Taking into account the suddenness of the situation and to help the affected students, the three Singapore universities extended their deadline for application for this academic year to 4th June. They received applications from 231 UNSW Asia students and considered these applications case by case on the basis of merit. Twenty-four UNSW Asia students received offers from the universities.

These efforts to assist students provided them with additional options, besides the offer by UNSW of places in its Sydney campus. To date, we understand that 116 out of the 143 UNSW Asia students from the March 2007 intake have opted to continue their course of study at UNSW in Sydney.

MOE does not have information on students taking legal action against UNSW. These are decisions to be taken by the students themselves.

Turning to the question on safeguards for students raised by Mdm Cynthia Phua, private education providers which enrol foreign students are required to attain CASETrust for Education certification. CASETrust-certified private schools are required to protect students' fees by purchasing tuition fee insurance. Alternatively, these schools may set up an

Escrow account into which students pay tuition fees in advance, which the bank will then disburse in instalments. In the event of school closure, unused tuition fees will be returned to the students.

Foreign university branch campuses, such as UNSW Asia, are not required to be CASETrust-certified because they are reputable institutions with university status accorded by their home countries. It is also common practice for such institutions to collect tuition fees on a semestral basis. This makes CASETrust's student protection measures unnecessary. In the case of UNSW Asia, it fully refunded the tuition fees paid by its first batch of students for the period after its closure. It also refunded the deposits paid by students who had not begun their programmes of study.

From MOE's records, 18 private commercial schools have closed in the past five years, for a variety of reasons. In many cases, the schools stopped taking in new students and only closed after seeing through their final intakes. As such, students were not adversely affected. In other cases, the schools sought alternative programmes for their students to transfer to.

Mr de Souza asked if the Government can ensure that private education institutions have sound business plans. It is not possible for the Government to ensure the success or financial robustness of any business venture. In the event of private school closures, our priority is to assist the affected students and minimise disruption to their studies.

Going forward, as I announced at the last Committee of Supply in March 2007, MOE is looking at the feasibility of introducing a new regulatory framework for the private education sector that would, amongst other possible changes, enhance student protection measures.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked about providing fee subsidies to students in privately-run tertiary institutions to pursue degree programmes. MOE has no plans to do so at this point in time.

Sir, may I ask MOS whether the closure of the private school here has dented Singapore's reputation as an education hub? Are there measures in place to regain lost ground? What more can MOE do to better protect the interests of foreign students studying here? And, lastly, given the inadequacy of the present accreditation scheme, is it not urgent for MOE to be proactive and to develop its new scheme?

Mr Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, we are looking into the feasibility of introducing an accreditation system and a new regulatory framework. But this is a fairly complex issue because today, there are some 1,200 private organisations already operating in Singapore, and for us to regulate them, we will have to do so very carefully. At the moment, the Ministry is consulting the industry to understand the structure of the industry better, to understand the concerns, weaknesses and strengths of the industry and see how we could introduce a system to enhance the protection for students and, at the same time, to also enhance the image and branding of Singapore's education system.

I just want to ask the Minister of State the question again. How many students were there in the foundation course? We know that there were students in the foundation course. And would MOE recognise these potential graduates in our local universities?

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the foundation programme

that Mdm Cynthia Phua has mentioned, I think these foundation programmes were designed specifically to cater to UNSW programmes and the local universities would have to look at them very carefully. After all, the admission criteria for our local universities are merit-based. They have to ensure that, first and foremost, they are qualified to enter into our local universities' programmes. At the same time, we also have to ensure that they are able to complete their programmes. So I think we will assess each of them on a case-by-case basis, based on our universities' own admission criteria.

How many are there?

I do not have the specific numbers with me at the moment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the MOS the following questions. MOE and MTI were informed only two days before the announcement was made. But upon being informed, could the two Ministries have requested that the university defer their communication to the students until an effective proper communication plan had been worked out? Because soon after the announcement was made, there was obviously utter confusion and there was not an effective communication plan. And in that communication plan, had the Ministry also asked the university to also indicate to the students what kind of assistance would be provided from the university's side, in terms of scholarship assistance, as well as on the Ministry's side, what kind of assistance would be extended, in terms of getting places for them in NUS, NTU and SMU? Because the impression given is that there was really no effective communication plan or strategy for the students when the news broke out to them and that had caused utter confusion and anxiety.

Mr Speaker, I can understand the Member's concern and the anxiety that she and the students were facing. The decision to close UNSW Asia was made by UNSW themselves and the decision to proceed with the announcement was also made by them. We were informed two days beforehand and, immediately, we swung into action and we gathered our local universities as well as several private education organisations to set up a one-stop shop at the UNSW Asia campus to help facilitate our students who were affected by the closure. I think this was the best way that MOE felt that we could extend a helping help to the students who were faced with this dilemma.

A question for MOS. He gave me a straight "no" to my Question. I just want to find out what are the considerations made before they arrived at the conclusion. My question was really not so much on the UNSW's context, but more along the lines of the demand for university places in our local universities. As such, would the Ministry consider providing such subsidies as well for students who could not make it to the local universities but could make it to other accredited local privately-run universities like UNISIM, for example? Thirdly, I think to a large extent, now with all these foreign universities coming in, it also gives the students more choices, in terms of the academic courses to attend, by lowering the financial burden of the families rather than exploring overseas opportunities.

Mr Speaker, I think Mr Zaqy Mohamad has another Question, Question No. 28, which is related to the admission and university places for our students. I just want to give a quick response now and we can deal with the specifics later on in that specific Question. Looking at it from the university's point of view, it is important for us to bear in mind that some private

education institutions can be quite expensive. It is therefore difficult for us to extend subsidies to all private education organisations. We have provided significant subsidies through our three main universities - SMU, NTU and NUS. I think our focus now is to continue to build these universities and help our students do well in these universities.

The MOS said earlier that he is consulting the industry, comprising about more than 1,000 private education providers, to see how to regulate this industry. I get the impression from the MOS that the Government is now looking at regulating this industry. Surely, the question asked is whether this should have been done earlier before the closure came about, and we are left scrambling to look at what further regulations we have got to put in place.

As I mentioned during the COS earlier this year, the private education landscape has changed over the years. In the earlier years, most of the private education organisations in Singapore worked very much as an agent that offers distance learning. Not many of them were here conducting lessons and having classroom facilities for our students. But over the years, this has changed and the sector has evolved and we have over the years also introduced several measures by the different agencies to improve the quality and regulation of this industry, including, for example, CASETrust which is one such measure.

Moving forward, in line with our strategy to develop Singapore into an education hub, MOE is taking a more fundamental relook at this regulation framework and see how best we can support this strategy. It has to be a balance between regulation and promotion, as we want to regulate and

ensure compliance with the law. At the same time, we want to make sure that we do not stifle up and coming new merging private education organisations that are trying to make a mark. So it is a balance between regulation as well as promotion. That is why we have to track very carefully, consult widely, understand the industry before we introduce the system.

So, in a nutshell, from MOE's point of view, it is more important for us to have a good solution rather than a quick solution.

16. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources if he will give an update on the present dengue outbreak and what more can be done to prevent the situation from worsening.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have seen a sharp increase in dengue cases over the past two months. So far, the total number of dengue cases reported for the year is 146% higher than that reported for the same period last year, ie, 4,368, as compared to 1,779. As of this morning, 339 cases were reported for last week, bringing the weekly average number of cases this year to 156, compared to the weekly average of 64 cases for the same period last year.

Sir, cases are expected to continue to rise in the warmer months ahead, up to September, with the rise compounded by a switch in the predominant circulating serotype from Dengue-1 to Dengue-2.

NEA's strategy for dengue control is to suppress mosquito population by denying the Aedes mosquitoes the place

to breed, what we call source reduction, since we cannot control factors, such as the temperature and the circulating virus. To this end, NEA adopts a multi-pronged approach of preventive surveillance, public education and community involvement, enforcement and research. I shall highlight some of the dengue control measures that have been taken by NEA and relevant agencies this year.

In April this year, NEA had initiated the Intensive Source Reduction Exercise (ISRE), well ahead of the traditional warmer months of June to September. Together with 25 agencies of the Inter-Agency Dengue Taskforce (IADTF), daily checks are carried out to search out and destroy mosquito-breeding habitats. Other than homes, checks are being done in outdoor areas, drains, buildings, construction sites, parks, vacant land, and any infrastructure or facility that can breed mosquitoes. Land agencies, such as LTA, HDB and SLA, have taken action to repair damaged structures that could lead to water stagnation, eg, sunken roof gutters, ground depressions and damaged drains. NParks has also proceeded to seal tree holes and apply insecticides to plant axils to prevent mosquito breeding in these areas.

Since end May, NEA has deployed an additional 300 officers from other departments in NEA, on top of its 500 environmental health officers, to carry out daily search and destroy operations to suppress the mosquito population. Particular attention is also being paid to 44 focus areas identified as susceptible to Dengue-2 outbreaks as these areas have not seen a predominant number of Dengue-2 cases in the last five years.

Sir, breeding in homes continues to pose a challenge. Thus far, domestic containers, flower pot plates and ornamental containers, both within homes and placed by residents outside their homes along the common corridors of

flats, form a significant portion of the breeding habitats detected. To raise public awareness, NEA has carried out intensive media publicity, public outreach and educational campaigns, and given its full support to grassroots activities led by Advisors. NEA will continue with these efforts in the next few months.

Sir, NEA also provides daily updates on the locations of all dengue clusters on its website (www.dengue.gov.sg). This is to alert residents on dengue clusters within their neighbourhoods and enable them to take preventive measures. The Ministry of Health has also alerted all GPs on the current dengue situation. GPs have been advising dengue patients and those suspected of dengue to protect themselves and their household members from mosquito bites so as to protect their family members from contracting the disease.

Sir, the Environmental Health Institute (EHI) under the NEA has been conducting research on ways to enhance mosquito control measures. One such project involves the extensive deployment of ovitraps to monitor mosquito activity. This allows NEA to take pre-emptive action in areas where an increase in mosquito activity is detected. NEA will continue to use ovitraps to help pre-empt localised outbreaks and prevent dengue cluster formation and growth.

Since the beginning of 2007, NEA has taken enforcement actions - these include fines, stop work orders for construction sites, and orders to take measures to prevent mosquito breeding - against 355 construction sites, 1,156 domestic premises and 713 non-domestic premises, eg, factories and shophouses, for mosquito breeding offences. NEA will continue to take strict enforcement action against parties responsible for mosquito breeding offences.

Sir, I would like to stress that our fight against dengue must be underpinned by collective efforts and commitment of all in our community. While NEA and other Government agencies continue to keep mosquito breeding in public areas in check, homeowners must play their part to rid their homes of stagnant water on a daily basis by doing the 10-minute Mozzie Wipe-out. I would like to urge our Town Councils, land agencies and homeowners to be vigilant in the fight against dengue.

First, I would like to commend NEA for all the comprehensive measures taken so far against dengue. May I ask the Minister whether he is concerned over the emergence of new uniquely Singapore strains of dengue over the years, which means that more people may be susceptible to the new strains of dengue? Does he expect this to be a recurring yearly phenomenon? Is it true that it may be the result of our past eradication method? Does he need to do more studies to ascertain this fact in order to better fight dengue?

Sir, I am not sure whether it is uniquely Singapore but, certainly, as Dr Neo will understand as a doctor, the strains will appear periodically, depending on basically the immunity within the community. We are now beginning to see a switch-over from Dengue-1 to Dengue-2, something we have not seen for the last five years. That means there will be a certain proportion of our population who have not developed immunity against Dengue-2.

Is this a yearly phenomenon? It is difficult to tell, but based on the data that we have, there seems to be a six to seven-year cycle in terms of the peak. We are about at that point in time where there is a surge upwards. Sir, this region is also endemic with dengue. And so we are in a dengue-endemic region and therefore we will see these surges occurring ever so often. We are now

trying to study the phenomenon even better. The research arm of NEA, ie, EHI, is conducting several research projects, some of which are too complicated for me to explain. But the point is that we want to understand the phenomenon better and to be able to develop tools that can allow us to pre-empt any increase in mosquito activity. Ultimately, our responsibility is to remove breeding habitats as quickly as possible.

We work very closely with MOH to look at the possibility of developing vaccines. Hon. Members must have read that in the newspapers. Several agencies are coming together.

Sir, we will continue to do our part to support other agencies. But on the part of NEA, we will try and develop more tools to allow us to pre-empt so that we can do a better job. As I mentioned in my reply, it is still homeowners. Indoor breeding is still on the rise. I thank all the Advisors who have gone every weekend, including Dr Ahmad Magad, to deal with the cases in Pasir Ris. But I think we need to do a lot more to get our homeowners to switch and take on this 10-minute Mozzie Wipe-out as a daily habit.

There is a perception that sometimes it is not fatal. So, if I get dengue, I go to the hospital, seven days and I am out. That is not true. So we have to tell Singaporeans that this disease is very dangerous. It can be fatal. It has proven to be fatal. So we have to remind Singaporeans that they have a role to play.

Sir, as I have mentioned, in all my replies in public, I can check all the outdoors, I can fine all the Government agencies, but I cannot go into your house unless there is a complaint. But you must do your part. If not, I would have to come down harder.

Sir, the Minister has given a very comprehensive listing of programmes that they are doing with regard to addressing dengue fever. I do not know whether in the Minister's programme he has also alerted the Town Councils on the need to comb through the parks and the landscape, because some of the varieties of plants and bushes that we have in our parks are actually collecting water. Despite the ovitraps, etc, I think these other areas we should also not neglect. I do not know whether it is the Minister's programme. If not, I would really appreciate it if we could have a more regular and vigilant inspection of the types of varieties of plants that we have in our parks and gardens. If need be, whether we have to actually remove and replant them.

I would appreciate it if the Minister could address that.

Sir, the short answer is, yes, we work very closely with the Town Councils. As I mentioned in my reply, NParks is also looking into the trees that they have, where there is a hole in between, they will seal it up. Town Councils are responsible for all the common areas. They know that they have to do their job because, if they do not, we will also have to fine them. But having said that, I must thank all the Town Councils for the cooperation that they have given to NEA.

17. Dr Lam Pin Min asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) what is the number of incidences of sports-related mortality over the last five years; (b) if there are any initiatives to enhance the safety culture in the national sports associations; and (c) whether regulatory measures should be

implemented to ensure the provision of appropriate medical cover during all sports-related events.

18. Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports what measures will be taken to ensure that qualified medical personnel and medical equipment are present during sports trial events and at common exercise areas such as gyms and schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos. 17 and 18 on sports safety by Mr Baey Yam Keng and Dr Lam Pin Min together as they both relate to the same issue.

Yes. You have four minutes though.

I will try my best.

Sir, sports participation among Singaporeans has increased in recent years. According to our latest figures, one in two Singaporeans participates in sports or exercises at least once a week. In response to Dr Lam Pin Min's query, sports-related fatalities are not captured at the national level as the Registry of Births and Deaths tracks the number of deaths according to the International Classification of Disease, which categorises the cause of death by diseases and certain activities, such as motor accidents, poisoning, suicide, and accidental falls. There have been a total of 24 fatalities at public sports facilities over the last five years.

Currently, the Singapore Sports Council (SSC) provides safety guidelines to the National Sports Associations and

sports event organisers. These guidelines include the provision of first-aiders or paramedics, ambulance services with resuscitators and Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs), as well as safety briefings for participants.

Currently, all SSC Sports and Recreation Centres (SRCs) and the Singapore Sports School are equipped with AEDs. The SSC adheres to strict safety guidelines and practices in the SRCs, such as ensuring that ground staff have undergone training in cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and AED. Fitness instructors in SSC's gyms monitor the performance of users and advise them on proper methods during their training. The instructors pay particular attention to first-time gym users. Safety advisory notices on proper use of equipment are also displayed in prominent areas in the gyms.

Our schools follow strict safety guidelines and procedures while conducting physical education, co-curricular activities and other sporting activities. These guidelines include Physical Education lessons before 10.30 am and after 3.30 pm, unless indoor facilities are available, ensuring that students are well-hydrated during physical activity, and introducing physical activities progressively and at a level appropriate to the individual or group.

Mr Baey Yam Keng and Dr Lam asked about the measures to be taken to enhance the safety practices during sports events, in the National Sports Associations (NSAs) and at common exercise areas. As announced by my Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan on 30th June 2007, SSC has already set up a committee to look into the area of sports safety. This Sports Safety Committee will be chaired by Dr Benedict Tan, who is the Head of the Sports Medicine Centre at the Changi General Hospital. It will comprise

experts from the medical and sports sectors, as well as members from the public, private and people sectors. It also includes a parent of a triathlete.

The committee will look into how to minimise unnecessary risks in sports and create a system of effective and best practices for sports safety for all stakeholders, such as NSAs, sports event organisers, sports facility operators, and so on. Some of the areas that the committee will cover are enhancing public awareness of sports safety, reviewing safety procedures and medical support for sports events, programmes, facilities, training and competencies of first responders in the event of injury or emergencies. The committee will put up a preliminary report to SSC in a month's time.

Sports safety is something we cannot afford to compromise on. And the SSC and the Sports Safety Committee will be working towards enhancing these sports safety systems and we have zero tolerance for it. But I urge all stakeholders and sports participants to play their part to make sports an enjoyable and safe experience for all. For instance, sports event organisers and facility providers should strictly adhere to the safety guidelines set by SSC. Sports participants, on the other hand, especially those of the weekend warriors and corporate warriors, should train progressively for vigorous and difficult activities, such as marathons and triathlons, and prepare themselves by doing the proper warm-up, monitor their overall health condition, go for regular medical screenings, and not push themselves to carry on when they do not feel well.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 23-24, 32-33, 37-38, 40, 42-43, 48 and 50-57 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 19-22, 25-31, 34-36, 39, 41, 44-47, 49 and 58 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

*Cols. 1125-1154.

"to provide for the regulation of private investigators, private investigation agencies, security officers, security agencies, security service providers and certain users of security equipment, and for matters connected therewith, to repeal the Private Investigation and Security Agencies Act (Chapter 249 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to make a consequential amendment to the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Chapter 184 of the 1997 Revised Edition)",

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

"to establish the Accounting Standards Council to issue accounting standards applicable to companies and other incorporated and unincorporated bodies, to provide for accounting standards applicable to statutory bodies with a public function and for matters connected therewith, and to make consequential and related amendments to the Companies Act (Chapter 50 of the 2006 Revised Edition) and certain other written laws",

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

"to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 2001 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Manpower (Dr Ng Eng Hen); read the First time; to be read a Second time at the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to give effect to the provisions of the Montreal Convention, 1999 concerning international carriage by air and for purposes connected therewith, and to make related amendments to the Carriage by Air Act (Chapter 32A of the 2001 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Transport (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat); read the First time; to be read a Second time at the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.04 pm

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

This Bill makes several amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. The main amendment is to make changes to the composition of the Legal Service Commission (LSC) as well as to enhance and institutionalise the personnel management system of the Singapore Legal Service. There are three other amendments: (1) to make provision for alternate members on the Council of Presidential Advisers to act in place of

members who are temporarily unable to take part in Council proceedings; (2) to shorten the oaths of office for the Prime Minister, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries; and (3) to provide that Judicial Commissioners who are appointed to hear specific cases need not be subjected to repeated oath-taking. Some of these amendments, Sir, affect the President's discretionary powers, though not adversely. The President has been consulted on them, and he supports them.

The Legal Service Commission and personnel management system of the Singapore Legal Service

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first deal with the amendments pertaining to the changes to the Legal Service Commission and to the personnel management system of the Singapore Legal Service.

These amendments are a follow-up to my Statement to this House on 3rd April last year, when I announced a review of the personnel management framework for the Singapore Legal Service. As I then explained, our Legal Service personnel management system was inherited from the British. The Constitutional framework for the Legal Service has remained largely unchanged since Singapore's independence, even though the demands on legal services have changed radically. We need to strengthen the personnel management system to make it more robust as well as more responsive to the new challenges in managing talent and personnel in the expanded Legal Service.

As I said in my Ministerial Statement last year:

"... The Government has discussed with the outgoing Chief Justice Yong Pung How, the incoming Chief Justice as well as the next Attorney-General, on how we can build on this hard-won reputation. They are all agreed that

the key is to have the right people in our judiciary and legal service. It is vital that we maintain a continuing inflow of talent and attract the best and promising law graduates to the Legal Service. They are also unanimous that, to achieve this, we need to restructure the Legal Service Commission (LSC) and update our personnel management system. We also need a more systematic talent management system."

As a follow-up, the LSC appointed the Legal Service Personnel Management Review Panel on 20th April 2006, chaired by Justice Lee Seiu Kin, to conduct a comprehensive review. The Panel made several recommendations on the management and development of talent in the Singapore Legal Service. And these recommendations are now being implemented.

The LSC sits at the apex of the personnel management system for the Singapore Legal Service. It is vested with the Constitutional authority to recruit, promote and discipline all legal service officers. Currently, the LSC comprises the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, the Chairman of the PSC, a Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the Chief Justice, and two members of the PSC as nominated by the Chairman of the PSC. In other words, they are all members by virtue of the offices that they hold.

This composition has remained unchanged since independence. The membership of the LSC will now be widened to provide for the appointment of more members with experience that is relevant to the Singapore Legal Service of today. The LSC will be restructured to include members with a wider range of experience, for example, people who have worked in personnel management or who have knowledge of the legal service or the legal profession. They can be from the

private sector, and can include retired judges or retired senior counsel.

The Chief Justice will continue to be President of the LSC, and the Attorney-General and the Chairman of the PSC will also continue as members of the Committee. Article 111 of the Constitution will be amended to provide up to six more LSC members, who need not necessarily be Supreme Court Judges or PSC members. The additional members will be nominated by the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice and Chairman PSC, respectively. The Prime Minister, the Chief Justice and Chairman PSC can each nominate one but not more than two additional members for appointment by the President. The President, however, is not bound by these nominations. His power to veto appointments under Article 22 is expanded to these additional LSC members. In doing so, we preserve the President's safeguard role as regards the integrity of the Singapore public service.

A significant change is that the Prime Minister will now nominate up to two LSC members. Currently, the Prime Minister has no role in the appointment of LSC members. This change is consistent with the role of the Prime Minister in recommending appointments of judges after consulting the Chief Justice. It is also consistent with the role of the Prime Minister in recommending appointments to the PSC and his retaining responsibility for the civil service of which the Legal Service is a part.

The Prime Minister will be nominating only two out of the six nominated LSC members, and his nominations will have to be approved by the President acting in his discretion.

The Constitution will also be amended to allow Personnel Boards to be established for the Singapore Legal Service, and for these Boards to operate autonomously from the LSC. Under the present personnel management system of the Singapore Legal Service, Personnel

Boards have been established by the LSC, but these Personnel Boards are delegates of the LSC, deriving all powers and functions from the LSC and discharging those powers and functions under LSC's direction and control. The amendments in the Bill will allow the Personnel Boards of the Legal Service to evolve to become like the Personnel Boards for the rest of the civil service, with adaptations, of course, because of the smaller number of officers in the Singapore Legal Service. A new Article 111AA will allow the President, on the advice of the Prime Minister, to establish one or more Personnel Boards having charge over different classes of Legal Service officers. The powers of the LSC will be devolved to the Personnel Boards for Legal Service officers, except the power of dismissal and disciplinary control, and all powers of recruitment and promotion of Legal Service officers of and above a certain threshold grade. Once a Personnel Board is established for a specific class of Legal Service officers, the powers of the LSC will cease to be exercisable with respect to that class of officers, except in an appellate capacity.

The members of a Personnel Board for Legal Service officers may or may not be members of the LSC. LSC Personnel Board members will be appointed by the President where he agrees with the advice of the LSC. Like the Personnel Boards for other civil servants, the appointment of members of the LSC Personnel Board is also subject to the President's veto. Moreover, political office- holders, Members of Parliament and trade unionists will likewise be disqualified from sitting on the LSC Personnel Boards.

Sir, with the changes to the composition of the LSC, and the separately constituted Personnel Boards for Legal Service officers, the Secretary to the PSC will also cease to be concurrently the Secretary to the LSC. The LSC can have its own Secretary, who must be a

public officer appointed by the President, on the advice of the LSC.

Arising from these Constitutional amendments, related consequential amendments to the Public Service Commission Act will also be necessary to extend its scope and protection to the LSC and its members and to the Personnel Boards for the Legal Service. I will explain those amendments in greater detail during the Second Reading of the Public Service Commission (Amendment) Bill, which is the next item on the Order Paper.

Council of Presidential Advisers

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now deal with the amendments to allow for the appointment of alternate members to act in place of members of the Council of Presidential Advisers ("the Council") who are temporarily unable to take part in any proceedings of the Council.

The Constitution now provides for the appointment of temporary members where a Council member, for a period of three months or more, is unable to take part in the proceedings of the Council for reasons of illness, absence or other reason. This is in Article 37C. The President can appoint a temporary member on the advice of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice or the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC), as the case may be.

Sir, however, this provision to appoint temporary members has practical limitations. It does not apply to periods of absence or illness shorter than three months. It also does not address the situation where a Council member cannot participate in Council proceedings in order to avoid any perception of conflict of interest. To address these issues, the President has requested for changes to the Constitution to provide for the appointment of alternate members in place of temporary members. The

President was consulted on the changes and he supports these amendments in clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill.

Article 37C, which today provides for the appointment of temporary members, will be repealed. It will be replaced with a new Article allowing the President to appoint two alternate members to act in place of any of the Council members, other than the Chairman, who is temporarily prevented from taking part in any proceedings of the Council. The requirement that the temporary disability should be for more than three months will be omitted.

One alternate member will be appointed by the President in his discretion. The other alternate members will be appointed by the President on the nomination of the Prime Minister, after the Prime Minister has consulted with the Chief Justice and the Chairman of the PSC, the latter being the two other nominating authorities for the other Council members. The two alternate members will each be appointed for a term of four years, and each will be subject to the same disqualifications as for Council members.

In the event a Council member is temporarily unable to attend at any Council proceedings, whether by illness, absence or any other reason, one of the two alternate members appointed can then be selected to act in place of that member. Where a Council member is appointed to act as Chairman of the Council, such as whenever the Chairman of the Council himself is Acting President, an alternate member may also be selected to act in that member's place.

The selection as to which alternate member will actually serve at any instance will be made either by the President, the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice or the

Chairman of the PSC, depending on whose nominee on the Council is temporarily unable to attend Council proceedings. The President will make the selection solely at his discretion if the Council member who is temporarily unable to attend is the President's nominee. Where, however, if the Council member who is temporarily unable to attend is the nominee of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice or the Chairman of the PSC, the selection will be made by the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice or the Chairman of the PSC, respectively.

Sir, the alternate members are like full Council members. Each alternate member has to take an oath of office and allegiance before assuming his duties as an alternate member. However, to avoid repeated oath-taking, the alternate member need not be required to take such an oath more than once during his term of office as an alternate member.

Oaths of Office for the Prime Minister, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now turn to the amendments to shorten the oaths of office for the Prime Minister, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. The existing oaths of office are too lengthy and may be shortened without affecting the substance of the oaths. The present oaths of office for the Prime Minister, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries in the First Schedule of the Constitution will be replaced with shorter oaths.

Let me stress, Sir, that while the new oaths are more succinct and concise, their essence remains unaffected. The oaths have been significantly shortened by leaving out two existing paragraphs on confidentiality of Cabinet discussions and maintenance of secrecy. Let me assure the House that, in substance, there is no change, as the Cabinet is bound by Article 24(2) of the Constitution and is

collectively responsible to Parliament. Secrecy of Cabinet discussions is the foundation of collective responsibility.

Repeated Oath-taking by Judicial Commissioners

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, the remaining amendment deals with oath-taking by Judicial Commissioners appointed to hear specific cases. Currently, Article 94 of the Constitution allows for the appointment of Judicial Commissioners for a period of time and also to hear specific cases. Article 97 requires a Judicial Commissioner to take an Oath of Office on each appointment. This means that a Judicial Commissioner who is appointed to hear two specific cases within a relatively short period of time will have to take the oath twice.

The Chief Justice suggested, and the Government agreed, that we can dispense with oath-taking if the interval between cases is short. The Constitution will be amended such that Judicial Commissioners who are appointed to hear specific cases need not take the oath again if the interval between the cases heard is less than 12 months.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.25 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to raise serious reservations about one aspect of the Bill, and that is clause 8 which amends Article 111 to make changes to the composition of the Legal Service Commission.

Sir, these reservations arise because the Legal Service also comprises persons who are serving in the Subordinate Courts judiciary as Magistrates and District Judges. The Subordinate Courts administer justice and all of us have a

right to expect that the judicial officers will administer justice impartially. As such, we must make all efforts to give the public confidence that the personnel management system of these judicial officers will enhance their standing as independent arbiters of disputes. I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister's justification for the changes. Notwithstanding that, I believe that clause 8 has the potential of undermining public confidence in the courts' independence.

Under the existing Constitution, the LSC comprises the Chief Justice as President, the Attorney-General, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, a High Court Judge nominated by the Chief Justice, and up to two members of the PSC. Under clause 8 of the Bill, the composition of the LSC is to be changed to include up to two nominees of the Prime Minister. If the Bill is passed, the LSC still retains its role of deciding on dismissal and disciplinary action of legal officers. For officers above a certain threshold grade, the LSC will also make career decisions, such as promotions and transfers.

Could the Minister clarify further the rationale for having a new category of LSC members who are the Prime Minister's nominees? If the concern is to ensure that the Legal Service manpower policies are in line with the rest of the civil service, it seems to me that the PSC representatives on the LSC can already perform that role.

Sir, the Members of the PSC who are sitting on the LSC had originally been appointed to the PSC on the recommendations of the Prime Minister. The Attorney-General who also sits on the LSC is a member of the Government. To now have two members specifically nominated by the Prime Minister potentially gives the Executive branch of the Government even more

influence over critical career decisions of our judicial officers.

Sir, my concern is that this can be interpreted as a regressive step for judicial independence. Under the existing system, it is already clear that the Subordinate Courts judiciary does not enjoy security of tenure, unlike High Court Judges, as they can lose their judicial role at any time by being transferred out of the courts to other departments. Whatever the rationale of having a category of the Prime Minister's nominees on the LSC, we should step back and ask ourselves what message is being sent. Even if the intention is not to weaken the role of the Subordinate Courts judiciary, how would the public perceive this move? Would they not think that the judicial officers would still need to consider the interests of the Executive Government in reaching their decisions? After all, the system we are putting in place specifically allows nominees of the Prime Minister a say in their career progression.

Sir, clause 9 proposes a new Article 111AA to set up Personnel Boards to exercise the functions of the LSC permanently, ie, once the Boards are constituted, the LSC can no longer exercise these functions. The members of the Personnel Boards will be appointed based on LSC's recommendations. Since the composition of the LSC itself is going to change to specifically include the Prime Minister's nominees, then recommendations of the LSC for the Personnel Boards would carry the same concerns about how independent they are vis-a-vis the Executive Government. While it may well be the case that the nominees are persons of integrity, would they be perceived as truly independent actors?

Sir, this Bill touches on one of the pillars of the rule of law, ie, the law is to be applied to everybody equally,

regardless of status or power. While we have entrenched safeguards to protect the independence of the High Court judiciary, we have not done the same for the Subordinate Courts judiciary. The Subordinate Courts' jurisdiction has been enlarged greatly over the years. They handle the vast majority of criminal cases - the Deputy Prime Minister himself mentioned a figure of 200,000 a year - and civil claims up to a quarter million dollars are also handled by the Subordinate Courts. According to their Annual Report 2006, they dealt with more than 350,000 cases in 2006. Thus, in terms of caseload, their role in the administration of justice directly affects more lives than the High Court.

Sir, it is my strong belief that we should avoid taking any steps which might be perceived as weakening the independence of the Subordinate Courts judiciary. I believe that the proposed change in the LSC composition carries a real risk of undermining public confidence in the neutrality of our courts. And, as such, the proposed change is of grave concern.

3.30 pm

In the 10th Singapore Law Review Lecture, delivered in 1996, Attorney-General Mr Chan Sek Keong (as he then was) had this to say of Singapore’s model of the criminal process, and I quote:

"What is perhaps more important is the integrity of the people who operate the system, ie, the investigative and the prosecutorial agencies, and the ultimate supervisor of the criminal process, the judiciary. In other words, it is people who make a system fair and just, and not the reverse."

I understand the constitutional amendment in relation to the Legal Service Commission’s Personnel Boards to be preserving just that model.

The new Article 111AA seeks to allow the President, on the advice of the Prime Minister, to establish by subsidiary legislation one or more Personnel Boards having charge over Legal Service officers. My understanding is that this amendment seeks to decentralise the management of officers. It seeks to create a more local supervisory system. In essence, it involves a devolution.

The merits of having a more localised Personnel Board are three-fold:

First, the Personnel Board would, presumably, be made up of members within the officer's department. As such, it will be able to better assess the officer's ground skills to ascertain which posting the officer ought to receive next. It will be able to chart the officer's postings, based on a local assessment of the officer's skill-set. The board would also have had the benefit of reviewing his work on a day-to-day basis.

Second, the officer himself will benefit from a proximate "sounding board" from which he is able to establish how he is performing on the job. Such proximity will also enable the officer to communicate what his interests are to the board and which portfolio he prefers for his next posting.

Third, the plurality of the Personnel Boards (ie, if the amendment envisions the establishing of more than just one board) will assist the LSC in the collation of vital data. If multiple Personnel Boards are envisioned, such as one for each arm of the Service (for example, AG's Chambers, the Subordinate Courts, or the High Court Registry), the collation and submission of data by these boards to LSC will enable LSC to: (a) better rank officers across each arm of the Service; (b) assess which areas of practice the Service, in general, needs to improve on; and (c) devote more time to the important

task of assessing which officers have the potential to take up senior positions within the Service.

Therefore, I wish to highlight that the devolution of functions to Personnel Boards must not be at the expense of LSC's aim of promoting not just the officers who have skills organic to their daily jobs, but also officers who possess the helicopter qualities needed for leadership positions within the Service.

If, indeed, these are goals of the proposed amendments, the LSC's secretariat, whose current function is to assist in the annual grading exercise of officers, must be allocated a larger financial budget so as to meet these new demands.

But the proposed changes must not be viewed as merely enhancing the career development of the officer and the morale within the Legal Service. The amendments merit much more than such parochial appreciation.

The challenge is not only to chart a career path for a Legal Service officer, but it is to ensure that what he is being charted for meets the growing range of legal services that Singapore wants to provide to local and international clients. Intellectual Property, Competition Law and sophisticated litigation are only a few of the fast-changing areas which both the private and public sectors need to be proficient in.

To this end, on 3rd April last year, DPM Jayakumar emphasised, and I quote:

"As lawyers in the House would know, the legal landscape has changed tremendously in recent years, reflecting the wider changes taking place in the world. With each passing day, the frontiers of law are being pushed further and further. We need only to look at the developments in intellectual property, alternative dispute resolution, information technology and financial services."

Prof. Jayakumar went on to stress:

"Our Legal Service, therefore, needs to keep abreast of these wider developments, and we need good and able minds in the Legal Service with expertise to advise, prosecute as well as to adjudicate."

The profession's private sector and the Legal Service must move in tandem in order to keep ahead of this pace. Neither should have a monopoly of talent. Instead, they should augment each other so that clients will choose the Singapore legal arena as their jurisdiction for adjudicating disputes or concluding contracts because they know that they will be serviced by top minds in Government and in the private sector.

Among the areas of law I practise, two display the need for tandem progress in both the private and public sectors. These areas are Competition Law and Intellectual Property (or IP law for short).

The Competition Commission of Singapore is staffed by Legal Service officers and economists. Among other things, it has a set of guidelines to regularise the manner in which the Commission will treat companies who "come clean" on their anti-competitive behaviour. This set of guidelines also seeks to explain the leniency programme for companies that "come clean" and seek help in how to become competition-friendly. These guidelines detail what level of immunity (whether half or full) the company will receive if the information that they provide is useful. The point I am making here is that the Commission is concerned with promoting competition in the Singapore economy via methods, such as this leniency programme. However, private sector lawyers and their corporate clients are most concerned with what information needs to be told to the

Commission and what immunity clients will receive. It is crucial, therefore, for the Commission to strike the right balance between enforcement and commercial sense. International as well as local clients will be affected, if the right balance is not struck. This displays how much we need to invest in the career development of our Legal Service officers and the profession as a whole.

Where IP Law is concerned, many areas of IP jurisprudence are still being decided for the first time by the Singapore High Court. In a recent trial I was involved in, both plaintiff and defendant had to submit on what each thought were the criteria for ascertaining when a trade mark was "well-known". For this, parties submitted to Court authorities from the United States 9th Circuit Court, the European Court of Justice, and the Hansard report on DPM Jayakumar's speech in relation to the amendments of the Trade Marks Act. This was a classic example of how plaintiff, defendant and their respective counsel, Court and Parliament all sought to advance Singapore's Trade Marks law. This advancement is able to continue because of the strong judiciary we have developed.

The Personnel Boards will play a key role in ensuring that our officers are trained for and deployed to jobs that they can excel in. We must continue to invest in human capital. The base plate for my view finds itself in the conviction with which former Chief Justice Yong Pung How delivered the following statement at the annual Legal Service dinner in 2001, and I quote:

"It is precisely because of the difficulty in arriving at neat strategic plans of what to do at each critical moment, that makes it vitally important to ensure that the Legal Service has a continuing flow of top talent at all levels. ... The Legal Service will have to be staffed by men and women who are effectively trained, with strong professional knowledge and

expertise, who can identify and analyse intricate and novel issues, and make sound judgments where the bottomline is not dollars and cents, but unquantifiable yet critical outcomes, ie, the continued Rule of Law and the fair administration of justice in Singapore."

The need to recruit and retain talent in the Legal Service is of paramount importance. In June of 2000, former CJ Yong paid a visit to England and invited six students for lunch at a restaurant near Piccadilly Circus. He asked each of us to seriously consider a career in the Legal Service. Each of us had yet to graduate but took CJ Yong's advice seriously. Five of us returned and joined the Service as judicial clerks. The sixth joined a magic circle firm's offshore office in Hong Kong. Of the five who returned, two are remaining in the Legal Service and have now been posted to the AG's Chambers. Of the three that left Service, one has since joined a management consultancy firm, the second returned to serve out her bond at SembCorp after a year, and I joined the private sector last year.

It was an honour to serve as an officer in the Legal Service and I can attest to the fact that it is the people who make a system proficient and not the other way round. Having received three postings in four years in the Service, I gained a keen respect for my colleagues who had to exercise an immense amount of discretion each day. This included: (a) deciding whether or not to institute legal proceedings against entities or private individuals in the name of the State; (b) the judicial exercise of discerning whether, on the balance of probabilities, one party's case outweighed the other; and (c) as a judicial clerk researching into how other jurisdictions have tackled a novel point in a new area of law and what we could do to improve on it in Singapore. I beg to differ from Ms Sylvia Lim, and I wish to state that never once in

all these three portfolios of mine was my will weakened.

While the powers given to these officers derive from the office they assume - whether it be a Deputy to the Public Prosecutor, an Assistant to the Registrar of the High Court or a law Clerk to the Court of Appeal - at the end of the day, it is the human mind that makes the decision. And it matters most that that human mind is equipped with the best knowledge, training and experience to make the decision.

I support the efforts of the Legal Service Commission to improve its structure for investing in and developing this human capital. My sincere hope is that these structural changes introduced via this Bill will ensure that our Legal Service continues to remain first class.

3.41 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, this constitutional amendment Bill is, I believe, the 37th such Bill since Independence was gained in 1965. Given the present composition of Parliament in our dominant party State, it will clearly be adopted and its effect will be to further modify our flexible Constitution, the highest law of the land. This latest Bill will not be the last one to shape the contours of Singapore's still evolving, often innovative, constitutional experiment.

After more than 40 years of statehood, the Constitution remains a work-in-progress, as the Government continues to work out our constitutional salvation. While our constitutional order traces its roots to the Westminster parliamentary system, a colonial legacy, this legal transplant has undergone local modifications through the creation of home-grown institutions, such as the Elected Presidency. This has produced a

unique hybrid which realigns the institutional scheme of checks and balances.

In the amendment Bill before us today, we see the out-working of having an Elected President rather than a purely ceremonial head of state. The President is constitutionally vested with limited negative or reactive executive powers designed to check the Cabinet in exercising its proactive or initiatory powers in relation to specified matters. The powers of the presidency are implicated, as various proposed amendments in this Bill relate to the selection process concerning key civil servants.

One of the chief functions of the Elected President, since it was constitutionally entrenched in 1991, is to check nepotism and corruption from creeping into how key civil servants are appointed. Previously, the Cabinet had unrestricted discretion in this matter. The existing check on the Cabinet today operates through the vehicle of a presidential veto - as it is casually known - or discretion not to concur with the Cabinet's choice of candidates for certain offices, such as the Accountant-General or Chairman of the Public Service Commission. The President exercises personal discretion in this manner. When the presidency was purely ceremonial prior to 1991, the President was constitutionally obliged to act 'on the advice of the Cabinet', which is basically a formality, a rubber-stamping function.

The presidential veto now applies to a new category of civil servants created by the proposed new Article 111AA of the amendment Bill. These are members of the newly-created Personnel Boards of the Singapore Legal Service which will exercise certain devolved functions formerly wielded by the Legal Service Commission, excluding the powers to

dismiss and discipline legal officers of a certain rank, which the Legal Service Commission retains. The President can refuse to concur with the advice of the Legal Service Commission in relation to who to appoint to these Personnel Boards. The fact that these Personnel Boards fall within the scheme of the President's veto is a recognition of the important public function they play, justifying this extra layer of checks. It also applies in the appointment of Personnel Boards of the PSC under the current legal framework.

The end goal of this institutional setup of having the Elected President check the Cabinet in limited matters is to ensure good, transparent and accountable Government. This is part of the political philosophy underlying our Constitution which establishes the rule of law as a fundamental constitutional principle. This affirms that we aspire and subscribe to a government of law and not the arbitrary rule of man.

The bedrock of wisdom offered by the ideal of constitutionalism is that "ambition must be made to counteract ambition". Since public power may be abused, one method of addressing this classic problem of power is to diffuse political power and share it out among the various Government branches, to prevent an over-concentration of power in one hand. The adoption of checks and balances is an application of the

separation of powers principle which espouses the wisdom and prudence of adopting institutional and procedural barriers to hinder potential abuses of power.

Our institutions are designed on these principles. When amending the Constitution to refine existing institutions or to create new ones, it is important that this should be done with an eye to ensuring consistency with basic constitutional principles and coherence

with the existing constitutional framework of powers. This is indeed reflected in some of the amendments.

For example, the principle governing the selection of members of the non-elected Council of Presidential Advisers, as set out in Article 37B, is faithfully adhered to in the proposed amendment to Article 37C. This provides for the appointment of alternate members to the Council. This is important to ensure that this advisory organ to the President is fully staffed, should a member fall ill. It also caters to the scenario where the presidency becomes vacant or the President is unable to discharge his functions because he is ill or out of Singapore. In these cases, the Chairman of the Council of Presidential Advisers steps in as Acting President. Clearly, the Chairman cannot wear two hats, that is, the mantle of the presidency and the garb of adviser to the President. There must be some separation of functions or powers.

This is perhaps necessitated because the original proposal to have a Vice-President was eventually rejected. Meeting the contingency of a vacated office always should be provided for, to prevent disruptions to the running of Government. So, too, constitutionally established organs should always be fully staffed and able to function effectively. By providing for alternate members, the new Article 37C seeks to ensure the Council of Presidential Advisers is always fully manned. Just as the power to appoint these advisers is not monopolised by any one Government branch but shared between the President, Prime Minister, Chief Justice and PSC Chairman, the power to appoint alternate advisers under the new Article 37C is parcelled out. The President appoints one and the other is appointed by the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Chief Justice and PSC Chairman. The 'checks and balances' interplay of political,

administrative and legal constitutional officers in this decision-making process moderates the exercise of power.

Article 111 is also being amended and the change is quite substantive. Article 111 relates to another non-elected institution, the Legal Service Commission, or LSC, how its members are selected and by which constitutional actor.

In addition to enlarging the size of the LSC, the new amendments bring about alterations in two significant aspects. Firstly, it changes the criteria governing who may be appointed to sit in the LSC; the criteria have been modified and broadened. Secondly, it vests the power to nominate candidates to be appointed to sit in the LSC in a new constitutional actor. This is a substantive change and appears to mark a shift in principle or policy.

The principle of de-politicisation buttresses the existing system regulating the selection process and composition of the LSC. This seeks to keep political influence out of this matter or, at least, to minimise such influence. Presumably, this is to secure the institutional values of objectivity, impartiality and fairness in the management of public servants by the PSC, in general, and the appointment, transfer, discipline and dismissal of legal officers under the jurisdiction of the LSC or its Personnel Boards. Otherwise, the weight of politics may exert undue influence or bias into the process, compelling civil servants to comply with the will of their political masters. Some degree of separation or de-politicisation is desirable to preserve the virtues of the rule of law.

Under the existing regime laid out in Article 111(2) of the Constitution, three members of the LSC are pre-selected in the sense they are drawn from the holders of three stipulated constitutional officers - the Chief Justice, Attorney-General and

Chairman of PSC. The Chief Justice and Attorney-General enjoy tenure until ages 65 and 60 respectively, which is designed to insulate these officers from unwarranted political influence. The Chief Justice appoints the Supreme Court Judge, while the PSC Chairman may nominate up to two PSC members, to make the full complement of LSC members.

Under the proposed new Article 111(2A), the three stipulated officers continue to be LSC members. The point of departure is in the modification of appointing powers and criteria for LSC membership.

The Chief Justice under the new scheme will have an increased power to nominate up to a maximum of two persons. The nominees are not required to be Supreme Court Judges. The PSC Chairman continues to have the power to nominate up to two persons, but there is no longer any requirement that they be PSC members. The general rule governing this refashioned nominating power is that either the Chief Justice or PSC Chairman nominates two persons, at least one must be a qualified person under section 2(1) of the Legal Profession Act for a minimum 10-year period. This indicates that while the membership of the LSC should be dominated by those with legal training and experience, this should not be an exclusively legal affair.

Furthermore, consonant with the principle of de-politicisation, new Article 111(2B) seeks to preclude or minimise the politicised composition of the LSC. This Article is modelled on Article 106 of the Constitution which sets out the disqualifications for membership in the PSC. This principle is also applied to members of the soon-to-be created Personnel Boards of the Singapore Legal Service under the proposed new Article

111AA(7). Article 111(2B) seeks to institutionally de-link LSC members from political influence, whether actual or perceptual. Article 111(2B) attempts to do so by precluding various categories of persons from becoming LSC members - thus, MPs, trade union members, office holders in political associations and employees of corporations, incorporated under existing laws, other than the Companies Act, such as an employee in a statutory body, are disqualified from LSC membership. Thus, the clear intent is that the process for nominating LSC members should, as far as is humanly possible, be freed from politics or that political influence is at least minimised.

The primary change is the vesting of powers to nominate LSC members in a new constitutional office, that of the Prime Minister, who is added to the current slate of appointing authorities alongside the Chief Justice and PSC Chairman.

Under this amendment, the Prime Minister will have the power, for the first time, to appoint up to two persons to sit in the LSC. This denotes a slight shift in political philosophy because the principle of de-politicisation, designed to shield a constitutional actor from what can be the gale-force of political influence, is somewhat modified.

Under the current system, the influence of the Prime Minister over the composition of the LSC is, in formal terms at least, indirect. Any influence has to be traced to the fact that the Prime Minister has a role in selecting various constitutional officers who sit in the LSC, as stipulated under Article 111, that is, the Attorney-General, Chief Justice and the PSC Chairman.

Under the amendment, the Prime Minister will be able to directly influence the composition of the LSC through exercising his new powers of nomination.

In what sense does this development represent a shift in principle? Conferring upon the Prime Minister for the first time a formal role in directly selecting LSC members does import in some degree of political influence since the Prime Minister holds an elected office and heads the parliamentary Executive or Cabinet Ministers as the first among equals.

This might raise the concern, as it has done in the past, that it may be possible for the Executive to interfere with the subordinate Judiciary. This is because the LSC has jurisdiction over the appointment, transfer and dismissal of legal officers, including Subordinate Court Judges, who do not enjoy tenure under law. In all likelihood, the probability of such an occurrence may perhaps be remote but the possibility remains. One would however have to presume rather a lot of things to so conclude, including the assumption that the Prime Minister's nominees will not act independently of him but will do his bidding. Such possibilities may perhaps take up residence in the fertile imaginings of conspiracy theorists, but are unlikely to take root elsewhere. Nonetheless, from the perspective of constructing a system for the administration of justice, perceptions do count.

However, I would hasten to add that this new power of the Prime Minister must be appreciated in context. The Prime Minister's discretion in relation to composing the LSC is not absolute. Three factors are worth considering. Firstly, it is shared with the Chief Justice and PSC Chairman - he does not monopolise it. Secondly, this discretion is, in fact, limited by the constitutionally enumerated criteria defining the eligible pool of candidates which is designed to ensure that the LSC members have no formal political affiliations. As mentioned, MPs, trade unionists or other persons who might have political affiliations or formal links to the Prime Minister or a political

party are expressly excluded from the selection pool. Lastly, the Prime Minister's power is itself subject to the checks of another organ of the Executive - the President. The new Article 111(d) will provide that the concurrence of the President, with the advice of the Prime Minister, Chief Justice or PSC Chair, as the case may be, in nominating his candidates is necessary to finalise the appointment.

The direct involvement of the President as a countervailing check in the exercise of the appointing power in relation to the LSC members is also a new development, but it is consistent with the President's constitutional mandate in relation to key civil service appointments. Currently, members of the Public Service Commission are appointed by the President, provided the President, in his personal discretion, concurs with the Prime Minister's advice. That institutional set-up is now brought into play with respect to the composition of the Legal Service Commission. Thus, there is an official process under which the President can bring his wisdom to bear on the subject and can utilise the power of non-concurrence to influence the process and to even thwart a nomination. This can be a valuable safeguard.

So, in formal terms, while a politicised element is included into the selection process for LSC members by giving the Prime Minister a direct power and ability to influence the composition of the LSC, the pool of candidates he may choose from must formally have no political links, which is a de-politicising measure.

This realignment of power which these amendments will bring about in relation to the selection process for LSC members is a manifestation of the principle of checks and balances and shows the separation of powers and operation. Previously, two important constitutional actors, the

President and Prime Minister, the Head of State and Head of Government respectively, did not have a direct role in determining the composition of the Legal Service Commission. This will change with the Amendment Bill.

However, it is heartening that a series of checks and balances have been incorporated into the scheme, consonant with the constitutional design of existing institutions. Thus, the power of the Prime Minister or other appointing authorities is subject to the moderating influence of the requirement that the President's concurrence is needed to confirm the appointment.

The need for checks and balances harks back to the perennial twin problem of power: the need to empower Government to govern effectively, and the need to restrain power to curb abusive excesses to ensure Government is conducted fairly, while avoiding institutional gridlock and paralysis.

The function of Constitutions and the institutions and processes they establish is to channel power. As James Madison stated in The Federalist No. 51, governments are the greatest reflection of human nature. He said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Checks and balances are not needed if governors are wise, benevolent and angelic; but it would be the height of folly to assume this to be a permanent fixture in human affairs. History and prudence teach us the need to have precautions set in place to deal with worst-case scenarios.

As this Constitutional Amendment Bill indicates, its framers are aware of the need to emplace checks and balances in our constitutional order - they do exist; the task ahead, as in all constitutional orders, is to ensure that such institutional

safeguards work effectively for our common good.

3.58 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution provides the foundation upon which all other Singapore laws are promulgated. It is the mother of Singapore laws. Unlike my fellow parliamentarians who are celebrated legal talents, I am speaking as a lay person.

I want to take this opportunity to raise one observation and a few questions on the amendments tabled before us. Sir, clause 2 provides for the expansion of the membership base to include a maximum of two members to be nominated, each by the Chief Justice, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission and the Prime Minister. This makes for a maximum of six members to replace three members who include a Supreme Court Judge. Sir, in view of the concerns raised by my NMP parliamentary colleague, I think it is very important for DPM to further explain the rationale so as to ensure that people

do not in any way misconstrue the new structure to be a form of interference by the Executive in the legal process.

Sir, in reading clause 2, I also understand that the LSC membership might include lawyers with more than 10 years of experience in private practice. I welcome this inclusion, as it will no doubt expose the LSC to the best practices of the private sector and, hopefully, sensitise the LSC to the challenges faced by the private sector.

But, Sir, I also wish to enquire why such membership to the LSC did not include members of the academia. I would certainly imagine that these learned men and women of the law, whose activities include in-depth research, would provide the LSC with useful inputs into its deliberations as well as to its decision-making process. Also, coming from an

academic domain, they may be able to provide fresh insights and perspectives to an issue that may elude practising members, whether from the public or private sector.

Sir, as a human resource practitioner, I warmly welcome the establishment of Personnel Boards for the LSC. Like any other organisations, the Singapore Legal Service faces the challenge of attracting, developing and retaining the best talents. Indeed, our goal so far as to say that the HR challenges of the Singapore Legal Service may be even more daunting, is that it needs to attract talents from a specialised discipline. We need to attract and keep the best legal eagles available to ensure the wheels of justice continue to work efficiently in Singapore. My colleagues before me, Mr Christopher de Souza and others, are such fine examples.

Sir, I am compelled to express some disquiet at the proposed amendments to the First Schedule, in particular, the shortened oaths of office for the Prime Minister, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. The existing oaths are very specific on the duties and responsibilities of these officeholders, especially with regard to counsel and advice to the President and to the need for non-disclosure information. The new shorter oaths are curiously absent on these duties and responsibilities.

It is in the nature of law to be specific because the specifics provide the springwell of accountability. Some would say that the devil is in the details. I would like to enquire why these oaths of office need to be shorter. The existing oaths are only four paragraphs long, and I am sure reciting the existing oath is not onerous on the Prime Minister, Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries.

4.03 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in support of

the proposed amendments to the Constitution, in particular, the amendments to Article 111 of the Constitution which expands the composition of the Legal Service Commission, and, secondly, the amendment to insert a new Article 111AA to provide for the establishment of Personnel Boards under the Legal Service Commission for the Legal Service.

I have three main points.

It is vitally important for the Legal Service to attract and retain top talent;

The expansion of the membership of the Legal Service Commission to include appointees from the private sector is a step in the right direction that will help the Legal Service to attract and retain talent; and

The establishment of Personnel Boards is also a progressive move that will enable more efficient HR management within the Legal Service.

On the first point, legal officers, being involved in the administration of justice as they are, have a direct and significant impact on the day-to-day lives of people in Singapore. In their capacities as prosecutors, registrars, district judges and as drafters of legislation, legal officers interface with ordinary people in almost every aspect of their daily lives. The work that the legal officers do and the decisions which they make can change the course of a person's life. As prosecutors, they make decisions on whether someone should be prosecuted for a crime, the way in which a matter is prosecuted determines whether or not someone goes to jail or is otherwise penalised. As registrars, magistrates and district judges, legal officers have to decide on cases. Their decisions affect people in a myriad variety of ways. Should a divorce be granted? Should maintenance be paid? Who gets custody

of a child? How do you punish someone for the crime? Does he go to jail or probation? The adjudication of commercial disputes which, in turn, affects Singapore's reputation as an economic and financial hub?

Sir, the quality of our administration of justice and our ability to maintain our reputation in this regard depend very much on the quality of people that the Legal Service is able to recruit. Poor quality recruitment means poor administration of justice, something that we cannot afford. Under the Constitution, the Legal Service Commission is tasked with the appointment, confirmation, placement, promotion, transfer and dismissal of all officers in the Singapore Legal Service. In order to fulfill this task, the LSC has to be up to speed, not just with the developments within the Legal Service and Government but also with developments in the private sector, because the Legal Service Commission has to compete with the private sector in order to recruit and retain legal officers.

This competition should not be underestimated. We have a relatively small pool of legal graduates. Currently, our law graduates come from NUS, although the SMU graduates will come onstream in a few years. There are, of course, students with overseas law degrees, but these are also a relatively small number, due to the strict quality control requirements that have to be met in order to practise in Singapore. There is limited supply and, currently, there is a very high demand. And the LSC is faced with stiff competition for the recruitment of talent. Its competitors are not just the local law firms but also foreign law firms, companies which need inhouse counsel, and even employers from non-legal industries who nevertheless want legally-trained people for positions which are not law related. In this regard, I should

declare my interest as a private practitioner and also the Recruitment Director of my company, because we are in direct competition with the Legal Service Commission, and we will do our utmost to attract and retain the top legal talent.

And it is not just about recruitment. It is also a question of retention. More and more, players in the legal industry are finding that getting in talent is one thing, but keeping it is quite another. And the Legal Service is no exception. Typically, in the private sector, we find that attrition tends to occur after about three to four years when people start to take stock of their careers and decide what they want to do for the future. In dealing with all these challenges in attracting and retaining legal talent, the Legal Service Commission has to be au fait with developments in the legal industry. This includes having to keep up not just with salaries but also understanding what attracts law graduates to join them and what people outside are doing to attract the same people.

Sir, the proposed amendment to Article 111 of the Constitution to allow for expanded membership of the LSC is a step in the right direction, because including or allowing the possibility of including people from the private sector or with personnel management backgrounds will better equip the LSC for its task of recruiting and retaining talent in the face of the fierce competition for talent.

This brings me then to the points made by Ms Sylvia Lim and Prof Thio Li-ann on the question of whether one should include the Prime Minister's nominations to the Legal Service Commission. A lot of noise and smoke have been generated by this discussion. But it is like a mirage in the desert. When you really examine it, you will see that there is nothing there.

The first point is this. The suggestion is that a nomination of two people to the LSC by the Prime Minister will somehow politicise the work of the LSC. But what people forget - in fact, this was actually alluded to indirectly by Prof Thio - is that it is not the Prime Minister that appoints. The specific amendment and provision provides that the President appoints and he appoints, acting in his discretion, and it is only a matter of whether he concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister. The point to remember is this. Our President is not an appointed President. He is an Elected President. He derives his power, authority and mandate from the people of Singapore. And when he makes this decision, he makes it acting in his discretion and not simply because the Prime Minister requests him to do so. So, that is the first and overriding consideration to remember. This is not a political appointment. This is the Prime Minister giving advice to the President who acts in his discretion with a direct mandate from the electorate, the people of Singapore.

The second point is this. Ms Sylvia Lim has suggested that the Legal Service Commission should remain as it is. She is happy for it to remain as it is because she feels that the amendment, together with the proposed amendment for the appointment of the Prime Minister, would interfere with the independence of the Subordinate Court Judiciary. Let us examine the composition of the current Legal Service Commission. That is provided for in Article 111 of the Constitution.

Article 111 provides for five categories of people from the Legal Service Commission.

First, the Chief Justice, who is the President. Who appoints the Chief Justice? The Chief Justice is appointed under Article 95 of the Constitution. And guess what? He is appointed by the

President, acting in his discretion on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Second, in Article 111(2A), the second member of the Legal Service Commission is the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is appointed under Article 35 of the Constitution. And guess what? He is appointed by the President, acting in his discretion on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Third, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. The Chairman of the Public Service Commission and the members of the Public Service Commission, who are actually appointed under Article 105 of the Constitution, are also appointed by the President, acting upon the advice of the Prime Minister. Under the current provisions, it would have been a Judge of the Supreme Court nominated specially by the Chief Justice. But, of course, Judges of the Supreme Court, like the Chief Justice, are appointed under Article 95, also by the President in his discretion, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Of course, two members of the Public Service Commission, who, as we have already seen, are also appointed by the President, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Sir, what I do not understand is this: why is it that it is fine to have the current Legal Service Commission all appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, but it is not all right to have two additional nominees nominated by the Prime Minister who would only be appointed if the President, acting in his discretion, decides to do so? Logically, it does not make sense. That is why I do not agree with the objections to having the Prime Minister add two nominations.

Next, we have no issue with the appointment of our High Court Judges whose reputation as administrators of

justice not only in Singapore but internationally is a sterling one, and each and every single one of them is appointed by the President, acting in his discretion on the advice of the Prime Minister. If the quality of our High Court Bench is something that is internationally respected and renowned, then I see no reason why we cannot have the same procedure for the appointment of the Legal Service Commission which, in turn, obviously will decide who gets to enter the Legal Service.

The objections to these amendments also, I think, unjustifiably denigrade or take away from the people who are appointed, because it assumes that they will not act without fear or favour. It assumes that they will not act and carry out their duties in the best manner possible. But all these people who are appointed have, at least, as far as I can see, carried out their duties properly and with a full understanding of what is required of them.

So, for those reasons, I do not agree to the objections to the provision for the Prime Minister to nominate two nominees to the Legal Service Commission.

I move on now to the third point, ie, the Personnel Boards. The setting up of Personnel Boards is a progressive step. Recruitment in today's world is not just about hiring and firing someone. HR management is a much more complex process today than it was in the past. Now, apart from just paying competitive salaries, it involves a HR environment that takes into account the employees' aspirations for training, advancement, quality of life, work-life balance, continuing legal education, etc. It is almost a full-time function in itself, and this is what we in the private sector have to contend with and I do not think that the Legal Service is any

different. So having a Personnel Board will allow for more efficient HR management in this respect.

I would, however, like to seek clarification from the Minister for Law as to what is meant by having one or more Personnel Boards having charge over different classes of Legal Service officers. What exactly is it meant by "different classes" and how would different Personnel Boards dealing with these different classes work in practice? I am concerned about a possible "silo effect" where each Board does what it likes, because there must be some consistency in dealing with the legal officers.

I would also hope that the establishment of Personnel Boards would allow the Legal Service to develop an overall structure that would allow legal officers to progress based on performance. From feedback that we get as practitioners - and I say that this is feedback as I do not know whether it is actually the case - it would appear that the type of Honours that a legal officer gets for his initial degree, ie, the LLB, pretty much determines not only his entry level but also his advancement for many years after. If this is so, then

it does not take into account late bloomers or those who may not be academically brilliant, but who have good practical skills, are dependable and get the job done. Progression based on the original university degree is actually markedly different from private sector practice where grades are only your passport to entry and that is all. Once you get in, in private practice, the clock is reset and all promotions and advancements are performance-based. I am not suggesting for one moment that academic grades and good performance are mutually exclusive. Usually, top grades are indicative of top talent. However, in practice, we do encounter people whose grades are not in the very top category academically, but

they really come into their own, when given a practical problem to resolve - they deliver solid results. Grades should therefore not be the sole or major determinant for career advancement once a person gets into the organisation. As far as possible, there should be performance-based advancement and everybody should have the opportunity to shine.

In this regard, I see this issue of advancement depending on entry level as something I would call the "double helix staircase" syndrome. I am not sure if Members have had the opportunity to visit the Loire Valley in France. It is famous for its many beautiful chateaus built by the French Kings in the area. One of them is the Chateau de Chambord built in Loire by King Francis I. It is the largest castle in the Loire Valley and one of the most recognisable with its blend of medieval French and Italian architectural styles. It is well worth a visit, not on public funds, but on a private visit. But a cheaper option is to check it out on Wikipedia. But, anyway, I visited Chambord in my fourth year in law school before I started pupilage. And one of the most noticeable features at Chambord which I saw then, and which I still remember to this day, is the double helix staircase, the conception and design of which has been attributed to Leonardo Da Vinci. It is a rather remarkable design. Essentially, it comprises two spiral staircases, one built on top of each other. They twine round in parallel, from the ground to the third floor of the castle. So what it means is that you can have two people, each going up one staircase and they will never meet. One is always on top of the other and they are just going round until they emerge, and one is always at the lower level than the other. And from the point of entry, they are set on different paths. They also have different emerging points when they come out even though it is on the same floor.

If progression within the Legal Service is largely dependent on the initial class of Honours, whether it is First Class Honours, for example, you are a JLC, then you will have this double helix effect where your entry point determines your progression and where you emerge, and it is not how fast or how hard you run up the stairs. That does not take into account the late bloomers or those who did not shine academically initially, but later on, are able to do well.

I would hope therefore that the establishment of Personnel Boards will allow things like this to be addressed so that, ultimately, we can have a stronger, more robust performance-based Legal Service and also one where legal officers can find satisfaction in their career development.

With this, I support the proposed amendments to the Constitution.

4.20 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to clarify something which Ms Rajah had mentioned about what I said in my speech. At no time in my speech had I said that I was happy with the composition of the LSC, as far as it relates to the career progression of the Subordinate Courts judiciary is concerned. In fact, Members with a longer memory will know that it has been a consistent stand of the Worker's Party that the Subordinate Courts judiciary needs more security in its tenure and this is not a new argument that we are raising. We have raised concerns in the past about the present composition of the LSC because of the perception that they may not be promoting security of tenure as far as the Subordinate Courts judiciary is concerned because of the potential of transfer. So it is not quite accurate what Ms Rajah said about my speech earlier. Just to reiterate, the amendments that we are considering today give the Prime Minister a direct

nomination role on the LSC. And I think Members will realise that this may have the perception of giving the public the opinion that the career progression of judicial officers is subject to the Executive assessment of their performance and this is something that will not strengthen the system, and my point still remains.

There is no reason why it should give anybody this perception of interference by the Executive if they read the amendments to the Constitution which provide that the appointment is by the President in his discretion and only if he concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.15 pm until 4.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.35 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken and I wish to respond to some of the comments and questions which they have posed.

Let me touch on points raised by Mr Christopher de Souza and also by Ms Indranee Rajah and then on points which were raised by other speakers. Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the separate Personnel Boards, whether there can be more than one Personnel

Board. Of course, there can be more than one personnel board but, due to the small size and relative homogeneous nature of the Legal Service, I think it is unlikely to exceed two Personnel Boards. But the precise details of how many will have to be decided later. I also cannot give precise answers as to how they will be organised. But I think they are likely to be organised more by grade of the officers, that is, whether they are on the timescale or superscale grade, and not by departments that he seems to suggest. This is to ensure greater consistency and fairness in assessment. This would also, I guess, to some extent, address the silo effect which Ms Indranee Rajah talked about. In any event, the LSC will continue to serve as a check against silos being built up. It has the power to hear appeals from the legal service officers who may not be satisfied with the decision of any Personnel Board and to substitute its decisions for the board's. Following recommendations made by the Legal Service Personnel Management Review Panel which I mentioned, chaired by Justice Lee Seiu Kin, the LSC has also put in place now a Talent Management Scheme, a succession planning framework and other measures to address improvements, not just for the entire Legal Service as a whole, but also the needs of the individual arms of the Service.

Mr Christopher de Souza also asked about a larger financial budget so as to meet new demands. The changes, of course, will bring about a more robust personnel management framework, but I do not expect this to result in any significant increase in the budget. The amendments actually seek to institutionalise Personnel Boards which already exist today. But if additional resources are needed, I am confident that we should be able to make out a case for higher budgetary allocation to the Ministry of Finance.

I agree with what Mr Christopher de Souza said about monopoly of talent. It is not the intention of the Legal Service to monopolise all the legal talent for itself. I refer to what Ms Indranee Rajah has said and I hope it is not the intention of the big law firms and the profession to monopolise all the legal talent for the profession. There has to be a fair spread. Like the rest of the civil service, the Legal Service must also have its fair share of legal talent if we are going to maintain a first-rate, top-class Legal Service.

Sir, I am afraid I have not followed in great detail the workings and recent events in the Competition Commission. I note the feedback of Mr Christopher de Souza on competition law and IP law, and on the specific issue concerning the Competition Commission. I will refer it to the Ministry of Trade and Industry. But I can agree with the general point that Mr de Souza made about the legal landscape changing, and changing very fast, and, therefore, a consequential need to invest in talent and to ensure that we retain the brightest in the Legal Service. I agree with him fully. This is the point I made in the Ministerial Statement last year, and this is one of the reasons why the panel and the study by Justice Lee Seiu Kin's committee was important to put in place a personnel management system.

I am very aware of the tremendous demands and challenges posed to the Legal Service as a result of these changes. For the past 19 years, I have seen how demanding these changes have evolved, whether it is in the drafting of Bills which come up to the House, whether it is the giving of legal advice on increasingly complex matters to different Ministries and to Cabinet, or in representing the Government, not just on domestic matters but, in recent times, on increasingly complex and important international law issues. The case we had with Malaysia on the reclamation issue is one and, later in the year, in November,

the International Court of Justice will be finally hearing the arguments on the case concerning Malaysia's claim to Pedra Branca. For this, I have had discussions with the Attorney-General's Chambers for many years in developing the arguments. This is just one example of the kinds of changing demands and challenges which require the Legal Service to have very bright, competent and able people, leaving aside, of course, the need for the judiciary also to have bright and able people.

Ms Indranee Rajah asked about performance-based advancement. I think her point was that it should not be based on the type of Honours or class of Honours. I guess, like many other establishments which recruit fresh graduates, the results achieved in the university examination - class of Honours - often make a difference in the recruitment process. But after recruitment, the career advancement must and will be based on the performance and the merits of the officer's performance. Of course, in the Legal Service, as many of you know, many of the top legal graduates would prefer to work as Justice Law Clerks and they will be given the choice. This is not different from any other much sought after jobs in other parts of the civil service, or even the private sector. The important thing is that, after the initial deployment, the rate of progression will be determined and assessed on the actual performance of the individual officers.

If I may turn to the comments made by Mdm Ho Geok Choo, she referred to the comments of Ms Sylvia Lim on the appointment of LSC members. I will deal with that later. Another point she made was about LSC membership - why do we not include members of the academia? I am a former academic myself! Let me say that if she looks at the provision as it is drafted, it does not exclude consideration of members of the

academia. It is not one of the disqualifications. I guess if we have a really outstanding member of the academia who is regarded as one who will bring a certain amount of expertise and experience to the Legal Service Commission, I am sure he will be considered. But the actual composition of the LSC will have to be worked out and made known when ready.

Then, she has a point about oaths of office. She said, I believe, that she had some disquiet over the shortening of the oaths because some phrases and wordings seem to have been omitted. Let me assure her of what I said in my Second Reading speech, that the substance and the essence of the oath is really not affected. I should explain and elaborate, if I may, that the oaths are not like a contract where there must be specific itemisation of legal rights and liabilities in order to operate as oaths. An oath actually is a solemn undertaking to conduct oneself and to perform his duties in accordance with whatever instrument that spells out his rights and obligations. The oath itself does not set out the substantive law of what are the Prime Minister, Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries' duties and responsibilities. They are set out in the provisions of the Constitution - the duties, powers and responsibilities of the Prime Minister, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and their relationship with the Legislature and with the Elected President. I would also add that Cabinet is, by Article 24(2) of the Constitution, collectively responsible to Parliament. I mention this because if she is concerned about the provision of secrecy, the secrecy of Cabinet discussions is actually the foundation of collective responsibility, and the secrecy of Cabinet deliberations and decision-making is recognised at law, because confidentiality is essential. It is not only

in common law; it is so in other Commonwealth Constitutions.

Let me say that we have looked at the Constitutions of many countries in the world, and ours is one of the few which have such lengthy and outdated structure. On confidentiality, of course, I should add that there is also the Official Secrets Act.

If I may now turn to the points made by Ms Sylvia Lim. In her second intervention in response to Ms Indranee Rajah, she asked the House, especially those who have long memories, to recall that this issue had been debated in this House. Indeed, as she was speaking, I was reminded of a previous Workers' Party Member of Parliament, Mr Jeyaretnam, who made all sorts of allegations about our existing system and raised the spectre of Executive interference in the Subordinate Courts judiciary. And that led to not only a Commission of Inquiry into allegations of Executive interference in the Judiciary, it also led to a Committee of Privileges being constituted by Parliament, both of which found Mr Jeyaretnam was wrong and unjustified in making those allegations.

The difference, it would seem, is that, there, Mr Jeyaretnam made specific allegations of actual interference in the Judiciary but, in the process, he also cast doubt over the entire system. Ms Sylvia Lim, through her speech, is, in fact, resurrecting what, if I may borrow a term from Prof. Thio Li-ann, a conspiracy theory. But is this supported? Both Ms Indranee Rajah and Prof. Thio Li-ann have, in fact, in their speeches, provided the persuasive and convincing arguments which I would have used to rebut Ms Sylvia Lim; firstly, the Prime Minister, in nominating two Members of a nine-member enlarged LSC, is not doing something different from his many roles which Ms Indranee Rajah outlined -

appointing Judges, the Chairman of PSC, members of PSC, the Chief Justice, all subject to the veto of the President, which is exercised in his discretion.

Secondly, the qualifications and disqualifications for his appointment or nomination are spelt out in the Constitution, and they are spelt out precisely in order to ensure that there are no formal political links.

I may add that not only the nominees of the Prime Minister but every Legal Service Commission member will have to take an oath of office. And that oath of office would have him solemnly swear or affirm that he will, freely and without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, give his counsel and advice in connection with any matter referred to the Commission, and that he will not directly or indirectly reveal any such matters to any unauthorised person. And there is a prohibition in the Public Service Commission Act, which is now going to be suitably amended to include the LSC, which also makes it an offence for any LSC member or PSC member to disclose information of proceedings of the Commission. In other words, Ms Sylvia Lim builds this spectre or prospect of Executive interference. But I have pointed out in my Second Reading speech that we have to do this - the enlargement of the LSC - so that the LSC, which has remained unchanged from the days of our independence, can be geared to deal with modern-day challenges, to bring in people who may have expertise and knowledge about how things work out in the private sector, about human resource management and development. They can bring this expertise and I think the LSC will be that much better and richer in handling personnel management relations. And, as I have explained, the Prime Minister retains overall charge of the civil service, of which the Legal Service is a part. And it is only logical and necessary that the

Prime Minister has a role in nominating two members. But once he has nominated two members and they are appointed, his role ends there. Neither he nor the other nominating members - the Chairman of PSC or the Chief Justice - can in any way direct the nominees to act or to decide in any particular manner.

Once appointed, because of the oath and the functioning of the LSC, they take decisions in concert together with the other LSC members.

So, I am really surprised that Ms Sylvia Lim resurrects this spectre of possible Executive interference in the Judiciary. I had thought that was an old issue and am surprised that the leader of the party, Mr Low Thia Khiang, has not spoken on such an important issue. If Ms Sylvia Lim really feels that this is going to undermine the independence of the Judiciary, she has to tell us in what ways it is going to undermine the independence of the Judiciary, bearing in mind all the points that have been mentioned by me, Ms Indranee Rajah and Prof. Thio Li-ann. I think it does a disservice to our system. It does a disservice to our Legal Service Commission, and it does a disservice to our reputation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the end of the day, we can have any number of systems and any number of models. I know that the Workers' Party in its manifesto wants to scrap the present provisions for appointments of High Court Judges and Judicial Commissioners. They want to scrap the existing system to create a judicial service separate from the Legal Service. They do not want a transfer of members of the Subordinate Courts. In a small place like Singapore, how would it work? I have discussed with the Chief Justice and he is convinced, so is the Attorney-General, that, in Singapore, it is in the interest of the Service and the interest of Singapore to have Legal Service officers exposed to and trained in

different fields of legal work. It must be so. How can you have somebody appointed as a Judge who has not had experience in prosecution? It is in the interest of our Legal Service, particularly when we have a small Legal Service, to ensure that over a period of time, there is sufficient exposure to different key branches of legal work that Legal Service officers have to handle.

But, at the end of the day, Sir, I come back to this point. As Law Minister, I have been to many Commonwealth Law Ministers' meetings and other Law Ministers' meetings where I have seen seemingly impressive papers presented by other delegations on their systems. Just as you can have any number of constitutions in the world, so too you can have any number of structures that you can think of for the Judiciary and the Legal Service. But the test is the integrity of the system of any model depends on the people who are operating the system and, most importantly, on the leadership in the Government and whether the Government respects the integrity and independence of the Judiciary. If that was not so, how would Singapore, year after year, have rankings from so many different surveying organisations which ranked our legal system and our system for administration of justice as amongst the top in the world? Not just in Asia, but in the world!

So, to Ms Sylvia Lim and others who are ready to raise the spectre of lack of judicial independence, let me say that our system works, and it has gained for us a very valuable reputation. That reputation can be maintained for so long as we get good people in the Legal Service and in the Judiciary and, I say, as important, good people in Government and in Cabinet who will ensure that this system of

integrity and incorruptibility is maintained. That is the test, not whether you can create any number of structures. We have the system, it works, and we are now finetuning it to work even better, so we can retain good talent in the Legal Service. I say, let us keep what it works and let us not besmirch the reputation we have so carefully built up over the years.

The Question is, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”

A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament, which is 56 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. Ring the Division Bells.

After two minutes -

Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, Members are reminded that they are to press 'Present' on their electronic voting unit located at their left armrest, before indicating their vote. Those who fail to press 'Present' will not have their votes recorded. Voting will be open for 45 seconds from the time 'Voting in Progress' is flashed on the display board.

Members are also reminded to check their names and vote indications posted on the display board after the close of voting. If a Member is of the opinion that his vote has been taken in error or has been recorded wrongly, he may rise and request the Chair to have his vote taken correctly, provided that such request is made before the Chair declares the result of the division.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Division taken: Ayes, 75; Noes, 2; Abstention, Nil.

Ayes

Ayes (cont.)

Abdullah Tarmugi

Ahmad Mohd Magad

Ang Mong Seng

Baey Yam Keng

Balaji Sadasivan

Chan Soo Sen

Chong, Charles

Christopher de Souza

Fatimah Lateef

Fong, Arthur

Foo Chee Keng, Cedric

Fu Hai Yien, Grace

Gan Kim Yong

Goh Chok Tong

Halimah Yacob

Hawazi Daipi

Heng Chee How

Ho Geok Choo

Ho Peng Kee

Hri Kumar Nair

Inderjit Singh

Indranee Rajah

Iswaran, S.

Jayakumar, S

Khaw Boon Wan

Khor Lean Suan, Amy

Koo Tsai Kee

Lam Pin Min

Lee Bee Wah

Lee Boon Yang

Lee, Ellen

Lee Hsien Loong

Lee Yi Shyan

Liang Eng Hwa

Lim Biow Chuan

Lim Boon Heng

Lim Hng Kiang

Lim Siang Keat, Raymond

Lim Swee Say

Lim Wee Kiak

Low, Penny

Lui Tuck Yew

Mah Bow Tan

Masagos Zulkifli B M M

Mohd Maliki Bin Osman

Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim

Neo, Lily

Ng Eng Hen

Ng Phek Hoong, Irene

Ong Ah Heng

Ong Chit Chung

Ong Seh Hong

Palmer, Michael

Phua, Cynthia

Phua Lay Peng, Denise

Seah Kian Peng

Seng Han Thong

Sin Boon Ann

Tan Chin Siong, Sam

Teo Chee Hean

Teo Ho Pin

Teo, Josephine

Teo Ser Luck

Vivian Balakrishnan

Wee Siew Kim

WongKan Seng

Yaacob Ibrahim

Yao Chih, Matthias

Yeo, Alvin

Yeo Guat Kwang

Yeo, George Yong-Boon

Yu-Foo Yee Shoon

Zainudin Nordin

Zainul Abidin Rasheed

Zaqy Mohamad

Noes

Chiam See Tong

Low Thia Khiang

Abstention

Nil

The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Prof. Jayakumar].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

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

The Question is, “That the Bill be now read a Third time.”

A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament, which is 56 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. Ring the Division Bells.

After one minute -

We will now take a Division. May I remind hon. Members to press the button marked 'Present' on the electronic voting unit before indicating their vote. Members may now begin to vote.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Division taken: Ayes, 75; Noes, 2; Abstention, Nil.

Ayes

Ayes (cont.)

Abdullah Tarmugi

Ahmad Mohd Magad

Ang Mong Seng

Baey Yam Keng

Balaji Sadasivan

Chan Soo Sen

Chong, Charles

Christopher de Souza

Fatimah Lateef

Fong, Arthur

Foo Chee Keng, Cedric

Fu Hai Yien, Grace

Gan Kim Yong

Goh Chok Tong

Halimah Yacob

Hawazi Daipi

Heng Chee How

Ho Geok Choo

Ho Peng Kee

Hri Kumar Nair

Inderjit Singh

Indranee Rajah

Iswaran, S.

Jayakumar, S