Hansard, 2007-07-17

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) Prof. Thio Li-ann 17 Jul 20 Jul Dr Balaji Sadasivan 18 Jul 23 Jul Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon 21 Jul 06 Aug Mrs Josephine Teo 22 Jul 29 Jul

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Mr Zainudin Nordin asked the Minister for National Development (a) from 2003 to date, how many Singaporeans who are first-time buyers of HDB flats did not use the subsidised loan scheme from HDB; (b) how many of these buyers faced difficulties in servicing the bank origination loan; and (c) what are the

alternatives for these buyers apart from letting the bank repossess their flats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB records show that from 2003 to June 2007, there are about 11,500 first-time buyers of HDB flats who chose not to take a concessionary loan from HDB, but instead opted for a mortgage loan from commercial banks at market interest rates.

About 3%, or 320, of these cases faced difficulties in servicing their bank loans and had to give up their flats in mortgagee sales. Flat buyers who take bank loans to finance their flats are informed that they would be subject to the mortgage financing policies of the banks. Banks have their own financial assistance measures. Mortgagors who have problems servicing their bank loans should approach their banks for help.

For the 320 cases whose flats were repossessed by the banks, they have generally been able to find alternative accommodation on their own. In a small number of cases, about 30, HDB has acceded to their appeals to be allocated a HDB rental flat, in view of their extenuating circumstances.

Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned about "informed". How are the mortgagees informed about their commitment and the help that they can get? And why are these first-time buyers going to the bank rather than getting their loans from the HDB?

Sir, the Member is very right. We want to make sure that home buyers purchase their flats with relevant information, ie, that they

make informed decisions, before they commit to the purchase of their flats. Information is available everywhere - on their websites, in their promotional brochures, and in a lot of documents that are made available to the flat buyers. What is important is to make sure that flat buyers seek relevant information from these relevant sources.

Apart from that, many flat buyers rely on their housing agents to help them with flat purchases. One of the most important things is to make sure that housing agents also play their role in informing their clients with regard to information that is relevant to them, whether they are eligible for loans and grants, and so on. What is important is for the flat buyers, apart from getting all this information, to make informed decisions with regard to what they are capable of buying. We always encourage financial prudence to make sure that they buy within their means.

HDB has also put in place several measures. So when flat buyers first come in, at the point of first appointment, HDB officers will look through a checklist and make sure that flat buyers are aware of their eligibility and that they are informed of what are their eligibility as far as loans are concerned.

With regard to why they choose bank loans, it is market forces, independent of what they choose to take up. At some point, the market rates given by the banks are a lot more attractive. So we leave it to the flat buyers to make the decision, so long as we make sure that they have made their decisions with the relevant information that is being given to them.

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, for flat buyers who go for bank loans but then find that they cannot service them, can HDB allow them to switch to HDB concessionary loans?

Sir, HDB cannot do that. It is not wise for HDB to do that. HDB cannot be the one to take over all the loans that are not well serviced by the banks. The most important lesson for flat buyers is to make sure that they understand the commitment that they have made with the banks. They are aware as to what are the obligations they have when they take on the bank loans. Like I mentioned in my earlier reply, the banks have got their own financial assistance measures. They should go back to the banks and try to get assistance from the banks. As far as possible, HDB will try to help those who are really in financial difficulties. Sometimes, we assist them. We waive the minimum occupation period for them to sell their flat to resolve some of their issues. But at the end of the day, it is not wise for HDB to take over loans that are not well serviced by the banks.

If after they have sold their flat they want to buy another flat and take a loan from HDB, would they be considered as a first-time loan mortgagee by the HDB?

If the first loan that they have taken is from the bank and they have been assessed as not having taken any loans before, then the household would be considered to be a first-time loan applicant and, therefore, they would be eligible for a HDB loan. But we have to really assess the case. This is because sometimes we have situations where the husbands or wives may have taken first loans with flats that they owned with their parents and they are not aware of it, and they think that they are first-time buyers. They come back to us and HDB made an assessment that when they had taken the first loan with their parents, they would be considered as second-time applicants and they would not be eligible for another loan unless they are an upgrader.

Sir, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary about the logic of allowing second HDB loans to upgraders and not for downgraders. The latter group is apparently the more needy group.

Sir, I think we have discussed this policy before. By and large, the assumption behind the policy is one where we want to encourage upgraders. So, first-time buyers are eligible for a concessionary loan and, as they improve their lives, we want to encourage them to upgrade, and therefore we facilitate their upgrading with another concessionary loan. However, we understand that downgraders may require certain assistance. But not all downgraders require financial assistance. This is because sometimes when they monetise or sell their assets, they do make sufficient proceeds, and we believe that the proceeds are sufficient for them to purchase a smaller flat. For cases that require assistance, HDB will look at them on a case-by-case basis. But we want to discourage people from downgrading, making proceeds from the downgrading, and then getting another concessionary loan, because these are subsidised loans from the Government.

2. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim asked the Minister for National Development what action has been taken to assist Singaporeans who are unable to obtain housing loans from commercial banks in the purchase of HDB flats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since 1st January 2003, flat buyers who do not qualify for HDB concessionary loans can apply for a mortgage loan at commercial interest

rates from the banks or financial institutions. Those who do not qualify for concessionary loans include private property owners, high-income households, non-citizen households, those who have previously taken two HDB loans, as well as those who have already enjoyed one concessionary loan and are not upgrading in their current flat purchase.

There is a wide variety of commercial loan packages available in the market. Generally, HDB flat buyers who have a stable household income and are buying a flat within their means should be able to secure a bank loan to finance their flat purchase. However, there is a small group of flat buyers who are unable to secure a bank loan for various reasons, even though they may have the financial means to service a mortgage at commercial rates. They include those with poor credit histories or are undischarged bankrupts. To help meet the needs of this group of flat buyers, HDB has recently implemented an assistance measure to provide them with mortgage loans at commercial interest rates. As with other HDB loans, credit assessment will be applied to ensure financial prudence on the part of the flat buyer.

I want to clarify and emphasise that HDB is not re-introducing market rate loans as a mortgage financing option for flat buyers. This is a limited assistance measure extended to a select group of buyers who face difficulty in obtaining a bank loan to finance their flat purchase. HDB will assess appeals for these loans on a case-by-case basis, and we reserve the right to reject cases that do not meet our guidelines.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the MOS for giving a good answer.

May I know how long does the HDB take to process an appeal for a HDB loan from a resident who is unable to obtain a housing loan from a commercial bank? This is because sometimes during my meet-the-people session, I meet residents who are concerned that they are unable to obtain HDB loans for the purchase of their next flat when they are not able to obtain a commercial loan. For some, their current flat is going to be repossessed by the commercial banks and they have enjoyed the allocated number of subsidy.

No speeches, Dr Faishal.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Dr Faishal for the supplementary question.

HDB will expedite such appeal cases. But, fundamentally, we would like, as much as possible, to encourage these buyers to explore the commercial market first. As I have clarified, it is not HDB's intention to re-enter this market with a loan at market rate. We are only there to help very exceptional cases and, in most cases, we have to be thoroughly assessing the situation and we have to satisfy ourselves that indeed they do not have any access to the bank market before we grant a loan. Concessionary rate loans are heavily subsidised, especially if we think about it over the loan period. Therefore, we view these as a subsidy. For us to offer another loan at market rate is really just to help the very few cases who we think genuinely have problems with access to bank market to find financing for their home.

Sir, to the Minister of State, I can well understand why HDB wants to reduce its role as a financier and concentrate on its role as a developer. For the resources available to finance HDB flat purchases, would it not be more logical to channel them to downgraders who actually need them? Many downgraders who are facing

financial difficulties wish to downgrade, which is a policy I think we would encourage, because this is financial prudence. Yet, they are unable to get bank loans. So, basically, they are stuck. Can the Ministry review that policy?

When we look at this assistance measure that we are putting in place, we are really looking at a very small subset of the applicants. Not all downgraders are not given access to financial market. Many of them, despite the need to downgrade, can access the bank loan market and, therefore, should do so. I would say that what we are doing now is to limit to a very small subset that not only could be looking at downgrading as an option but, because of their past problems - it could be bad credit histories or that they may be involved in litigation - that has basically barred them from accessing the commercial loan market. So this is really a small subset. I agree with the hon. Member that we have, in a way, to apply our subsidy very judiciously and, therefore, we are looking at a smaller subset that Mr Cedric Foo has mentioned.

Sir, banks require buyers to pay the first 5% in cash. Can this requirement be waived?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe this question is much better channelled to the banks. But since they are not here, I think it is not a question that MND is privileged to answer.

3. Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Education in light of local students not being able to gain admission to the three local universities despite the increase in the number of places (a) whether he will provide an update on the recent admission exercise for local universities; and (b) what measures are taken by his Ministry to ensure that local A-level and polytechnic students have

sufficient places for accredited tertiary education in Singapore.

4. Mr Zainudin Nordin asked the Minister for Education (a) whether our local universities are producing enough graduates to meet the needs of our industries; (b) what is the average growth in the number of local university places in the last ten years; (c) whether local universities are able to cope with the increase in intake; and (d) whether the local universities' vision to have more international students is being achieved at the expense of local students.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take both Questions No. 3 and 4 together?

Yes.

Sir, we have increased the number of university places over the years. The number of places at NUS, NTU and SMU together has increased by an average of about 5% each year over the past 10 years. The proportion of each cohort of local students entering the three universities will increase to about 23.5% this year, compared to 20.8% in 2000 and 15% in 1990.

In addition, MOE is encouraging the polytechnics to link up with Foreign Specialised Institutions to offer degree programmes in niche disciplines. For example, Ngee Ann Polytechnic has tied up with Wheelock College from the US to offer a degree programme in early childhood education, for which Wheelock has a strong reputation. These specialised degree programmes will provide our students with more opportunities to pursue university education.

We are progressively moving towards the current target of providing subsidised

university education for 25% of each cohort of local students.

I would like to assure the House also that the local universities' vision to have more international students is not being achieved at the expense of local students. University places for foreign students are over and above those that are set aside for local students.

International students play an important role. Their presence helps to create diversity in our campuses, gives them a more enriching learning experience and better prepares our students for the globalised future.

Turning to Mr Zaqy Mohamad's request for an update on the recent university admission exercise, the three universities will provide a total of 14,685 places for Academic Year 2007, compared to the intake of about 13,420 students last year. This is an increase of about 1,270 places, or about 10%. This increase is sufficient to cater to the larger cohort of what we call 'Dragon' girls who will enter the universities this year.

Each application, including every appeal, is carefully and fairly examined by the universities' admissions offices. Each student is assessed on the basis of merit.

Sir, though we understand the need to have international students, the perspective of students who have been rejected from entering the universities is that the places that are available could have been offered to the locals. So how do we rationalise the same amount of resources provided for the university education to the foreign students?

Mr Speaker, I am glad that the Member has accepted the need for international students' presence

here to enrich the learning experience of our own local students because we are facing a rapidly globalised environment here. It is also important for us to understand that each university has its own admission criteria and students who are able to meet the admission criteria would have been admitted into the universities because they operate on a very open merit-based system. Therefore, as we move towards our current target of 25% cohort participation, the universities will continue to look at additional places to accommodate our students to provide them with opportunities to pursue university education here.

Sir, when do we expect to reach the 25% cohort participation of degree holders? How do we compare this 25% cohort participation with respect to other mature economies? Will the Government consider putting a second-tier tertiary education, for example, more state-funded universities to cater to the average students out of polytechnics and 'A' levels?

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for the questions. I think we have increased the university participation rate in gradual steps, not in large jumps, so as to maintain the quality of graduates from our universities here, and also to ensure that our graduates are readily employable. Based on 2006 Graduate Employment Survey, it shows that 86% of graduates from our three universities were able to find full-time employment within six months of graduation. It is therefore important that we continue to produce graduates who are employable, rather than jump into increasing the capacity of the universities. In terms of participation rate, while our target participation rate is 25%, we also understand that many of our students who went through polytechnic education would continue to look for opportunities to upgrade and pursue university education. It may not neces-

sarily be immediately after their polytechnic diploma. Some of them would work for a few years and they would continue to upgrade. Overall, we are looking at more than 40% of our population who would eventually pursue a degree programme. This position compares quite favourably with many of the developed economies in the world. So we are also watching the progress of the other countries. We also need to be careful not to end up in a situation where many countries found themselves in when they expanded university participation too rapidly.

Sir, I have two supplementary questions. The first question is I would like to ask the MOS to clarify what he meant when he said that places for foreign students are over and above the places for local students. Does this mean that places are offered to foreign students only after all eligible local students have been offered and have accepted their places? My second question is this. The MOS has mentioned that there are 14,000-odd places for year of admission 2007. Out of these 14,000-plus places, how many places will be going to foreign students?

Mr Speaker, let me just give the House some benchmark numbers so that we can have a feel. During this year's admission exercise, a total of 28,000 local students applied to local universities. Out of that, 14,000 (49%) were offered places. Similarly, about 23,000 foreign students applied to the universities for the same admission year and only 987 [Please see clarification during sitting on 27th August 2007.*] were given places, that is, 4.3% [Please see clarification during sitting on 27th August 2007.* ]. So on that basis, we want to demonstrate that the universities do give priority to our local students. And for our students who can qualify, based on the requirements of each discipline or

faculty, they would have been given admission. Beyond that, the universities would want to ensure that there are also sufficient foreign students to provide diversity and it is part of the learning experience that we want our students to go through as well during their university education here.

*Col. 1347, 27th August 2007.

Sir, I would like to ask the MOS whether it is a healthy situation to have large numbers of deserving Singaporeans who are not able to make it to the local universities despite their good grades and having to make their own arrangements, at their own expense, for overseas education or a private degree. Will that result in these Singaporeans being less rooted to Singapore?

Mr Speaker, as I mentioned in my reply earlier, it is also important for us to look at the balance between employability, responding to the needs of the industry and, at the same time, to address the aspirations of our Singaporeans. Many of them, even though they are not able to go into universities right from the onset, they do progress through the polytechnic route and, eventually, they look at the possibility of furthering their university education through the polytechnic route. As I mentioned in my reply, the polytechnics are also developing degree programmes in collaboration with specialised institutions that offer niche programmes that are in demand by the industry today in Singapore. I think we provide many routes of advancement for our students to realise their aspirations and to allow them to pursue their education opportunities.

5. Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng asked the Minister for Transport if the construction

of the MRT Downtown Line can be expedited.

6. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry will consider expediting the construction of the Bukit Timah corridor of the Downtown Line as 2015 is too long to wait for its completion; and (b) what are the criteria used in determining how the stations along this line will be located.

Sir, with your permission, can I take Question Nos. 5 and 6 together as they are related?

Yes.

Sir, the Government is committed to ensuring the timely completion of the Downtown Line (DTL).

The DTL is a 40-kilometres rail line that will connect the north-western and eastern areas of the island to the CBD and the Marina Bay area. It will be built in three stages. The first stage, or DTL 1, which serves the new developments in the Marina Bay, such as the Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort and the new Marina Bay Financial Centre, is targeted for completion in 2013. The second stage, serving the Bukit Timah corridor and Bukit Panjang area, is scheduled for completion in 2015. The final stage, which serves areas such as Bedok Reservoir and Tampines, is expected to be completed in 2018. By implementing the project in phases, commuters can enjoy the benefits of the DTL even before the entire line is completed.

In working out the implementation schedule, LTA took into account the need to meet strategic transport needs and

demand as well as economic and financial viability considerations. The scheduling of the project also took into account the scale and complexity of the project as well as the resources required to manage and execute the project safely. The DTL is the longest underground rail project to date and runs through built-up corridors. LTA has already started preparatory work for the first two stages of DTL.

As to how the locations of the stations are determined, LTA takes into consideration the need to maximise the stations' accessibility and connectivity to population and employment centres. Where feasible, interchanges will be built to link the DTL with existing RTS lines, to connect the DTL to the rest of the RTS network. Engineering requirements and site conditions also affect station locations. LTA is still in the process of finalising the details of station locations.

Sir, I understand from the Minister that the DTL will take up to 2018 before final completion. In the interim, can I understand how the Ministry will provide new capacity, whether rail or bus, to cater to the growth in demand which is expected to be very strong in the next few years?

Sir, my Ministry, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Public Transport Council (PTC), on an on-going basis, monitors the traffic conditions in our public transport system, in terms of crowding and capacity. Where necessary, the PTC and the LTA will work closely with the public transport operators to increase bus capacity. The Member pointed out that it takes up to 2018 to build a rail line, so what happens in the meantime. So where necessary, in a particular area, where it is getting very congested, we look towards increasing bus capacity. This could be in terms of increasing bus service frequencies or new bus routes, ie, new buses coming on stream.

Sir, we heard the Minister's explanation that it depends on scale, complexity and various other reasons in determining the schedule. But I think the Minister has still not directly answered the question why the building of the line cannot be hastened. I hope the Minister will answer that question. My second point is whether the Ministry will also take into account when it constructs the MRT line, how to also ensure connectivity to the other transport contact points, ie, the buses and other public transport amenities, because this is always a perennial problem, that the lines are built but there is not much connection to the other public transport systems. Will that also be taken into account?

Let me answer the second question first. The answer is yes. This is what we will do. We will ensure that the DTL connects with the Compass line, which is the present, East-West and the North-South lines and also the Circle Line that we are building. We will ensure that this is the case and, where possible, like she has said, with bus interchanges. Her first question was: can we hasten it and bring it forward? We will do this as expeditiously as possible. As I have said, preparatory work has already started. Once the approval has been given by Cabinet, we have moved. So preliminary engineering works are done. But the scale and complexity is something that I think Members understand. This is the longest underground line that we are building. So, it is time-intensive. Even as we want to do it as fast as possible, because it goes through built-up areas, we have to minimise disruptions to traffic, and, over and above that, we have to ensure that we do it safely. So we are on the same page. We like to do it as fast as possible but we have to take into account these considerations.

Sir, the policy we take with regard to air transport

is an excellent one. Before Terminal 2 was actually chock-a-block, we started with Terminal 3 construction. We announced the plan that Terminal 3 will be opened in 2008. And we all understand how much goodwill and how much externalities such new capacity, which is presented ahead of demand, have brought to Singapore. But does it mean that the Ministry has been late in thinking through the land transport issues and policies so that it will take another 11 years from now for it to come to full fruition or is there fiscal constraint that we cannot hasten it any further?

It is not a financial constraint. As I have said, approval has been given and the resources have been allocated and we are already proceeding. Did we plan it in advance? The answer is yes.

The idea of a DTL was mooted in the late 1990s and we have been studying the feasibility of this project. This is an expensive project, and we must have a certain discipline in the whole process of approving such huge undertakings. It costs us about $11 billion to build. If we look at our present rail network, as a proxy, the capacity situation in terms of our MRT trains when they run during peak hours, on average, they are about 70%-80% full. So the capacity is still there. When we build the DTL, we are building, exactly as what the Member said, in anticipation, because of the residential population growth in the north western area and also in the eastern area. This is what we are doing. The key issue here is to ensure that it is timely.

7. Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider extending the CPF Education Scheme to full-time undergraduate and diploma courses at private and foreign institutions in Singapore and

recognised or accredited foreign institutions abroad.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the primary objective of CPF is to help members save enough for their retirement needs. As all of us know, Singapore has a rapidly ageing population. I will give some numbers to underscore that. The proportion of Singaporeans aged 65 and above is expected to grow from 8% in 2005 to 19% in 2030; roughly, 1 in 5 by 2030 will be above 65. Retirement and healthcare needs will therefore correspondingly increase. However, only about 40% of current active CPF members turning 55 are able to meet their CPF Minimum Sum. So I think our priority should be to help members set aside more CPF savings in the future, instead of allowing withdrawals for expanded purposes.

Mr Zaqy asked whether the CPF Education Scheme could be further liberalised. This particular scheme was introduced in 1989 and was a concession for the use of CPF monies and intentionally limited to only full-time local tertiary education courses at approved publicly funded tertiary institutions, because these are heavily subsidised by the Government. We have allowed it and we will continue to allow it. But even then, 13% of students who had borrowed from their parents' CPF accounts for tertiary education have not been able to pay the monies back despite CPF Board's enforcement efforts. So, to better prepare for the needs of an ageing population, we should not extend the use of CPF for more educational purposes. There are other existing avenues through which students can obtain financial assistance if they are needed.

Sir, one of the arguments often made by students who

are not in our local universities or not receiving subsidised education is that loans are hard to come by, and the number of options out there are not many, in terms of financial options that are available to them. Given that only 13% probably default on their repayments to CPF, would the Minister consider at least limiting the quantum or putting certain credit criteria on the loans that they can get from the CPF?

Sir, I do not know enough about financial access for private institutions to state categorically whether access is adequate or not. I think there are sufficient avenues for taking personal loans. This is not something that I can intelligently comment on.

The real issue is whether we should expand and allow more students to draw from their parents' accounts. I am sure there are very good reasons for that. Education is an investment and when the students get their university degrees, they will repay their parents. As I said, I do not argue with the positive aspects of having a high education. Our current challenge is an ageing population and smaller family sizes. In fact, the CPF Board and the Ministry of Manpower are actually the last gate. I am sure if the scheme is liberalised, most parents would, because they are good parents. I would rather act as that very firm gate-keeper, so that the parents' CPF funds are not depleted.

Sir, if the parents have an amount above the Minimum Sum, will the Ministry consider allowing a parent to draw down, so as to invest in the child's education, provided the amount remaining in the CPF is above the Minimum Sum?

Sir, the Member is quite right. It is a theoretical possibility, although most families who have enough in their CPF and above the Minimum Sum are not the ones who need the money to

fund their children's education. The problem is really someone in between who does not have enough but feels that he really wants his child to have higher education. As I said, there are enough financial schemes that they have access to. The CPF was really constructed primarily for retirement needs. When I say "retirement", it also means housing, medical as well as to ensure that there is enough to last them for their retirement. I do not think it will be wise for us to liberalise and allow it for educational purposes. I think that is the crux of the policy.

8. Ms Ellen Lee asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) why newly married foreign spouses of Singapore citizens or permanent residents are only granted Social Visit Passes initially and not Long Term Social Visit Passes or permanent residence to remain in Singapore indefinitely; (b) how many extensions of the Social Visit Pass will be granted in a year and what is the duration of each extension; (c) if there is a quota on such passes issued in a year; and (d) in the past two years, how many foreign spouses have successfully obtained Long Term Social Visit Passes and on what considerations.

9. Dr Lam Pin Min asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) over the last five years, how many foreign spouses have (i) converted to Singapore citizenship; (ii) converted to permanent residence; (iii) remained on Long Term or Short Term Social Visit Passes; and (b) what are the reasons for not converting to Singapore citizenship.

Sir, may I take Question Nos. 8 and 9 together as they are related?

Yes.

Sir, first, let me say that it is not true that newly married foreign spouses are only granted Short Term Social Visit Passes and are unable to obtain long-term immigration facilities to remain in Singapore. A foreign spouse may apply for a Long Term Social Visit Pass (LTSVP) or permanent residence (PR) status and each application will be considered on its own merits.

Over the last two years, on average, about 13,000 applications for Long Term Social Visit Passes for foreign spouses of Singaporeans and permanent residents were approved each year. There is no quota on such passes issued each year.

Our immigration policies take into account the preservation of family unity, while striking a balance in ensuring that foreigners do not become a burden to the State. Generally, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) will try to provide applicants with the reasons for rejection, to help them understand what they can do to improve their eligibility when they reapply.

For the small percentage of foreign spouses who do not qualify for Long Term Social Visit Passes, ICA will consider granting a one-time extension of stay to allow them to seek legal employment so that they may remain in Singapore.

Sir, in short, ICA's guidelines governing the grant of long-term immigration facilities to foreign spouses are sufficiently flexible and compassionate to allow deserving spouses to stay in Singapore.

On Dr Lam Pin Min's question, over the last five years, on average, about 2,700 foreign spouses of Singapore

citizens have been granted Singapore citizenship each year. For the same period, about 5,400 and 12,000 foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents were granted permanent residence status and Long Term Social Visit Passes respectively annually.

We do not know exactly why some foreign spouses do not apply to become Singapore citizens. Some of them may hail from countries more developed than Singapore, or still have roots in their native country. Some may also be retaining their foreign citizenship to enjoy certain privileges such as medical benefits or the eligibility to own property or businesses in their native country.

Hence, the Government, through the formation of the National Population Committee, chaired by DPM Wong Kan Seng, has been examining these issues and exploring how to attract and encourage foreigners who are suitable to take up PR status and Singapore citizenship.

With these efforts, we hope that more foreigners, including foreign spouses, will become emotionally attached to Singapore, grow to appreciate the stable and safe environment that Singapore provides for raising a family, and eventually choose to take up Singapore citizenship.

Sir, the Senior Minister of State mentioned about family preservation and not being a burden to the State. For many of these applicants requiring their foreign spouses to leave the jurisdiction without giving them any short-term visit passes, it is already a breaking up of the family, so to speak, because they are forced to separate for a period of time, which is uncertain.

The other thing is that there are also many local spouses who feel that they can sponsor their foreign spouses in Singapore and therefore have not been in any way a burden to the State. Can the Senior Minister of State please elaborate on these two points that he has mentioned?

Sir, first, let me say that the success rate of applicants for Long Term Social Visit Passes for foreign spouses is actually quite high - 85%, over the past five years, from 2002 to 2006. So it is the 15% who may not qualify at the outset, but they will be informed why they do not qualify. For some, it is because their income is not stable enough or they are unable to furnish proof of employment. But, in any case, when that happens, they will not be asked to leave immediately. We will give them extensions, normally with a Short Term Social Visit Pass, maybe over two-three months, so that the husband will have an opportunity to improve the situation. If still that does not come to pass, then it is a matter of separation until the husband meets the requirements.

Like I have said, from 2004, in fact, we have opened up because, where appropriate, we now grant a six-month Long Term Social Visit Pass to enable the foreign spouse to look for a job. This is especially so when the family income is not sufficient. So, instead of just relying on the husband's income, in this case, we give the wife an opportunity to look for a job to strengthen the situation.

Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether ICA would consider publishing the eligibility criteria or come out with some points system, so that potential applicants are able to assess their eligibility when they wish to apply for permanent residence or Singapore citizenship.

Sir, this has been done, because there has been the call all these years for greater transparency on two fronts. The first front is with regard to the specific application. When we reply to them, we will let them know whether their income is not sufficient or their residential stay is not enough. So they will know the reason for their failure.

Secondly, on a wider plane, in fact, we have disclosed the general areas where applications will be considered. DPM Wong Kan Seng, for example, in 2004, gave a press interview when he stated that the general criteria included educational qualifications, their immediate economic contributions, ability to integrate into society, duration of stay in Singapore and so forth. To facilitate, in fact, not just foreign spouses but foreigners applying for either permanent residence, Singapore citizenship or other passes, we have also started a portal. I think the Member knows about this. It is the e-service Naturalisation Eligibility Tool launched earlier this year, so that those in Singapore who want to assess their eligibility can go into that portal. We will do what we can, because imparting information so that they know where they stand is important.

Sir, in my estate, there are many elderly Singaporean men who remarried, usually younger and maybe not-so-educated women, thinking that if they got married to a Singaporean, they would be able to reside long term in Singapore. Is there any way that the Ministry can work with other agencies, like the Registry of Marriages, to raise the awareness that marriage does not guarantee approval to reside in Singapore, so that these young women will reconsider marriage?

I think it is a well-known fact because, every year, in the Committee of Supply, this topic

comes up.

It is a well-known fact that marrying a Singaporean does not automatically entitle the foreign spouse to stay. But if the media can help publicise this, I think it will be a good thing.

Can I just ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry will consider expanding the six-month period to a year, because it is not easy for a foreign spouse to be in Singapore for the first time to be able to look for a job within six months?

The other question is: is it true that once they are married, the Government discourages them from getting pregnant because there is this fallacy that they are not supposed to get pregnant or deliver any baby before they get any long-term visit passes in Singapore?

I take this opportunity, first, to affirm a fact - which is what we did just now with Ms Denise Phua - that just getting married does not mean that they can automatically stay; secondly, we will nail a fallacy, which is what Ms Ellen Lee has just said. What is the fallacy again?

They cannot have a baby before they get PR.

Of course, they can start a family. We encourage that. You do not need to have, for example, PR to start a family. In fact, that may strengthen their case.

The other point is we should not give one year at a time. It is six months basically to help the family improve its economic situation. After six months, if there is a need to renew, an application can be made and ICA will look at the case again. If they have tried very hard, they have shown effort on their part, and their situation has improved, they may very well be granted, in fact, a Long Term Social Visit Pass. And if they are just off

the mark, perhaps another extension may be granted to help them improve their situation.

Just an observation, Prof. Ho. You cannot nail a fallacy without knowing what the fallacy is. Mr Chiam, last question.

Sir, following up on the question from Ms Denise Phua, is it important for a Singaporean who wishes to marry a foreigner to, first, get prior permission to marry from MOM, and, if having obtained permission, there is a better chance for the spouse to remain in Singapore after marriage?

I do not think Singaporeans should seek permission from the Government for everything that they do, including getting married, unless, of course, the spouse with whom you want to marry has a prohibition operating against her, which is the case if she has worked here before under a Work Permit, where there is an express condition that a foreigner cannot marry a Singaporean, and so application is made to MOM. Except for this category, if Mr Chiam's constituent wants to marry a foreigner who has not worked here before and is not subject to this condition, by all means. But, like we have said, just because you are married does not automatically mean automatic stay thereafter.

10. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for National Development how does the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority ensure safety of food from China given the recent incidents of use or excessive use of prohibited substances in food products from China.

Mr

Speaker, Sir, AVA has put in place a comprehensive and integrated food safety system to ensure that food imported into Singapore is safe for human consumption. The system is science-based, and underpinned by constant vigilance to identify food safety problems as well as rigorous analysis of the potential hazards associated with the problems identified. Let me explain.

Consignments of imported food are subject to systematic inspection and laboratory monitoring for pathogens, contaminants and residues to ensure that the food products are safe for consumption. Such surveillance also enables AVA to maintain a database of useful information on the safety level of food originating from the different sources.

AVA also keeps a close watch on the global food safety situation to ensure that our policies and control programmes stay current. Where there are specific or emerging concerns, AVA may introduce additional programmes or intensify checks, if necessary. These could include checks on the presence of banned substances or contaminants such as malachite green or Sudan red, or viruses like the avian flu.

I would like to assure the House that AVA maintains stringent checks on food imports from all sources, including China. AVA has a long working relationship with the regulatory authority in China, and Singapore's regulatory requirements and stringent checks on food imports are well known in China.

Over the years, AVA has provided regular feedback to the Chinese authorities to facilitate their monitoring of China's food exports to Singapore. This has resulted in general improvements in the safety of vegetables and farmed freshwater fishes imported from China. AVA will continue to remain vigilant to ensure the safety of food products

imported from all sources, including China, and intensify checks and controls, where necessary.

Sir, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the very comprehensive answer. One of the concerns from all consumers is, of course, that checks are done but they are all random. It cannot be complete. I am just wondering whether AVA actually goes abroad to inspect the source of the food. Secondly, does AVA collaborate with other like-minded agencies, such as the FDA of the US, and share database with like-minded organisations in Europe as well?

Let me take the second question first. The answer is yes. AVA monitors the world's food health situation daily through relevant Internet websites. Food authorities from other countries as well as Australia and New Zealand also keep AVA informed of food recalls or other warnings of that nature. So the answer is, yes, we work very closely with all the different agencies from the different countries for food warnings.

On the question of surveillance and monitoring, I think there are different categories of food that AVA monitors. AVA accredits overseas meat establishments, for example, and processed egg establishments. So, as far as fresh food products are concerned, they accredited the food sources. There are two levels of accreditation: first, they assess the country's system in terms of the animal health and food safety. In that sense, animal disease status, for example, foot-and-mouth disease, bird flu, and other food system, microbiology, antibiotic residue control programmes, will be considered for evaluation. Once the country's system has been evaluated, then AVA will look into the specific establishments within the country. So, they go into the specific establishments to

assess their control measures to make sure that they are safe for exports. That is for fresh food and meat products.

For other products, like processed food, for example, the responsibility lies with the importers where high-risk food products such as preserved foods, vegetables, soya bean products, minimally-processed vegetables, flour, starches, and so on, are subjected to strict import control. So, importers of these products are required to submit documentary proof that they are from regulated sources and health certificates or laboratory reports to certify their safety. Also, samples are also collected for testing to ensure that these products comply with our food laws.

11. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for National Development in light of the recent incident when a tree in Bukit Batok Nature Park fell and killed a jogger, whether the National Parks Board has sufficient checks in place to ensure that trees planted in Singapore are well maintained and do not pose a risk to people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, NParks has sufficient checks in place to ensure that our trees do not pose a safety hazard to the public. Its team of arborists undertakes a rigorous tree inspection regime to ensure the health and condition of the trees under NParks' charge. With the help of the latest technology, the arborists are able to detect conditions such as cavities and decay that are not visible to the eyes. They also prune our trees regularly to remove weak, dry or overgrown branches. This reduces the weight of foliage in the tree crown and improves stability. NParks has benchmarked its tree expertise against international best

practices. Its arborists are certified under a curriculum set by the International Society of Arboriculture. NParks offers the same certification to tree care professionals in the private sector and other public agencies. NParks also advises public agencies and other land owners on tree-care standards.

NParks' tree maintenance programme has reaped positive results over the years. It currently maintains more than one million trees along roadsides, in parks and on vacant lands. The annual number of fallen trees and branches has reduced considerably from about 4,000 in year 2000 to about 1,000 in 2006.

However, it is not possible to eliminate tree-related accidents altogether. While tree diseases can be diagnosed and brought under control, there are elements of nature that are beyond our control. The recent incidents at the Bukit Batok Nature Park and the Central Catchment Nature Reserve were cases in point. The incidents were caused by a combination of strong winds and heavy rain. In addition, it is also a challenge to maintain trees in nature areas because of limited accessibility and the need to strike a balance with conservation.

NParks will continue to improve its tree maintenance programme. It will take measures to increase public awareness on avoiding forested areas during inclement weather. It will also look into additional safety measures, such as increasing the number of rain shelters and instituting periodic closing of trails for maintenance.

I would like to ask the Minister of State, when there are strong winds and heavy rain during such periods and the soil around the trees is loosened, whether additional checks are being done by NParks and also what precautions are then given to residents

and passers-by when they come close to such trees.

NParks has a regular programme on checking the trees. Where periods of continuous rainfall or strong winds have happened, we have also taken measures to close the nature park, if necessary. Following the incidents, we will step up warnings to the users of the park. But in the case of the central catchment area, I think we did close the park to visitors but, unfortunately, the group of visitors had already passed the gates.

Sir, may I ask MOS whether NParks will consider using a tie-back system, as what they have done in Japan, where they tie back mature trees so that they can fall safely in a certain direction during typhoon. Along footpaths, we can tie back to fall backwards and along the roads, to tie back so that they will fall outside the roads. This is seen in Japan.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the suggestion. But, I think, in these two cases, they occurred in a nature reserve and also a park within the reserve. In this case, we have to always take a very careful approach to balance the need to retain the environment as close to nature as possible and to provide accessibility to visitors. Some of the measures that we could take, for example, in cutting down some of the trees near the paths may be very detrimental to the nature and, therefore, we should really be quite careful when we adopt that. Also, accessibility, in terms of the road paths for checking and maintenance purpose, has also imposed difficulties for us. But we will definitely take the suggestion of the Member and study it.

12. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources

how many people had drowned in reservoirs over the last ten years and how many of these cases occurred at Lower Seletar.

There were 21 drowning incidents in reservoirs in the last 10 years. Five of the incidents occurred at Lower Seletar Reservoir, and the rest were spread over the other seven reservoirs.

Of the 21 incidents, one of them occurred during a water activity operated by an approved water activities centre. This was the incident at Lower Seletar Reservoir on 27th May 2007, where a man drowned after his kayak capsized. The other 20 cases did not arise from such water activities. Most of these cases were open verdicts, while a few were suicide cases. For the incident at Lower Seletar Reservoir on 27th May this year, it was found that the man and his wife had strayed out of the designated kayaking area, despite being briefed by the staff of the water activities centre on the safety procedures and the limits of the designated kayaking area.

I would like to assure the House that there is an adequate safety system and procedures in place for water activities carried out under PUB's auspices. Water activities such as canoeing or kayaking are allowed only at authorised water activities centres under the supervision of the centre staff. These are run by experienced operators, such as the People's Association

or the National Sports Associations, who have a responsibility to manage and oversee the activities to ensure that they are carried out properly and in accordance with safety procedures. The safety procedures

include safety briefings, checks that the boaters have put on their life vests properly, and inspections to ensure that the canoes and kayaks are in good condition before the commencement of activities.

Although safety measures have been put in place, the public needs to adhere to them, and also exercise individual responsibility and good sense when having fun in the water. With the formation of the National Water Safety Council, PUB is working closely with the Council to promote and enhance water safety in our reservoirs and waterways. PUB is also working with the Council and the Ministry of Education to weave in water safety messages in their talks to schools as part of PUB's ongoing public education programme.

Two supplementary questions. The first question: are there any additional safety measures implemented before reopening the kayak centre at Lower Seletar? There is a lot of undergrowth in the water, according to the residents as well as SCDF rescue team. Does this undergrowth pose any danger to the users of the kayak centre? If yes, what else should be done?

First of all, I would like to reiterate, as I have noted in my earlier reply, that the People's Association, who is the operator of the water activities centre at Lower Seletar Reservoir where the incident occurred, has put in place an adequate safety system and procedures for the conduct of water activities there. Nonetheless, to further strengthen the safety system, PUB and PA have reviewed and enhanced the existing procedures regarding kayakers straying outside the designated kayaking area. The demarcation of kayaking area for walk-in public has been made more prominent at all reservoirs available for these water activities. PA and the National Sports Associations will also be

looking into providing walk-in public with devices that they can use to send out distress signals should they encounter difficulty in the water.

As regards the second question about the aquatic plants that could possibly have contributed to the drowning incident at Lower Seletar Reservoir, I would like to say that the aquatic plants did not contribute to this incident. The aquatic plants which are actually part of the natural eco-system in our reservoirs are generally very brittle and they do not pose any danger to kayakers with life jackets on. PUB has also engaged contractors to trim them on a regular basis, in fact, on a daily basis.

Sir, I would like to ask whether or not, currently, there are any sanctions that would be taken against kayakers who breach safety conditions as well as the operators of these activities centres if the safety conditions have been breached. Because I think it would be necessary to reinforce the point that safety is paramount in these centres and that both the users as well as the providers have to abide by a certain set of conditions.

I would like to thank the Member for bringing this issue up. Currently, when the public actually goes in to rent a kayak at the water activities centre, there is a certain set of safety measures and procedures which are put in place. First of all, the operator would have to brief the kayakers on the dos and don'ts when in the water, and of course they have to help them put on the life vests, they have to inform them that they have to make sure that the life vests have to be on at all times as well as they have to stay within the designated area which is clearly demarcated. In addition, the operators on shore also have binoculars, whistles, air horns, and so on,

to alert kayakers if they see them straying out of the designated kayaking area. But I think, ultimately, the responsibility to ensure the safety of the users really lies upon themselves. They have to exercise individual responsibility. They have to adhere to the rules and make sure that, when in the water, they do not take any action which will endanger their lives.

Ms Lee Bee Wah, final question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in fact, a lot of my residents told me that they are avoiding Lower Seletar at the moment, because they said that once they fall into the water, though they have the life jackets, sometimes, accidents still happen, they will be entangled in the undergrowth. Therefore, it is very difficult for them to survive. So it looks like this is the main concern among the residents there.

Our PUB, as well as PA staff, after the incident, has actually undertaken an internal investigation. They are satisfied that there are proper safety procedures and measures already put in place. I think if you have your life vest on and are securely fastened at all times, I do not see how you would be able to sink into the water.

Regarding the undergrowth, as I have said earlier, we have checked. We do have a system in place where the aquatic plants are actually pruned on a daily basis so that they only come up to about 1 1/2 metres below the surface of the reservoir and they would not pose any danger to the kayakers.

13. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for

Home Affairs (a) how many girls and women have been victims of sex crimes and/or financial loss from knowing the offenders through the Internet; and (b) will the Ministry consider imposing stiffer penalties on those who prey on young girls through the Internet.

Sir, there were 124 reported cases of females becoming victims of sex crimes as a result of them knowing the offenders through the Internet between 2001 and 2006. Of these reported cases, 80 cases (or about two-thirds) involved victims who were below 16 years of age. Of these 124 cases, two of them also involved the victims' property being stolen.

The number of cases of Internet-related sexual crimes forms about 1.5 % of the total number of sexual crimes. Over the years, there has not been any significant increase in the number of Internet-related sexual crimes but, of course, this remains an area of concern as it mainly involves young victims. To address this threat, Police has embarked on several crime intervention actions by working closely with the Ministry of Education (MOE) and also the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) to conduct training sessions, workshops, programmes and crime awareness talk.

The current legal provisions and penalties for these sexual offences are adequate. The penalties for the offence of rape, for example, under the Penal Code carry an imprisonment term of up to 20 years and option of fine and caning. The penalties for the offence of carnal connection (that is, having sexual intercourse with a girl under 16) under the Women's Charter carry an imprisonment term of up to five years and option of fine up to $10,000.

In view of the relatively small number of Internet-related sexual crime cases reported over the years, there is no need to provide for enhanced penalties in existing offences when the offence is committed via the Internet.

Sir, just one question. I want to ask the Minister whether the Police act upon tip-off or the victim must really make a Police report before the Police will investigate.

Sir, there must be information that an offence has been committed in the first place. So, normally, the victim will lodge a Police report and that is when the investigation will proceed.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry has considered introducing a new offence of sexual solicitation which is something that has been done, I understand, in England where a person who solicits sex or sexual activity with a minor would be committing an offence. I think the MOS has mentioned about the provisions which deal with actual sexual conduct, carnal connection and rape, but sexual solicitation would actually nip that in the bud. So I would like to ask the MOS whether that has been considered.

Our Penal Code review has been a comprehensive one. One of the areas that we have been looking at is sex with minors. This is one area indeed we are considering actively. We are looking at the UK provision - section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, on sexual grooming, in other words, if a person chats up a minor and after chatting her up, invites her out, meets her and, thereafter, has sex with her or commits an offence on her - whether we can make that an offence without the actual act of sex having been committed. So it is a matter of drawing

the line and scoping it so that the mischief that is being targeted can be addressed sufficiently.

Sir, before there is a sexual occurrence, there is a potential, like what the Member has said, of solicitation over the Internet, if there is a tip-off, would the Police investigate or unless there is a victim?

I thank Mdm Cynthia Phua for her Question and also this supplementary question. As I have explained just now, this is something that we are looking at because we know that there have been situations when this has happened and the current law does not adequately address the problem. Because even to attempt an offence, certain overt acts must have been done. So let us see what we can do to placate concerns of the parents. But I must also add that it is not just the law that is at work here. Really, it is a matter of all parties working together. On this score, Dr Lee Boon Yang had given a reply to Mdm Phua a year ago. Indeed, after that reply, MDA has stepped up its activities with the formation of the new Internet and Media Advisory Committee. They have mounted additional campaigns, talks, seminars, guidebooks have been publicised, schools have been reached out to, through various programmes, including cyber crush programmes. So I think parents must take note of what they can do, and hopefully with the laws being strengthened, the situation would improve.

14. Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng asked the Minister for Transport what is the transport policy pertaining to the elderly and to commuters with special needs.

Sir, our land transport system strives to meet the diverse needs of commuters, including the elderly and those with special needs.

LTA has embarked on various initiatives to make our public transport system more accessible and user-friendly to the elderly and the less mobile. These include introducing wheelchair accessible buses, making our MRT stations barrier-free, and implementing barrier-free routes within 400 metres radius of all MRT stations. Besides catering to the less mobile, these barrier-free routes also have decision tactiles and contrasting colour strips to guide the visually impaired at crossings and pedestrian overhead bridges. The bus stops, road kerbs and other road facilities are also being upgraded to enable senior citizens and others with mobility difficulties to get around more easily.

While it is crucial to put in the necessary infrastructure for the elderly and commuters with special needs, the support of other commuters is just as important. Hence, the public transport operators have regularly implemented public education initiatives, such as courtesy programmes, roadshows and school talks to promote gracious behaviour among commuters. For example, SBST and LTA launched a public education programme to seek commuters' understanding and patience when the bus driver helps wheelchair bound passengers to board and to alight from the buses.

Going forward, the LTA will continue to enhance our land transport system to meet the varied needs of the population as we move towards a more socially inclusive society.

Sir, I applaud the Ministry and the public transport operators' messages to the commuting public to be patient and to accept that the disabled and the elderly have to integrate into society and to

participate actively. My supplementary question is whether our economy would be better served if, instead of enabling barrier-free accesses on the public transport network, we provide dedicated transport links or services reserved for the elderly and the disabled because the former would obviously come with a cost to the general economy, slowing down the public network for example. Or, should we do both?

Like in all these things, it is a matter of balance. So where there is a special need or a need to cater to specific people with difficulties, we will do so. If you look at, say, what the National Council for Social Services is doing, for instance, they provide various forms of assistance in terms of transport, eg, subsidies for contract buses to take care of some of these people. So it is a balance. For the general public transport, we need to ensure that it is also accessible for those with mobility difficulties. For those whose needs are greater, then a more dedicated approach, as the Member has suggested.

Sir, can I ask the Minister if there is a target date of completion to ensure that, either through a combination of public or dedicated transport modes, our elderly and the disabled will be well served in Singapore?

I think this is an on-going process. It is not so much as an end date. It is something that we have to continually do. If we take, for instance, the wheelchair-accessible buses that we have started, I think within five years, one out of two buses will be wheelchair-accessible. So it is an on-going thing.

15. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the

Land Transport Authority will review the safety criteria, specifically the installation of safety bollards or other safety features at bus stops; and (b) whether the current schedule for the installation of safety bollards at 400 identified bus stops can be accelerated.

Mr Speaker, Sir, safety bollards are installed at bus stops based on the Land Transport Authority's (LTA) assessment of the risks associated with the location of the bus stops. They are currently provided at bus stops (a) located at bends, (b) facing turning traffic from side roads, or (c) along roads where the speed limit is at least 60 kph.

Based on these criteria, bollards have been installed at 1,500 bus stops since 1999. LTA will be installing bollards at another 400 bus stops along roads where the speed limits have been raised, in accordance with its existing criteria. The tender was called early this year and the contract has been awarded on 14th June 2007. The LTA will complete this project by early 2008.

The LTA regularly reviews its safety criteria to take into account changing circumstances and road conditions. However, ensuring safety is a shared responsibility. No measure will be sufficient to protect us from reckless and irresponsible road users. So we urge all road users to use our roads safely and responsibly.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, firstly, how much is the cost of a bollard and, secondly, whether cost is a factor in not speeding up the schedule of completion of the installation.

Cost is not a factor in terms of whether we are speeding it up or not. As I have said, we have called a tender. The original estimate, before we called the tender, was in

mid-2008. After the tender was called, working with the contractors, they had brought it forward. The contractors said they can do this. So it is now six months earlier. So cost is not a factor. The resources have already been allocated.

In terms of the actual cost itself, it will cost $860,000 for the extra bollards for the 400 additional bus stops where we are going to put the bollards in.

Sir, can I ask the Minister to consider completing this? He mentioned that the date for completion is early 2008. I would like to ask the Minister whether this can be speeded up, since resources are there.

We will look into this. I think we need to have a sense of perspective on this. In the last five years, we have seven cases. We have over 4,000 bus stops in Singapore. We have seven cases where there has been an accident at the bus stop, just to give Members a sense of perspective. But in response to the Member's question whether we can try to do this faster, as I have said, we are doing as fast as we can. But we will look into his suggestion and see what more we can do.

Sir, besides the presence of the bollards at the bus stops, I want to ask the Minister whether the authority has made a comprehensive review of all the other places or roads where bollards may be necessary, other than bus-stops, to ensure greater pedestrian safety.

Sir, this is what we are doing. LTA is doing a review and this is something that we have to constantly look at, on a risk-based approach, of course, in the areas where there is greater risk, to see what more we can do to mitigate that risk and to protect our commuters.

Sir, I just want to ask the Minister what other approaches is the Ministry taking with regard to the educational, punitive and culture-building aspects of inculcating considerate driving and discipline among drivers as well as other road users.

We work with many other agencies. For example, the Traffic Police is one agency that we work with. For instance, you see advertisements every now and then on our TV or in our cinemas, eg, "If you drink, don't drive", some very graphic, some very good, to drive home this particular message.

So, as I said, we work with many agencies, and it is an on-going process, and we need everybody to chip in, including everyone in this House.

16. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of complaints received from pregnant women about unfair job termination since the third month paid maternity leave scheme was introduced in 2004 for the years 2005, 2006 and the first five months of 2007; and (b) whether the number of such complaints has risen year on year, compared to the number of complaints received prior to the introduction of the scheme.

Sir, in 2005 and 2006, the Ministry received 60 and 71 complaints respectively from pregnant employees relating to the termination of employment. Of the 71 complaints in 2006, 38 were resolved through conciliation by MOM with payments being made to the employees,

22 were withdrawn by the employees and five cases are pending investigation. The remaining six cases were referred to the Minister to decide if the employee has been dismissed without sufficient cause, as provided for under the Employment Act. Of these, one case was decided in favour of the employee with the Minister directing the employer to pay 12 weeks of maternity leave, while for the other five cases, the Minister was satisfied that the dismissals were not related to the pregnancies of the employees. From January to May 2007, 21 complaints were received, of which four cases were resolved through conciliation with payments being made to the employees, five cases were withdrawn and the remaining 12 cases are pending investigation.

These numbers are higher than the 25 complaints in 2004 when paid maternity leave was extended to three months. This could be due in part to heightened awareness among employees and the public about the protection of the enhanced maternity benefits.

My Ministry will continue to work closely with the relevant partners and monitor closely the effects of the extended maternity leave. Employers should note that, under the Employment Act, it is an offence to dismiss or terminate the employment of an employee during her maternity leave. Dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy is an unfair dismissal under the Employment Act.

Sir, may I ask the Ministry what concrete steps the Ministry has taken to address the complaints received and whether the Ministry is collating how many employers were found to have wrongfully terminated jobs, how many employers were taken to court, and whether such collation can be made available to the public via its website?

A number of cases were resolved. In fact, about 90% of the cases were resolved, either resulting in the employees getting paid by the employers for their maternity benefits, or the employees withdrawing their claims. The point I want to make is that conciliation has worked and has helped resolve the claims by employees.

For the number of actions taken, we can always make this public through Parliament, for example, during parliamentary questions, or on our website. That is possible.

17. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Education with the introduction of the FutureSchools@Singapore programme where students may make forays into chatrooms, blogs and podcasts, (a) what steps are being taken to educate primary and secondary school students on the pitfalls and dangers of misusing the new media; (b) if the Ministry will consider working with parents so that these students can be adequately supervised when they delve into the new media; and (c) if the Ministry has plans for students who do not have computers at home to complete assignments given after school.

18. Dr Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Education in light of FutureSchools@Singapore where greater emphasis will be placed on the use of information technology, whether there will be any increase in subsidy schemes for needy families and students to purchase personal computers.

(for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I will take Question

Nos. 17 and 18 together as they are related.

Blogs, chatrooms and podcasts are increasingly an integral part of the lifestyle of our students. Many of them participate actively in chatrooms and they listen frequently to podcasts. The pervasiveness of new media poses both an opportunity and a challenge for educators. MOE encourages our teachers to leverage on such technologies to make learning more interesting and engaging. At the same time, we have adopted proactive measures to ensure that our students are educated on the safe and responsible use of these technologies.

Our schools have integrated elements of cyber-wellness into the curriculum to build a strong cyber culture. The Civics and Moral Education syllabus for primary and secondary schools includes topics on Internet use and cyber-safety. The dangers of Internet Relay Chats are highlighted to them. The Social Emotional Learning framework that was launched in 2005 also helps students make responsible decisions and exercise self-control over their own behaviour and actions in real and virtual space. In the new English syllabus to be implemented in 2009, students will be formally required to evaluate the reliability of sources and to cite the information sources that they use. Internet content that is accessible within MOE and schools is also scanned to filter out websites with content that is not suitable for our students, such as those containing pornographic materials. Skills on the ethical and legal use of ICT are also included in the set of baseline ICT standards which all students need to acquire at the end of their primary and secondary education.

In addition, some schools have introduced additional programmes to educate students on cyber-wellness and cyber-responsibility to help them better

understand the potential dangers of the use of this technology. For example, Ang Mo Kio Secondary has incorporated 11 lesson modules for all of its students into the Civics and Moral Education framework. These modules cover topics ranging from Internet addiction, cyber bullying, Internet gambling to intellectual property and hacking.

Our schools will continue to engage parents as partners in guiding our students on the use of new technologies. For example, many schools already leverage on existing Parent Support Groups to inform parents on the issues surrounding the use of new technologies, and to actively work with parents to monitor, supervise and advise their children. Schools, such as Junyuan Secondary, have also conducted workshops for parents on Internet gaming, blogging and instant messaging.

On plans to help students without access to computers at home, all of our schools are provided with ICT grants for them to acquire a wide range of ICT resources to support their educational programmes, and schools are given the autonomy to use these funds to integrate ICT into their teaching and learning approaches.

We have taken steps to ensure that no student is disadvantaged because he has no computer at home.

Firstly, our schools provide free access to computers in open areas, eg, computer labs and school libraries, where students can use the computers after school hours to complete their assignments. In addition, some schools have notebook computers that are available on loan for students to use for assignments and research at home and in school.

Secondly, schools have financial assistance schemes in place to help students from low-income families to acquire a home computer. The Infocomm

Development Authority (IDA) offers the NEU PC Plus Programme to help students from needy families to acquire personal computers. With this scheme, students can purchase a personal computer complete with three years of broadband access at a subsidised price of $285. Poor students can have their co-payment further subsidised by the Opportunity Fund. This means that, in some instances, they pay even less than $285.

The FutureSchools@Singapore initiative leverages on ICT on a school-wide level to bring about more engaged learning for all our students in those schools. Like all schools, our FutureSchools will ensure that their needy students too will have access to ICT and be able to tap on the Opportunity Fund and other sources of funding to help them purchase computers for use at home where necessary.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 23, 26-28 and 31-34 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 19-22, 24-25 and 29-30 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

*Cols. 1275-1284.

Sir, I would like to make a clarification. During the Parliamentary sitting yesterday, after my main answer to Question Nos. 3 and 4, I responded to a supplementary question from Ms Sylvia Lim when she asked about the timing of the compensation offer to Mr Dickson Tan and whether the urgency was brought about by a threat of lawsuit against the Government. When I answered her, I said I did not have the detailed choronology on that aspect. [Please see

report on 16th July 2007.** ] Yesterday evening, I checked with officials from the Attorney-General's Chambers. The facts are that a letter was received by the Prisons from Mr Dickson Tan's mother on 30th May asking for compensation and an apology, and containing a threat of legal proceedings. However, I am informed that well before the receipt of the letter, in mid-April, the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Subordinate Courts had already been in discussion on what could be a fair settlement sum after the Attorney-General had ascertained that an error was made. At the end of April, the Attorney-General's Chambers liaised with the Prisons and Subordinate Courts to meet up with Mr Dickson Tan to discuss a settlement offer. As he would be released on Home Detention Scheme on 17th May, the Attorney-General's Chambers felt that it would be better to meet him after he was placed on Home Detention Scheme. Prisons then sought to arrange a meeting for the parties to meet. The Attorney-General's Chambers confirmed the date of the meeting to be on 5th June and the meeting took place then. This confirmation, Sir, was given before the Attorney-General's Chambers received the letter from Mr Dickson Tan's mother.

**Col. 1005, 16th July 2007.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.07 pm

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

Objective

Commodity futures trading is currently regulated under the Commodity Trading Act (CTA) by IE Singapore, while financial futures trading is regulated by MAS under the Securities and Futures Act (SFA) and

the Financial Advisers Act (FAA). Accordingly, commodity futures and the associated markets, clearing facilities, brokers and advisers are regulated under the CTA while their equivalents in respect of financial futures are regulated under the SFA and FAA.

As markets converge and institutions participate in both financial and commodity futures markets, the presence of multiple regulators increases regulatory costs. To enhance Singapore's business environment and streamline regulations, we propose that legislative amendments be made to transfer regulatory oversight of commodity futures trading from IE Singapore under the CTA, to MAS under the SFA and FAA. The consolidation of the regulation of financial and commodity futures under a single regulator, the MAS, is a strategic step that will facilitate Singapore's growth as a futures trading hub. This would streamline licensing and compliance procedures. For example, firms broking both commodity futures and financial futures would only need to hold a single licence from MAS, as opposed to the current requirement of obtaining two separate licences from MAS and IE Singapore.

IE Singapore and MAS have consulted the public and industry players on the proposed transfer of regulatory oversight. The feedback received indicated support for MAS to be the single regulator for futures trading activities.

Legislative amendments required to effect the transfer

This Bill seeks to amend the CTA, SFA and FAA to effect the transfer of regulatory oversight of commodity futures, including the associated markets, clearing facilities, brokers and advisers, from IE Singapore under the CTA, to MAS under the SFA and the FAA. The key amendments include:

Removing all provisions in the CTA relating to commodity futures trading; and

Amending the definition of "commodity" in the SFA and introducing a definition of "commodity" in the FAA such that commodity futures contracts currently regulated under the CTA will be regulated under the SFA and FAA.

The Bill also makes a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act to clarify that members of commodity futures markets can continue to qualify for tax incentives after the transfer.

With these amendments, commodity futures, the associated markets, clearing facilities, brokers and advisers will come within the regulatory ambit of the SFA and the FAA. This will achieve the objective of having a single regulatory framework for commodity futures and financial futures contracts.

Transitional arrangements

The proposed changes will affect those entities and their representatives currently dealing in commodity futures. These include the Singapore Commodity Exchange Ltd (SICOM), SICOM's broking members and their representatives, as well as futures brokers and their representatives who have licences from both IE Singapore and MAS. Where appropriate, MAS will provide transitional arrangements to facilitate their smooth transfer from regulatory oversight under IE Singapore to MAS. To this end, the Bill includes consequential amendments to the SFA and the FAA that will empower MAS to prescribe transitional regulations for the transfer of oversight.

Regulatory status of over-the-counter commodity derivatives and spot commodity contracts

Under present legislation, IE Singapore also has regulatory oversight of over-the-

counter (OTC) commodity derivatives and spot commodity contracts under the CTA. These were added to the scope of the CTA in 2001 and a licensing framework was introduced, to keep out bucket shops that defraud the public. The intention was not, however, to impede legitimate dealing in OTC commodity derivatives and commodity spot broking. To this end, IE Singapore has granted exemptions from the licensing requirement to bona fide players operating in institutional markets. As the current regime continues to serve its purpose, we do not propose any changes to the regulatory framework for OTC commodity derivatives and spot commodity contracts under the revised CTA. We will continue to monitor market developments and ensure that our regulatory regime is kept relevant and effective.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments under the Commodity Trading (Amendment) Bill are necessary to effect the transfer of regulatory oversight of commodities futures from the CTA to the SFA and FAA. This will consolidate regulation of commodities and financial futures trading under MAS. As a result, there will be a more efficient and streamlined regulatory framework under which trading players can operate and conduct their futures trading activities in Singapore. This demonstrates the commitment of the Singapore Government to continually enhance the business operating environment in Singapore.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

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

Order for Second Reading read.

3.15 pm

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

Background

Like other countries, eye care in Singapore is provided by ophthalmologists, with auxiliary support from optometrists and opticians. Our ophthalmologists are highly trained and enjoy a good international reputation.

In our situation, unlike many other countries, we have left the practice of optometry and opticianry unregulated. This has been historical. But several years ago, the Health Ministry decided that we should bring the practice of optometry and opticianry under regulation and started to prepare the industry for it.

In 1994, we took the first major step when the Singapore Polytechnic launched a diploma course in optometry and certificate courses in ophthalmic dispensing. This was to provide the industry with well-trained optometrists and opticians to help raise the standard of eye care by these allied health professionals. Over the years, the Singapore Polytechnic has graduated about 600 optometrists and provided training for about 300 opticians. We now have an active market in such eye care practices with competitive prices.

In 1995, we took the second major step when the Contact Lens Practitioners

Act was introduced to regulate contact lens practice. This was a priority to ensure public safety by allowing only properly trained practitioners to fit and dispense contact lenses. We are now ready to take the third major step by bringing legislation to bear on the remaining practices of optometry and opticianry, which fall outside of the Contact Lens Practitioners Act. This is an important piece of legislation particularly because myopia is rather common in Singapore. Our prevalence rate for myopia is high at 40% among Chinese adult Singaporeans over 40 years old, as compared to, say, 15% among Australians and 27% among Americans in the same age group. The problem will grow as our population ages.

There are several reasons why we need to regulate the practice of optometry and opticianry. First, the public will then be better assured of high standards of primary eye care, refraction and optical aid dispensing. Second, practitioners will be required to maintain high standards in their professional practice through mandatory continuing professional education. Third, errant practitioners may be disciplined for, amongst other things, professional misconduct or negligence, or any improper act or conduct which brings disrepute to the profession, arising from a complaint brought by an aggrieved patient or client.

Our approach to regulation

The regulation of optometrists and opticians is, however, not straight-forward. In most other countries, there is a clear division of labour between optometrists and opticians, depending on their training. Optometrists are trained to perform refraction and basic eye examination procedures, such as examining eyeball pressure, visual field and retina.

On the other hand, opticians are trained to prepare, adjust and fit optical aids and perform other retail duties. However, in Singapore, there is much overlap between the practices of these two groups of eye care professionals, with opticians doing refraction and optometrists dispensing optical aids. As a result, our public has become accustomed to having both refraction and dispensing provided by the same optical service provider rather than being served by separate providers, as is the case in many other countries.

In developing our regulatory framework, our principal objective is to ensure that optometry and opticianry services are safe for our public. While we want to regulate the optometrists and opticians as two distinct professions, we want also to take into account market realities and to avoid unnecessary disruption to the way that the public uses the services of these professionals. Our legislation will therefore enable opticians to continue to perform refraction provided that they are properly trained. But we propose to exclude children under 8 from the persons whom an optician may refract. Young children are more difficult to refract and may have eye anomalies that opticians are not trained to detect. With our legislation, refraction services for such young children will require the higher skills of an optometrist. In addition, optometrists will be formally recognised for their ability to perform basic eye examination procedures and diagnose certain eye problems.

We are mindful that regulation may cause some disruption to the practices of some existing optometrists and opticians, and we seek to minimise this as far as possible. Some opticians currently only perform dispensing and have no intention to learn refraction. We will register such opticians to perform only dispensing so as to allow them to continue their practice. Nonetheless, there is a competing need to ensure that opticians attain a reasonable level of competence. To achieve this

balance, existing opticians will be registered under the Act according to their experience, qualifications and competence. Those who do not satisfy certain minimum requirements will be required to undergo upgrading courses in order to qualify for registration.

Based on this approach, we have drafted the Optometrists and Opticians Bill which is now before this House.

Main features of Bill

Let me now go through the main features of this Bill. First, we have defined the acts constituting optometry and opticianry in the Schedule. Only persons who are registered as optometrists or opticians are allowed to perform the respective activities listed in the Schedule. However, exemptions will be made in subsidiary legislation to allow health professionals, such as medical practitioners and orthoptists, to continue performing eye examination procedures which are part of their scopes of practice.

Part II of the Bill establishes the Optometrists and Opticians Board. The Board will be represented by members from the optometry, opticianry and ophthalmology professions, public officers from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education as well as some lay-persons. The main functions of the Board are to approve or reject applications for registration, accredit courses in optometry and opticianry, and determine guidelines for the professional conduct and practice of optometrists and opticians.

Part III sets out the role of the Registrar in maintaining the registers of optometrists and opticians, and the powers of the Board to take disciplinary action against registered optometrists or opticians, including the cancellation or suspension of the registration of such

persons, and the imposition of monetary penalties. It also provides for a right for any person aggrieved by the decision of the Board to appeal to the High Court. Part III also requires optometrists and opticians to apply for practising certificates, which will be made renewable, subject to mandatory continuing professional education to be specified in subsidiary legislation. This is to ensure that the practitioners continue to maintain a high level of competence so as to provide quality and safe primary eye care to the public.

Part IV provides for offences in regard to the unlawful engagement in optometry and opticianry and fraudulent registration. A person who practises optometry or opticianry without registration or a valid practising certificate will be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $25,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months for a first offence, and a fine not exceeding $50,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months for subsequent offences. Under clause 29, the Board may also compound any offence prescribed as a compoundable offence under the Act.

Part V, clause 31, allows for the appointment of Inspectors to investigate into offences under the Act, and complaints against registered optometrists and opticians.

Finally, under Part VI, clause 39, the Contact Lens Practitioners Act will be repealed.

Implementation

Let me now touch on implementation. To minimise the impact of regulation on contact lens practitioners licensed under the current Contact Lens Practitioners Act, licensed practitioners will be automatically registered as opticians and

granted practising certificates in respect of opticianry when the Act comes into operation. Furthermore, contact lens practitioners with the appropriate qualifications and experience may also apply to be registered as optometrists.

For optometrists, those with recognised qualifications and at least one year of optometry experience will be fully registered. Optometrists with less than one year of experience will be provisionally registered, and will have to work under supervision for one year before they become fully registered.

For opticians, those with work experience of at least five years will be fully registered as opticians if they pass a competency test. Those with between two and five years of experience will need to undergo a part-time modular upgrading course. There may be some opticians who do not intend to do any refraction but wish to do only dispensing; they will need to undergo a competency test or failing which, an upgrading programme but without the refraction component. In this way, we will ensure that they can uphold safe standards in dispensing.

Opticians with less than two years' experience and all new entrants to the profession will need to attend a certificate course in opticianry in order to qualify for registration. Singapore Polytechnic has organised a course to cater to these opticians. The course can be completed between nine and 24 months, depending on the frequency of attending the modules.

Further details of the registration of optometrists and opticians will be spelt out in subsidiary legislation to be enacted at a later date. My Ministry will be reaching out to existing optometrists and opticians through the media, seminars and other efforts to inform the practitioners on

the procedure for registration, including details on the competency tests and upgrading courses that are necessary for registration.

In preparing this Bill, the Ministry has consulted persons who will be affected by this new legislation and, in particular, the key representative groups of the professions, such as the Singapore Optometric Association, the Singapore Opticianry Practitioners and the Singapore Polytechnic Optometry Centre. These stakeholders have been supportive of the Bill. We will continue to consult them as we develop the subsidiary legislation.

In conclusion, we are ready now to regulate the practice of optometry and opticianry. The existing Contact Lens Practitioners Act has laid the ground for us to take this step, and years of training optometrists and opticians have created a sufficiently competitive market to support this move. I seek the House's support for this Bill to ensure that the public continues to enjoy high standards of eye care, in relation to the practice in optometry and opticianry in Singapore.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.28 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.

This Bill to regulate the practice of optometry and opticianry in Singapore is necessary and is long overdue. Singapore has one of the highest incidences of myopia in the world. A local study shows that by age seven, about 28% of children are myopic. And as the Minister of State has pointed out, 40% of Chinese adults above the age of 40 years suffer from myopia, which is a high prevalence rate for our adult population. Yet, the practice of optometry and opticianry has long

remained unregulated, leaving the public to make important decisions about their eyesight without any legal control.

The situation is vastly different in many developed countries, such as the US, Canada, UK and Australia, which have long regulated the practice of optometry and opticianry in order to protect the public. But it is better late than never and I strongly welcome this Bill, which I hope will bring about the kind of improvement in standards that we have seen in the developed countries.

Under the Bill, optometrists and opticians will now have to be registered, and they will also have to continuously upgrade their skills and capabilities to keep pace with new developments, thus ensuring that they maintain high standards of professionalism. In this way, the public can expect to have better standards of eye care, and optometrists and opticians will in turn be better recognised as healthcare professionals.

In Singapore, there is not enough recognition of optometry and opticianry as a profession, let alone as part of healthcare profession. Often, optometrists and opticians are regarded as merely retailers of eye care products. Hopefully, this Bill

will help to enhance the image of our optometrists and opticians and generate a better understanding of their role in helping Singaporeans to improve their eye health.

The importance of this Bill and the need for standards to improve cannot be overemphasised. Years ago, when I needed a new pair of glasses, I picked up one from an optician. Unfortunately for me, the optician was poorly trained and ill-equipped to do a proper eye examination before prescribing the glasses. As a result, I had to endure a few months of terrible headaches which I did not realise was due to the poorly-fitted prescribed glasses until I went for a

proper eye check and was prescribed the correct glasses. I learned a painful lesson, but I am glad that there was no lasting damage. But we can never tell how many more people could have experienced the same problem and what is the extent of the damage to their health.

Sir, I would like to raise three issues with regard to this Bill.

First, in many developed countries, as the Minister of State had correctly pointed out, a distinction is maintained between the role of optometrists and opticians. In a nutshell, these countries do not allow opticians to do refraction, that is, basic eye examination procedures such as examining eyeball pressure, visual field and retina. The Minister of State has also explained that the reason why there is no such distinction under the current Bill and opticians can continue to perform refraction, which they are currently doing, is because of the considerable overlap in the practice of optometry and opticianry in Singapore. And the Ministry does not want to disrupt the way the public uses the services of these professionals. I am not sure that this is a sufficient ground for continuing with the status quo. The primary consideration should be what is in the interest of the public and whether it is in their interest to continue to allow opticians to do refraction. A lot also depends on the kind of training that opticians undergo which we heard from the Minister of State will now be enhanced. But the question remains whether this is sufficient and extensive enough for them to do refraction, considering that some countries, like Australia and the US, even require a degree before someone can practise optometry.

A trained optometrist doing a comprehensive eye examination will not only be able to evaluate a person's vision for spectacles and contact lens, but the optometrist can also check the person's eye health through screening for eye

diseases such as glaucoma, cataracts, lid disorders, conjunctivitis and retinal disorders. As we have one of the highest rates of myopia in the world, which has just been confirmed by the Minister of State, a rapidly ageing population and an estimated one million people suffering from chronic illnesses, such as diabetes, hypertension, strokes and other chronic illnesses, obviously proper checks on eye health are important to prevent blindness and other debilitating eye disorders that will cost more to the Government and the individual to correct later on. For example, one optometrist shared with me about a 50-year-old man who wanted to get a pair of spectacles. The man claimed that he was in good health and not on any medication. However, when the optometrist did an internal eye examination, he noticed that there was bleeding in his retina. The optometrist referred him to an ophthalmologist who subsequently diagnosed diabetic retinopathy. The patient was an undiagnosed diabetic. His vision and life were saved because of a proper eye examination.

I am aware that opticians are already doing refraction and perhaps the Ministry's concern could be that we do not have enough optometrists today to separate the two functions. There may also be the concern about how this would impact on the livelihood of existing opticians. These are valid and practical concerns. One way to address these concerns is to allow existing opticians to continue to perform refraction and impose restrictions only on the new entrants to opticianry. This is also the suggestion, I believe, that has been made by the Singapore Optometrist Association which, I understand, has also voiced some concerns on this issue. I hope that the Ministry of Health could give us a better insight on why it decides to maintain the status quo and not take this opportunity, particularly considering the critical posi-

tion that we are in - myopia, ageing and the number of chronic illness are very high - to upgrade and impose higher standards by ensuring that gradually, over time, refraction is only done by trained and competent optometrists.

My second point, Sir, is to ask how this Bill is going to be enforced once it becomes law. The Bill provides for the appointment of inspectors to ensure that the law is complied with and only registered optometrists and opticians can do eye examinations and prescribe glasses. Once registered, the Optometrists and Opticians Board could ensure that they go for continuing education before they will continue to be issued with the licence to practise, an important point to ensure that our optometrists and opticians continue to maintain high standards. And I want to really applaud the Ministry of Health as I think this is a very important and positive development. However, Sir, the real challenge lies in the implementation.

I note that since 1996, we have had the Contact Lens Practitioners Act to regulate the contact lens practice, and to ensure that only properly trained practitioners are allowed to fit and dispense contact lens. Of course, this Act will now be subsumed under this Optometrists and Opticians Act. But, today, we can still find instances of contact lens being dispensed by untrained people in optical shops. I would, therefore, like to ask the Ministry of Health how it intends to enforce this Act, as there are now about 800 optical retail outlets in Singapore, a large number that would require a large enforcement machinery for this Bill to be properly enforced once it becomes law. A much wider issue, of course, is the sense of responsibility of businesses involved in this trade that they are not just selling a product, but a health accessory which, if badly fitted, can have a tremendous impact on the health of the user. But if this sense of responsibility is not yet

deeply ingrained, then we do need an effective enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance and to improve standards of eye care in Singapore.

My third point is on the need to educate the public. There is generally a low level of awareness in Singapore about the importance of eye health and ensuring regular and proper eye checks. With more Singaporeans suffering from chronic diseases and with a rapidly ageing population, compounded by the onslaught of new technology such as the Internet and computer games, it is important for people, particularly those who are at risk, to have regular eye checks and to understand the importance of maintaining proper eye care. In this regard, I note that the Singapore Eye Research Institute, together with the NUS, has undertaken a study to examine the cause of the high myopia rates among infants and youngsters in Singapore. This is, indeed, an important move which, hopefully, could shed more light on why we have become a country with one of the highest number of myopics in the world and what other measures we can put in place to prevent a further deterioration of public health in this area. I certainly hope that more researches of this nature could be done.

I would like to suggest, Sir, that we devote more resources and efforts to educate the public on the importance of regular eye checks and proper eye care, particularly among the young, in order to prevent myopia or to arrest the problem more effectively. There could be more concerted programmes in schools targeted at children and programmes in the HDB heartlands targeted at adults, particularly the elderly and those at risk. The elderly is, of course, a creeping problem now and I think the need for eye care health should also be addressed. A more pervasive programme on the proper use of computers at work would also be beneficial, particularly for workers who have to spend a lot of time doing

computer work. I do urge the Ministry to look into this and work with our schools, grassroots bodies, employers, workers and other relevant organisations to have a more effective public health outreach programme. On this note, Sir, I think this is a very important and good Bill, and I fully support it.

3.39 pm

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Optometrists and Opticians Bill.

Vision is arguably one of the most important and valued of our human faculties. It is important for learning, working, moving about and enjoying human endeavours. In Singapore, many patients turn to optometrists and opticians whenever they experience visual problems. Optometrists and opticians can therefore play an important role as primary eyecare providers.

Myopia is one of the most common eye conditions in Singapore and is also one of the most common causes of poor vision. Poor vision from myopia affects about 30% of our primary one students and about 65% of our primary six students. Interestingly, Singapore has the dubious honour of having one of the highest myopia incidences in the world. In fact, we are also known as the myopia capital of the world. The problem of myopia is also affecting Singaporeans at a much younger age. This "myopia epidemic" has caused much concern and attention nationally as sub-optimally managed myopia and severe myopia can result in amblyopia or lazy eyes and potentially blinding complications respectively.

With the decreasing total fertility rate and the rapidly ageing population in Singapore, one in five Singaporeans will be aged 65 and above by the year 2030.

The prevalence of chronic systemic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus and hypertension and eye conditions such as glaucoma, aged-related macular degeneration and cataracts, will see a significant rise with the increasing ageing population. It is envisaged that the role of primary eye care providers is even more important as early detection and management of these eye conditions will result in better visual prognosis.

Unlike most developed countries, Singapore currently does not regulate its optometrists and opticians, other than those involved in the practice of contact lens fitting and dispensing. In most developed countries, like Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, United Kingdom and the United States, the practice of optometry and opticianry is tightly regulated. In these countries, only those with the appropriate qualifications can register and practise as optometrists and opticians. In general, optometrists function as primary eyecare providers, performing refraction, eye screening and basic eyecare while opticians dispense optical aids. Errant practitioners can be disciplined by the respective regulatory agencies. However, this is not so in Singapore currently.

Traditionally, practitioners learn their role through apprenticeships and only a small number was trained overseas. The situation has started to change in the 1990s when Singapore Polytechnic started conducting courses in optometry. It is prudent to maintain high standards in the optometry and opticianry profession as many people turn to them whenever they have visual problems, commonly blurring of vision. Improper optometry and opticianry practices can pose a health risk to the public. Hence, although the intent and purpose of this Bill has been mooted for sometime now, it is timely and necessary.

Up until now, the optometry and opticianry industry is a low entry barrier industry. It requires little or no formal training for one to set up a practice in the private sector. Few or almost nobody demand to see the qualification of the optometrists and opticians that they visit.

The Bill provides for the setting of a proper footing for the primary eyecare industry. It will definitely raise the standard of primary eyecare providers through the requirement of formal training for the optometrists and opticians. This is an important step in the right direction. The registration of optometrists and opticians would bring the industry practice in line with other healthcare professionals. Mandating continued professional education as a prerequisite for subsequent renewal of the practising certificates is important as such a requirement will ensure that these primary eyecare providers keep up to date with new developments in their fields and also to maintain a high level of competency so as to provide quality and safe primary eyecare to the public.

Sir, I strongly support Part II of the Bill which calls for the establishment of the Optometrists and Opticians Board. With the setting up of the Optometrists and Opticians Board, under the new statutory regulatory framework, professional guidelines, including the training requirements for admission to the register, accreditation of courses and disciplinary actions against errant practitioners will be set. This would go towards raising the optometrists and opticians' professional standards and also instill a higher level of patients' confidence. In addition, in order to protect the interest of Singaporeans, I would like to suggest the imposition of provisional registration for foreigners or locals with overseas training should they want to practise in Singapore. This would allow the Board to assess the competency level of these practitioners before they receive

their full registration. This practice is similar to those of other professional healthcare providers, like doctors and dentists.

The Schedule sets out the acts or activities contributing to the practices of opticianry and optometry. However, there is ambiguity in Part II of the Schedule on whether

the use of pharmaceutical eyedrops is permitted in the practice of optometry. Proper refraction of very young children requires the use of cycloplegic eyedrops such as mydriacyl, cyclopentolate and atropine. Such pharmaceutical eyedrops can give rise to local as well as systemic side effects or adverse reactions, and therefore must only be used with proper medical supervision and guidance.

Sir, while the Bill has many positive elements and is worth supporting, it is indeed like a duck floating in a pond. While we see the duck floating gracefully, we need to also be conscious of the duck's struggle below the water. The introduction of the Bill to regulate the industry would also cause disruption to the existing primary eyecare practitioners. The Ministry should strive to be as fair and as reasonable as possible in managing the current group of primary eyecare practitioners. It is estimated that, amongst these existing practitioners, about 40% are without any formal training. Requiring them to go for formal training, passing the test and then be registered with the new Board seems to be the right and logical thing to do. However, there are quite a sizeable number of them with decent on-the-job training and many years of experience, but may lack the linguistic capability to pass the necessary qualifying examinations for registration. They may therefore unwittingly be forced out of the industry altogether and lose their only livelihood. This would be unfair and very unfortunate.

Lastly, one of the perennial concerns of regulating any industry is the added cost as a result of compliance. I urge the Ministry to closely monitor the situation with the implementation of this Bill and to reassure the public that the Bill would not lead to spiralling of costs in the primary eyecare.

Sir, on that note, I support the Bill.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.42 pmuntil 4.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm

Debate resumed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the eyecare industry is undergoing rapid development and changes. With our open and global market economy, the industry will see more partnerships, joint ventures, international patrons and also cross border collaboration and interaction. One very recent example of this would be NeuroVision, a Singapore-based eyecare specialist partnership with Essilor International, a world leader in optical products. With more such opportunities, we have to be prepared and adapt as well as evolve. Our standards have to be on par with the rest of the First World.

On 11th October 1953, a group of dispensing opticians met in Kentucky, USA, and the elected office bearers formed the society of dispensing opticians with a membership fee of only US$10 each. They formed it because, and I

quote, "to promote increased efficiency and higher qualifications of dispensing opticians by state law providing licences only to properly qualified persons." That was in 1953. We are now in 2007. It is more than half a century, and it is indeed time for regulation.

Economic theory suggests that in the absence of regulation, certain health personnel may provide lower quality service at higher quality prices to uninformed consumers. Thus, regulation will help to improve services and protect consumers and Singaporeans are indeed high consumers of eye services and products. What with four out of five young adults being myopic before the age of 21 years, where one-fifth of our young myopics have a high degree of myopia being of greater than 600 degrees and where the current trend shows a higher rate of myopia starting at the pre-school levels. Regulation will certainly set the minimum standards of education, qualification and experience. It would also help to specify permissible boundaries of practice as there is frequent overlap in the job description of the optometrists and the opticians.

Regulation will help enhance professionalism as well. Professional ethics must be adhered to strictly. And with this, there must be a formalised programme of continuing professional development to help continuous enhancement of technical and practical proficiencies. This would require an appointed Secretariat working with the proposed Board to set minimum standards and required hours of attendances. For those in the profession, who are specialised or sub-specialised, there may have to be a separate requirement for that as well. And I note the details given by the MOS on this in his earlier speech.

An example for us to consider would be, in Hong Kong, the register of

optometrists is divided into two different parts. Part I is where the optometrist who is registered under this Part can practise without any restriction. And for Part II, certain stipulated restrictions are there but Part II registered optometrist can be registered as Part I, if he fulfils certain training and experiential requirements. Documentation and checking system, preferably electronic, would also be required for ourselves.

There was a study in 1986 in the district of Columbia and it found that increasing the restrictiveness of optometrist's licensing examination had a positive and statistically significant impact on the price of eye examination and eye glasses but need not have a significant impact on the quality of eye examination measured by the thoroughness of the examination. We hope that the prices will certainly not be too much affected by the regulation that we are setting upon.

The setting up of the Optometrists and Opticians Board is essential and indeed very timely. However, I would suggest dialogues and sessions to meet up and reach out to those affected, to gather feedback and hear their inputs before formalisation. Perhaps, a team can be set up to randomly visit some of these existing optical and eyecare shops to assist with relevant explanation, get feedback and checks through engagement of these personnel.

And, as we have heard, there are over 800 retail shops dealing with eyecare products and only about 40% have qualified personnel. That is a very low number indeed.

I note with delight that there will at least be one person on the proposed Board who will not be a doctor, optician or optometrist, and this will usually be from the consumer. This is a positive step for the consumer to give feedback and also sit on the Board.

I am also glad to hear that there will be allowance for the Board to set up an appropriate committee, when necessary, for special duties and projects. This is relevant, as those with valuable skills and inputs must be invited to come forward and contribute. Examples would be physicians, legal representatives and also consumers when necessary. The Board may also want to consider mandating display of certification. This is because with the current status, there are eyecare product shops a dime a dozen in most malls and also in heartland areas. Thus, for the public to know that the premises are registered and recognised, there must be some form of identification which the public can identify. As we know, there are many so-called opticians and optical shops that are available widely in Singapore, and some of them are actually very old shops that have been passed down from generation to generation where many of the people who run these shops are performing refraction and also optical procedures are not highly qualified and do not have formal education. So we may have to give them a bit of time to adjust to this new regulation as well.

The Board will also have to decide on the duration of validity for the certification of practice. Usually, for most other professions, this is stipulated at about two to three years, and there is a reason for that. This is because, beyond that, usually you would need to be upgraded and updated in terms of information. So, that is something for us to consider as well.

Currently, the line between an optometrist and ophthalmologist with respect to detecting and treating eye diseases is also blurring. In places without therapeutic pharmaceutical agent law for optometrist, such as in Singapore, they must still refer patients to ophthalmologists for treatment where eye diseases are being detected or are present. With respect to contact lens

dispensing, too, there is a need to define the job scope further for clarity.

One more area for the Board to consider will be that of the recruitment of foreign-trained optometrists and opticians. As we see more foreigners in our midst, we must have an allowance for their recruitment as well. What will be the policy in terms of recognition of foreign certification or their entry criteria for a job in Singapore? Let me share with you an example from country X, where the professional and ethical standards for practice states:

"Foreign reciprocity: No foreigner shall be admitted to the Optometric Board Examinations unless he proves in a manner prescribed by the rules of court the country of which he is a citizen, subject or national either admits our citizens to the practice of optometry without restriction or allows them to practise after an examination on terms of absolute or strict equality with citizens, subjects and nationals of the said country."

We may not be taking a course along these lines but it is certainly something for us to consider.

On the issue of complaints, I hope there can be some design to facilitate the resolution of complaints at the lowest and most appropriate level possible and also to avoid duplication of complaint resolution processes. There must, however, be some flexibility in handling the complaints system. Options may include taking no action at all, a decision that an action is unnecessary or inappropriate, referral to an advocate or a provider for resolution, or calling a mediation conference without a need for formal investigations. Investigations will be reserved for more serious cases, certainly.

Finally, of course, the stiffer penalties that are stipulated in these current guidelines are something which hopefully will serve as a deterrent.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

4.20 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, first, I would like to declare my interest as an eyecare professional, an ophthalmologist.

Singapore has one of the highest myopia rates in the world and an ageing population, which has been alluded to by my parliamentary colleagues earlier. This has resulted in an ever-increasing demand for quality vision correction, especially for myopia and presbyopia. The optometrists, opticians and ophthalmologists are the main eyecare providers to cater for vision correction and eye health provision for the entire population and the foreigners who are staying here. The optometrists and opticians form the primary eyecare layer, while the ophthalmologists provide the secondary and tertiary eyecare which is mainly interventional, be it medical or surgical. In this respect, the three eyecare providers work together to form a seamless eyecare continuum to provide the best eyecare possible.

The introduction of the Optometrists and Opticians Bill will provide the legal framework to recognise our optician and optometrist colleagues as professionals, an equal partner in doing their job. In doing so, the public will benefit with the assurance of a standard of professional care by the opticians and optometrists.

I have three concerns regarding this particular Bill, two of which have been mentioned by earlier speakers as well.

Will the older members of the trade be given ample time and opportunities to get the necessary certification? As the Ministry has dealt with the traditional Chinese medicine registration, I am

confident that that experience will be well used in this case as well. Some of the older opticians learned their trade through apprenticeship over many years. Although they are experienced, they lack the necessary qualifications. I hope the new Board formed will take this into consideration and provide them with ample time, opportunities and training to allow them to register so they can continue their practice but without compromise on the standard of care.

Will the registration and recertification process result in an increase in the cost of eyecare to consumers? I think the likely answer is, yes. With this Bill, the optometrists and opticians will be licensed and they will need regular recertification to ensure currency of their knowledge and skills. While all these will ensure quality eyecare, they also mean an increase in cost. I hope the new Board will keep registration, training and recertification costs to a minimum, so that the increase in eyecare cost for consumers will be minimised.

This is my chief concern - will this Bill result in an unhealthy competition and a division in the eyecare sector similar to what is seen in some states in the USA? I would like to highlight the dangers that this Bill may be divisive to the eyecare industry. I was in America about two years ago for the American Association of Ophthalmologists' (AAO) meeting. This is a very big annual meeting attended by about 20,000 ophthalmologists and, at that particular meeting, there is a standard clause there. They deny the attendance of all their instruction courses as well as lectures by any optician and optometrist. This is because some of the opticians and optometrists have overstepped their clinical competence and performed ophthalmic intervention procedures, including surgical procedures, on their clients. The optometrists have lobbied through their individual state legislature to allow them

to perform ophthalmic surgery, such as Lasik, using the training certificate issued by AAO as proof of proper training. Such practice, as we know, is unethical and is detrimental to the standard of eyecare for the public. I hope the new Optometrists and Opticians Board will ensure and maintain the highest standard of optometry and opticianry care for the public. There is definitely a need for close continuous consultation between the new Board and the Chapter of Ophthalmologists in the Singapore Academy of Medicine to ensure close collaboration between all eyecare providers.

I am glad to note that at least, on the Board, one of them is an ophthalmologist. In order to ensure that there is close collaboration and consultation, may I suggest that this particular ophthalmologist appointed to the new Optometrists and Opticians Board could perhaps be a board member of the Chapter of Ophthalmologists in the Singapore Academy of Medicine. With that arrangement, I hope the new Optometrists and Opticians Board will work very closely with the Chapter of Ophthalmologists to provide the best eyecare to the public. I hope that in this way they will really work together and see eye-to-eye and not work against one another, an eye-for-an-eye. In terms of providing eyecare, I do agree to some point with Mdm Halimah Yacob in the sense that opticians should be provided some leeway, but I do not agree that they should not be allowed to do refraction. I think it is a matter of training. With proper training, I think the optician should be allowed to do refraction. The key thing is for the new Board to decide and to make sure that their training is adequate to ensure that the opticians are able to meet the mark of standards to provide the best eyecare possible.

The second portion that I wanted to bring up is what Dr Lam brought up

regarding the use of eyedrops. I think it is a great concern. To some of our ophthalmologist colleagues, they may see the use of eyedrops becoming an intervention. However, in performing their duties in eye examination, sometimes these eyedrops may be necessary. There are certainly dangers to the use of these eyedrops because there are side effects. I think, with proper training and certification, the optometrists may be allowed to use, but that I would leave it to the Board to decide, as well as in close consultation with the Chapter of Ophthalmologists.

With this Bill, optometry and opticianry in Singapore will no longer be just an optical trade, but a profession - a profession that has a role in looking after the vision health of the entire population and beyond. I sincerely look forward to an exciting new era in eyecare in Singapore with optimism and enthusiasm.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

4.26 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Optometrists and Opticians Bill. Please allow me to start with these facts as a layman.

Myopia is the most common eye problem among children in Singapore. One in four seven-year-olds in Singapore is myopic, compared to about one in a hundred in Australia. Every other 12-year-old Singaporean suffers from myopia. Over 80% of our 18-year-olds are shortsighted. These figures rank the country as having one of the highest rates of myopia in the world. If poorly treated, this medical condition can lead to irrecoverable loss in vision or, worse still, sometimes blindness.

With such an alarming rate of myopia in the country, it is worrying to know that

apart from the Contact Lens Practitioners Act of 1985, the eyecare industry is currently self-regulated. While we have first-class research and education expertise at the Singapore National Centre, a comprehensive cost-effective primary care structure is lacking. For instance, optometry, as a profession, is not really recognised. Practically, anyone can set up an optical shop, do a so-called eye test and issue prescription spectacles. In these cases, without the proper qualification and training, myopia and common eye diseases in children and adults will go undetected, poorly treated and, eventually, could lead to irrecoverable loss in vision.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, we must realise that people who visit the optical shops are not merely "customers" seeking cool shades. They are actually patients seeking a diagnosis and treatment of visual deficiencies and eye health from someone whom they perceive as an "eyecare professional". Unfortunately, under the current circumstances, this might not necessarily be the case. Sometimes, our vision is blurred by the appearances, especially when we enter a shop and are greeted by people in a crisp white coat and a shiny nametag. While there are opticians or optometrists who are truly qualified out there, there are also some who are merely "optical illusionists".

In order to enhance our capacity for competent and cost-effective eyecare, the Ministry of Health has rightly introduced a statutory regulatory framework to regulate the practice of optometry and opticianry in Singapore.

In essence, the general public has a lot to benefit from the proposed changes. I am confident, Madam, that the new regulation will raise the overall standard of eyecare by ensuring a certain level of competence, standards of practice and

accountability by a certified eyecare professional.

When a patient goes to see an optician or optometrist, he can be assured that the person he meets is a properly qualified, trained and recognised optometrist or optician. The patient will also know that the skills and knowledge of these practitioners are continually kept up-to-date with the latest developments in their field through a systematic professional education programme.

The effectiveness of regulating the eyecare industry can be seen in many developed countries, such as the US, UK and Australia, who already have similar legislation in place. In most cases, statutory regulation has proven to improve the quality of eyecare for the patients and also develop experts and professionals in the practice of optometry. This also leads to an expanded scope of practice and career development.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, qualified optometrists and opticians have an important role to play in patient education. Optometrists who are academically qualified are commonly regarded as the general practitioners of eyecare. For example, in the United States, Canada and the Philippines, very often, the practising optometrists are highly qualified and he carries the title of "Dr of Optometry" as he provides professional primary eyecare. And, at times, the combined assessment by an eyecare professional together with the relevant medical specialists can lead to early detection of systemic manifestations such as anemia, diabetes, hypertension, neurological problems such as tumours and minor strokes, not to mention many primary eye conditions. For maximum effectiveness, the Government needs to embark on a continuous public education programme to help patients better understand the field of optometry. Singaporeans need to see the differences

between opticians and optometrists and the capabilities of each professional. Only then can members of the public help to weed out the errant practitioners. Before seeking treatment, patients should approach their practitioners eyeball-to-eyeball and demand that they provide their qualifications and relevant certifications.

I mentioned earlier that myopia is the most common eye problem amongst children in Singapore. I believe that we are all very concerned with this trend. I am also encouraged to see that in the 2007 Budget, $86 million has been set aside for health education and promotion initiatives including the National Myopia Prevention Programme. I have been following the National Myopia Prevention Programme organised by the Health Promotion Board since it started in 2001 and would like to enquire on the public response and effectiveness of the programme. Are we doing enough to raise awareness on myopia amongst the students and parents? Can we include in the proposed legislation a programme with all the eyecare professionals to support the national programme, especially in patient education?

Besides the problem of myopia in our younger population, we also face the problem of blindness in the young. Could we also enlist the support from these eyecare professionals to screen for conditions such as glaucoma, cataracts, age-related macular degeneration and refractive errors which can affect the vision of the elderly? While patients with refractive errors can be treated by the optometrists, those found to have age-related macular degeneration, which is a leading cause of blindness in developed world, or glaucoma or cataracts, should be referred to the ophthalmologists for proper treatment. If left untreated, the patients may be unaware of its seriousness and treatment may no longer be effective.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the introduction of this Bill is both timely and necessary. I strongly believe that the proposed framework will benefit both patients and the profession. Patients can be assured of access to eyecare that is affordable and of high standards whilst practitioners will be accorded their deserved professional development, recognition and protection.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

4.33 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, first, I thank the Members who have spoken - Mdm Halimah, Dr Fatimah Lateef, Dr Lam Pin Min, Dr Lim Wee Kiak as well as Mr Zainudin Nordin for their very constructive views and for their strong support for this Bill.

I am very happy that we all agree and see very clearly the key intentions of this Bill which are that eyecare is a very important part of well-being and, as a country, we must do our utmost to safeguard and promote it and that optometrists and opticians play an integral and important role in this entire care spectrum. So the regulation of these two professions, properly done, will enhance the national objectives. What are these objectives?

It would be that we want our population to have access to quality, high standard and safe eyecare at prices that are affordable, and doing so in a way that takes into account the market realities, without compromising safety and standards, to move forward with minimum disruptions.

I have grouped some of the comments by the Members into several parts and I will take them in turn now. Mdm Halimah was of the opinion that we adopt the situation in many other countries where

you draw a clear line in the area of refraction - let the optometrists do the refraction and do not let the opticians do it, because it is something that is specialised. Some of the other Members have mentioned that we ought to take into account the fact that there are already opticians in Singapore who have been doing refraction adequately, and for years.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak has also pointed out to us that it is not a question of who gets to do it but whether or not the person who is doing it is competent to do it. And on this point, I agree with him, namely, it is a question of safety and standards. So, therefore, in this process of regulating, what we are going for is not to say that whoever is an optician and decides to do refraction, that he can just carry on and do it, but that there will be a competency test. And those who want to do refraction as opticians will have to pass this test. And if they pass, they will be certified that they meet the standards and then they can do so safely for their customers. And if they do not pass, then they go through an upgrading programme in order to make sure that they are competent before they are certified to practise. Then, for opticians who do not want to practise refraction - they just want to do dispensing - they will be certified to do dispensing. In that way, we separate between the groups of opticians and make sure that only those who are competent and certified to do refraction do refraction.

Mdm Halimah also asked how we intend to go about enforcing this Bill once it is passed. I think, as in all legislation, enforcement is key in order for it to be credible. Yes, there are many hundreds of optical shops out there and it will not be possible to station a checker or an inspector in every shop all the time to ensure that nothing goes wrong. But the

same could be said of any other kind of business. In the end, it would be through a combination of opening up the channels for feedback, collecting information and intelligence of where sub-standard service, incompetent service or unlawful servicing might be going on as well as through regular and surprise inspections, and taking to task those who have been found to be in breach of the regulations. Through this combination of efforts, I think we can send a very strong signal to the industry that, on the one hand, we provide upgrading paths as we want to ensure standards and, on the other hand, that those who do not comply with the regulations would have to face the music. By doing so, we would make sure that nobody in this industry goes off with the wrong impression that they can continue in any way to remain unprofessional and get by with it and, in a way, cheat the customer.

I must also say that industry associations can play a very important role here. These associations have members who are opticians or optometrists and it is in their professional interest that they encourage their members to comply fully with those regulations as well as to take full advantage of all upgrading opportunities.

Dr Fatimah raised the point that even as we enforce and there may be complaints, the flipside of it is how we resolve these complaints without making the process too cumbersome. If they are the simple ones, can they not be resolved as simply as possible at the lowest possible level? I think that is a good suggestion. We have to see it in the context of the entire mechanism of dealing with these complaints and investigations, to grade the different types of complaints. Those that are suitable for resolution at the lowest level, the simplest possible level, should be so resolved. But, at the same time, I think it should also be very clear to people that if there is

wrongdoing, it will be fully investigated and there are regulations to provide for that.

On the question of public education, including educating the public to go for regular eye screening and so on, we completely agree, and this is something that we have to step up and maintain our efforts simply because good vision is very important to our population.

On the point of whether regulation would drive up business cost, we will put it this way. Obviously, if you do not have to comply with anything compared to if you have to comply with something, a certain amount of attention has now to be paid. As far as the Optometrists and Opticians Board (OOB) is concerned, I am very sure that it will not be in its interest nor will it be its intention to drive this cost up unnecessarily. I would say that it will regulate only as necessary and not make that an issue that would hamper the practitioners and, ultimately, have the cost passed on to customers and undermine one of the fundamental objectives, which is affordability. So it is a question of balancing. But the intention must be to keep it to the minimum.

On the question of those practitioners, especially the opticians who have been doing so for many years but who may lack the language abilities or the formal education, under the implementation process, the idea is that for those with more than five years' experience, they will be put through a competency test. It is a practical test, so they are not placed at a disadvantage if, for example, they cannot speak English. And if they have experience and they know how to do it, that test will reveal their competency and they will be certified for it. Even for those who do not pass it the first time, there will be another attempt and there will be a course for those who have to go through upgrading. So I want to assure the House that every effort will be made to enable people with the competence to be so

certified but they must demonstrate that competence.

On the question of the respective roles and the synergies that can come out of the three groups - the ophthalmologists, optometrists and opticians, which Dr Lim Wee Kiak brought up - if we do it properly, we can indeed derive those synergies that he talked about and that must indeed be our aim. I am very sure that the OOB, in its establishment, will make that a priority. It will be aided by the fact that its composition would have representatives from all three groups and more. And Dr Lim Wee Kiak's suggestion that a particular nominee comes from the Chapter of Ophthalmologists is something that the OOB can take into account.

There were inputs from Dr Fatimah as well as Dr Lam Pin Min on what we can do with regard to the conditional registration of foreign practitioners. Again, I thank them for their inputs and we will take this into consideration in drawing up the regulations.

On the specialist eyedrops, which is that line between the optometrist and the ophthalmologist, I think the general response will be the same as that for refraction, which is between the opticians and optometrists which is that, ultimately, it is the science of it, the competence of it, that safety is of primary concern, and we will make sure that in regulating this, we will not subject our population to risks that they ought not be exposed to.

There is a suggestion on the display of certificates so that a member of public, who does not know who is whom, can actually look at the certificate and feel confident that if he comes into the shop, he will get good standards and safe eyecare. This is a very good idea. I believe this will be taken up.

Mr Zainudin Nordin has also asked for an update on the Health Promotion

Board's National Myopia Prevention Programme. This programme was started in 2001 and it was done in partnership with the Ministry of Education and MCYS. The aim of the programme was to delay the onset and reduce the progression of myopia in children. The prevention strategies include public education targeted at parents, teachers and children to inculcate good eyecare habits, such as adopting correct posture when reading, ensuring adequate lighting and having regular outdoor activities.

The HPB also introduced a vision screening programme in primary and secondary schools, and a Spectacles Fund to help children from needy families buy spectacles. On this, HPB works closely with kindergartens/childcare centres to extend the vision screening to pre-schoolers. The aim is to identify children with early myopia and the lazy eye problem. About one in seven pre-schoolers have defective vision and they are referred to refraction clinics in the polyclinics for further assessment and management. For children with the lazy eye condition, early treatment can prevent the development of functional blindness. These are serious ongoing efforts, but we also recognise that bringing down the myopia rate is an uphill task. We will continue to put in our efforts in this area to slow down the progression, even if we may not able to reverse the rate in the short term.

Mr Zainudin has also suggested that the HPB work more closely with the different eyecare professionals to enlist their help in this programme. The HPB will consider how best to do this.

Madam, I just want to seek clarification from the Minister of State for Health. The first clarification I would like to ask the Minister of State is whether he agrees

that by having two Registers - one for optometrists and the other for opticians - there is already a recognition that there are different levels of competencies residing in these two categories of professionals, and that even with the enhanced training, this dichotomy remains. If this is the case, should we not then, as we are trying to internationalise our medical hub and as we are trying to aspire for higher standards, also try to align our practice with international practice or the practice that exists in the developed countries? We may not aspire today but we can certainly aspire for the future, in the sense that existing opticians - I know there are over 1,500 of them - certainly, we do not want to break their rice bowls and affect their livelihood. But should we not consider better standards for the future? Because we are already recognising this by having two Registers with different competency levels. Should we not move higher in line with the developed countries?

My second clarification is: in MOH's view, how do we help the public so that they will not be confused when we now have opticians who can do refraction and opticians who cannot do refraction? They already have a big difficulty trying to assess whether those who are dispensing spectacles and contact lenses are competent or not, but now in addition to that, there are sub-set opticians and optometrists and there are opticians who can do refraction and those who cannot. Could the Minister of State clarify and enlighten how we do not further confuse the public? What are the blind sights of this particular strategy that you are having?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, on the first question of having two Registers - one for optometrists and the other for opticians - that is correct, because we are not saying that they are the same. They are not the same. Yes, optometrists can definitely do refraction,

but optometrists are not just opticians who can do refraction. They can do other things as well. So it is a spectrum. What we are saying here is that some opticians in Singapore over all these years are already doing refraction, and there are opticians who are just doing dispensing. Opticians who are doing refraction, subject to being tested and certified to demonstrate their competence, can carry on to do refraction. This does not make them optometrists.

For opticians who can do refraction and want to become optometrists, they must then take on other skills in order to qualify for registration as optometrists. That is why we have two Registers. Even if an optician can do refraction, he is not an optometrist. That is number one.

Her second question is whether we will further confuse the public when the Act comes into force, in the case of a person who walks into a shop and sees some opticians who can do refraction and some who cannot. The reality today is, with or without this Act, there are opticians in Singapore who are doing refraction and there are opticians who are not doing refraction. This is the current situation. What we are doing here is through a process of certification, and what Dr Fatimah Lateef has suggested, namely, the display of certificates, and through public education, ie, what types of eyecare professionals are there and what they do respectively. So it will take time, as the public gains more awareness of the different types of eyecare professionals and who they should see and for what. This is a process that will go on and, through time, people will be more aware of it. But the point is that when the Act comes into force, nobody walking into a shop of an optical service provider will be subjected to unsafe eyecare. That is the point.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I think the Minister of State

missed the gist of the first point I made. My point is that we are trying to make ourselves into an international/regional medical hub. And, obviously, we therefore want to align ourselves with international standards, especially that of developed countries. In developed countries, refractions are done by optometrists, and not opticians, which means that they have moved to higher standards. Should we not also be thinking about that, not immediately? I recognise that there is a dearth or insufficient opticians to provide for the needs of the population at the present moment. There are over 1,500 opticians and it is not right to break their livelihood. But should we not be moving towards higher standards in the future? Should there not be some signal of that from the Ministry of Health, because I see the current Bill as maintaining the status quo? What I am concerned about is: are we moving towards higher standards that we hope to achieve under this Bill? That is the point that the Minister of State missed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Mdm Halimah for that clarification.

What I wanted to say is that, internationally, optometrists are trained to do refraction, ours included. In our situation, which is unlike that in many other countries, we have some opticians in Singapore who do refraction. For a start, what we are saying is that provided they can demonstrate their competence, we will register them and allow them to continue to do this refraction component as opticians. Then we have the OOB set up under the Act. In a dynamic situation where the science is changing, the economics of practice amongst opticians, optometrists and ophthalmologists may also be shifting. So, in that situation, the Board, over time, would have to review and take into account all these factors and to see how best to balance between

the needs of the three groups, and then balance that as against the needs of the population in terms of safety and standards. And, finally, how do we position that in favour of the development of the eyecare industry in Singapore? All that will take place and it is something that the OOB will certainly look at very carefully in its work.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Heng Chee How].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

4.55 pm

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

In the history of our nation-building, a few pioneering individuals and corporations have been strong and consistent supporters of education. Ngee Ann Kongsi is one such pioneer that has made significant contributions to our education system. The Kongsi established the Ngee Ann College in 1963. Some four decades later, with the funding and support of both the Government and Ngee Ann Kongsi, the college has grown to become the Ngee Ann Polytechnic, an institution of higher education that is well respected by employers and reputed internationally.

Ngee Ann Kongsi has not only contributed money to help fund student programmes, but also provided much of the land for the polytechnic's campus. Generations of students have benefited from the Kongsi’s unwavering support for education.

The Ngee Ann Kongsi was incorporated by the Ngee Ann Kongsi (Incorporation) Ordinance of 1933 to administer its income and properties for various worthy causes, including the support for education. The Ordinance originally required the Kongsi to donate 50% of its income or $100,000 annually, whichever is higher, to Ngee Ann College in perpetuity.

Later in 1972, Ngee Ann Kongsi proposed to develop its property along Orchard Road. The Government felt that the gains from the appreciation of property value were a result of the overall development of the Orchard Road area and therefore a larger portion of such gains should benefit the society at large. The Ordinance was then amended to increase the Kongsi's contribution to Ngee Ann Polytechnic to 75% of its income, in return for land development rights for its property along Orchard Road.

Need for amendment

There have been significant changes over the years. For example, Ngee Ann Kongsi's annual income has grown substantially from $0.5 million in 1972 to $23 million in 2006 mainly due to dividend income earned through its interests in the Ngee Ann City development. Ngee Ann Kongsi's contribution over the years has allowed Ngee Ann Polytechnic's Endowment Fund to be accumulated to $119.3 million as at end of FY2006. It is therefore both appropriate and timely to amend the Ordinance with a view to giving the Kongsi more flexibility in its contributions so that a wider spectrum of society can benefit from them.

Let me now highlight the key clauses of the Ngee Ann Kongsi (Incorporation) (Amendment) Bill.

Key clauses of Bill

Scope of contribution of income by Ngee Ann Kongsi

Mdm Deputy Speaker, we want to preserve the original intent of Parliament when it last amended the Ordinance in 1972 that 75% of Ngee Ann Kongsi's income should benefit the society at large. However, we should give the Kongsi more flexibility to decide on the beneficiaries of its donations. Clause 10 of the Bill will amend the Ordinance to allow the Kongsi to contribute 25% of its income to Ngee Ann Polytechnic, 40% to other educational institutions and 10% to other charitable causes, maintaining a total of 75%. Giving the Kongsi greater flexibility in its income contributions will benefit more types of educational institutions and charitable causes.

Over the years, the scale of the Kongsi's operation has also increased. There is therefore a need to review the way Ngee Ann Kongsi's income is computed. The Kongsi will incur operating expenses and depreciation cost in deriving the income. Such expenses should be deducted in the computation of income, in line with common accounting principles. Clause 10 therefore also clarifies the definition of the term "income" to mean net income, ie, the income after deducting operating expenses and depreciation cost.

Treatment of proceeds from sale or disposal of Ngee Ann Kongsi's assets

Next, the present Ordinance requires Ngee Ann Kongsi to donate 75% of all moneys arising from the disposition of any of its property and not just from recurring income. This will dilute the Kongsi's asset

base over time and reduce the capacity to generate income for future donations. It is in the long-term interest of potential beneficiaries that we encourage the Kongsi to grow and enhance its asset base, so that it can contribute more to society in the long run.

Clause 10 will amend the Act to allow Ngee Ann Kongsi to re-invest the proceeds from the sale or disposal of its assets by excluding them from the definition of net income. This way, the Kongsi will be able to turn over its assets for better returns.

Management of Ngee Ann Kongsi's subsidiaries

Next, the Ordinance does not specifically address the governance of subsidiary companies set up by the Kongsi. As a case in point, in 1989, Ngee Ann Kongsi transferred its leasehold interests in the piece of land at Ngee Ann City to Ngee Ann Development Pte Ltd (NAD) in exchange for 70% equity stake in NAD. As NAD is a separate independent legal entity from the Kongsi, it does not come under the direct purview of the Ordinance. It may undertake transactions detrimental to the interest of the Kongsi and its beneficiaries. For example, it is possible for NAD to disburse funds to organisations other than those provided for in the Ordinance.

We need to protect the interests of the educational institution beneficiaries under the Ordinance. The new section 20B, as provided for in clause 10, is designed to do that. We will now require Ngee Ann Kongsi and its appointed directors to exercise their voting rights in the Kongsi's subsidiaries in the interests of these beneficiaries. If this requirement is contravened in the passing of any resolution, then that resolution and any consequential action will be invalid and of no effect.

Composition and procedural issues of the Ngee Ann Kongsi Committee of Management

Finally, the remainder of the Bill amends some composition and procedural issues of the Ngee Ann Kongsi Committee of Management which oversees the Kongsi's operations. These amendments are primarily administrative and procedural in nature and do not have policy implications.

Conclusion

Mdm Deputy Speaker, Ngee Ann Kongsi has always demonstrated its unstinting commitment to Ngee Ann Polytechnic and for education in general. We need more of these organisations to step forward to work hand-in-hand with the Government to provide our students with a world-class education. I am confident that the amendment of the Ngee Ann Kongsi (Incorporation) Ordinance introduced under this Bill will allow Ngee Ann Kongsi more flexibility to promote the advancement of education in Singapore and bring about even greater benefits to the larger society.

Madam, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.05 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the motion to amend the Ngee Ann Kongsi Ordinance. The Bill, steeped in history and moved in 1932 by Teochew migrant merchants who had made their fortunes here, had benefited the students of Ngee Ann Polytechnic for many years. The students have benefited from the handsome donation of 75% from the incomes of Ngee Ann Kongsi that was set up by the Teochew merchants to manage their affairs on a "proper footing".

It is through the vision and public-spirit mindedness of the early Teochew merchants that Ngee Ann Kongsi's fortunes are where they are today. We should also recognise that the fortunes of Ngee Ann Kongsi would not have been possible without the progress and development of Singapore and certainly even less possible without the support of the Singapore Government. For instance, Ngee Ann City, from which the Ngee Ann Kongsi derives much of its income, was originally bought as a burial ground for the Teochew community. The Teochew merchants then had the foresight to ride the growth and progress of Singapore and apply to the Government for a change of use. The Government approved the application and that resulted in the Ngee Ann City of today. Ngee Ann City is a major source of income for Ngee Ann Kongsi which has provided and would continue to provide much financial assistance towards the society. Mdm Deputy Speaker, it is timely for this House to put on record now our appreciation of the astute foresight of our generous early Teochew merchants, without which all these would not have been possible.

Mr Tan Cheng Lock, speaking in support of this Bill then, had hoped that other communities in Singapore would take similar steps. I am sure that many of the communal clans, associations and societies have benefited from the recent boom in property prices. Many of these clan associations' financial positions have ridden on the tailwind of progress that the buoyant Singapore economy has provided. I am told that many of these communal clans and associations have contributed to the Singapore society in their own ways with their very much improved financial positions. Although other communal clan associations, unlike the Teochews, who are doing their bit through an Act of Parliament, I am hopeful that they would continue to contribute more to education issues as well as to other charitable causes.

Madam, Ngee Ann Polytechnic has come a long way from its inception as Ngee Ann College in 1963, to Ngee Ann Technical College in 1972, and then to the present-day Ngee Ann Polytechnic. This institute of education has been transformed in more ways than just its name. Ngee Ann Polytechnic has moved from its early days of providing education opportunities to the children of the Teochew community. The student intake of Ngee Ann Polytechnic is now not only representative of the Singapore society but has taken on a cosmopolitan outlook. It now boasts of having international students within its fold. Also, the courses Ngee Ann Polytechnic currently provides have undergone substantial changes. It has now moved from just providing a handful of basic courses to incorporating cutting-edge science and technology courses.

In the earlier days, there were only two polytechnics: Ngee Ann Polytechnic and Singapore Polytechnic. Today, we have five polytechnics. And with polytechnic education as the preferred choice of post-secondary school students, it is timely the donations from Ngee Ann Kongsi go to benefit a broader student community. Hence, I support the move of 40% to other educational intents and purposes at the approval of the Education Minister.

Education today is very much different from those days when Ngee Ann Kongsi decided to donate 75% of their incomes. Madam, the kind of support that the polytechnics need has evolved. The latest is for a majority of polytechnic students to be sent for overseas training; hence, the students would need more support. I am confident that the Teochew community, in general, and the Ngee Ann Kongsi management, in particular, would embrace this move towards helping students in a broader aspect with the donations.

Finally, I also support the move to apportion 10% of the incomes of Ngee Ann Kongsi to benefit other charitable organisations. I firmly believe and am confident that Ngee Ann Kongsi would agree with me on these moves.

5.11 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, as a member of the board of directors of Ngee Ann Kongsi and a member of Ngee Ann Polytechnic Council and Ngee Ann Polytechnic administration committee, may I declare my interest, and I must say I am in a good position to see why there is now a need to free Ngee Ann Kongsi so as to benefit other educational institutions and charitable causes.

I welcome the Ngee Ann Kongsi (Incorporation) (Amendment) Bill, which allows the Ngee Ann Kongsi to channel its profits to other education and charitable causes other than just Ngee Ann Polytechnic.

The Bill will give Ngee Ann Kongsi more flexibility to decide on the beneficiaries of its donations. However, of the 40% of its net income to other educational institutions, may I know whether it will be decided by MOE or Ngee Ann, and what are the criteria? And if it is decided by MOE, may I suggest that due credit be given to Ngee Ann? As the Chinese saying goes: yin shui si yuan - when one drinks water, one thinks of its source; in short, be grateful.

But one may ask: what is Ngee Ann? And what is the meaning of "Ngee Ann"? Today, Ngee Ann Polytechnic is a brand name. But to many older Teochews, Ngee Ann Kongsi is also a brand name. Thus, when I was invited to be the guest-of-honour at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic National Day celebration, I shared my observation with the students and the

staff that many of them, in fact, do not know the link between Ngee Ann Kongsi and Ngee Ann Polytechnic. And some even queried: how come Ngee Ann City can use our name "Ngee Ann?" They were also asking: are there any links between Ngee Ann Primary School, Ngee Ann Secondary School and Ngee Ann Polytechnic?

Yes, in fact, these are all linked to Ngee Ann Kongsi - it is Ah Kong. "Ngee Ann" is the ancient name of Teochew. In fact, in ancient times, Teochew was not called Teochew; Teochew was called "Ngee Ann". It is called "Teochew" only a few hundred years ago. "Kongsi" - what is the meaning of "Kongsi"? "Kongsi" means care and share. So, Ngee Ann Kongsi means the "Teochew care and share". Later on, the Kongsi owned a large piece of land, as mentioned by the Minister of State, and that part of the land really gave Ngee Ann Kongsi the income to give more care and more share to the Teochews in the earlier years, and, later on, it was extended to all Singaporeans.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, Ngee Ann Kongsi is a foundation which has been very actively involved in education, cultural and welfare activities since the 19th century. Over the last 40 years, Ngee Ann Kongsi has donated a total of more than $100 million to Ngee Ann Polytechnic alone. Of course, it has also donated to many other organisations. This is the kind of Ngee Ann spirit.

May I now speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin) [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] The Ngee Ann spirit inspires the Teochew to endure the hardship and move ahead in difficult times. And it teaches many of us to share with our fellow citizens.

The Ngee Ann Kongsi and the Ngee Ann spirit have become part of our Singapore spirit that enables us to overcome crisis, one after another.

And, indeed, Ngee Ann Kongsi has, through Ngee Ann Polytechnic, contributed to our society greatly and the beneficiaries are from all walks of life. Sim Wong Hoo, founder of Creative Technology, is one exemplary graduate of our Ngee Ann Polytechnic. Sim Wong Hoo rose from a humble background in the difficult period during the 1960s to create an international brand name that is well known for innovation and quality. This is the kind of Ngee Ann spirit.

This amendment is, in fact, a timely reminder of the Ngee Ann Kongsi's contribution over the last four decades. It is only right that after contributing so much to the society, the amendment now gives the Ngee Ann Kongsi greater freedom, more resources, and greater say in identifying other worthwhile charitable causes.

Business leader Li Ka Shing, who is also a Teochew, donated $19.5 million to Singapore Management University in 2002 and, this year, he donated another $100 million to the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. This is the kind of Kongsi spirit, the sharing spirit.

Ngee Ann Kongsi can do the same in a big way and benefit not only the Teochews but the whole population.

(In English ): I support the amendment Bill.

*Cols. 1289-1290.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, first, I would like to thank Dr Lily Neo and Mr Seng Han Thong for their strong support for the amendment Bill, particularly to Dr Lily Neo for supporting the allocation of 40% of the income to other educational institutions. And I also

like to thank her for the tribute and recognition she gave to the pioneers of Ngee Ann Kongsi who founded the corporation and benefited the society. I also want to address Mr Seng Han Thong's query on who decides on the 40%.

Let me assure Mr Seng that it will be a consultation process. Ngee Ann Kongsi will indicate their interest of which educational institutions they would like to support and the approval will be given by the Minister eventually. So, it is a process of consultation and understanding, and we will take into account the Kongsi's desires, their traditions and linkages.

At the same time, I would also like to stress that credit will definitely by given to Ngee Ann Kongsi for their contributions. Not only do we have to yin shui si yuan, but we must also zhi en tu bao. I think these are values that are entrenched in our Asian society and we want to continue to promote them.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I believe with these amendments, we will give Ngee Ann Kongsi greater flexibility so that they can respond to the changing needs of its

beneficiaries. The Ministry of Education will continue to work with the Kongsi to realise the vision of its founders to contribute to the society at large and to allow it to serve as an example and an inspiration for many others to follow suit.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Gan Kim Yong].

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

Resolved,

"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Lim Swee Say].

Adjourned accordingly at

Fifteen minutes past Five o'clock pm

to a date to be fixed.

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

asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the number of compressed natural gas (CNG) stations in Singapore; and (b) whether there are plans in the near future to build CNG stations in more accessible or centralised parts of Singapore so as to encourage more Singaporeans to convert to driving the environmentally friendlier CNG vehicles.

There is currently only one CNG refuelling station in Singapore, located on Jurong Island.

In addition, two more CNG refuelling stations have been planned to be operational within the next year or so. I understand that taxi company SMART Automobile is working to set up one station at Mandai by January 2008, and another at Serangoon North in the later part of 2008.

As part of the Government's support for private sector efforts to develop CNG re-fuelling infrastructure, we have helped companies co-fund the start-up costs through the National Environment Agency's Innovation for Environmental Sustainability Fund. NEA helped to fund the existing Jurong Island station, and will also be giving funding to SMART Automobile for its proposed stations at Mandai and Serangoon. We hope that the private sector will seize this opportunity of co-funding to build new and more CNG re-fuelling stations.

In addition to the co-funding of infrastructure, NEA has also been exploring with petrol stations, such as SPC, Caltex and Shell, on the possibility of dispensing CNG at their service stations.

To promote the use of more environmentally-friendly vehicles, the green vehicle rebate was introduced in 2001 to lower the cost differential between green vehicles and conventional vehicles. As at end May 2007, there are 339 CNG vehicles on the road. I hope that, moving forward, more Singaporeans will opt for CNG or other green vehicles. As more CNG vehicles come on the road, the demand for refuelling stations will grow and this, in turn, will encourage the private sector to provide such infrastructure.

asked the Minister for Health over the last five years (a) what has been the expenditure on health as a percentage of annual total Government expenditure; (b) what has been the per capita Government expenditure on health; and (c) if these figures have been declining, what is the reason for such a decline.

Over the last five years, our Government health expenditure for Singaporeans has increased from $1.53 billion in FY2002, to $1.93 billion in FY2006. This was an average growth rate of 6% per annum.

On a per-capita basis, the Government's expenditure has increased from $453 to $535 over the same period.

As a percentage of total Government expenditure, it has gone up from 6.7% to 7.5% over the same period.

This was not a straight-line growth because there was a sharp spike in health expenditure in FY2003, to counter the immediate challenges from the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). There was also some post-SARS expenditure in subsequent years to prepare for possible re-emergence of SARS and similar threats.

The trend in Government health expenditure is clearly upwards as our population continues to age and patients' expectation continues to rise. Going forward, the Government will spend a lot more on healthcare, but patients' co-payment will inevitably go up in quantum even as we maintain the same subsidy rate. We therefore have a collective interest to look for more effective ways to deliver services without compromising standards, make health insurance work more efficiently, and manage rising expectations.

asked the Minister for Manpower (a) why is a breakdown of P1, P2, Q, R and S passes not available for the last 10 years; and (b) how is the total foreign employment level calculated if the breakdown is not available.

I had mentioned that the foreign employment level was 756,000 as at December 2006. We do not publish the specifics of the breakdown to ensure that we maintain flexibility and access to labour sources. But we can provide rough percentages of our foreign workforce composition. About 85% are R pass holders. 4% are on S passes and the remaining 11% are P and Q pass holders. This should be contrasted with the overall distribution in our workforce, of which 47% are PMETs as at June 2006. As previously indicated, locals take up the majority of higher skilled and PMET jobs while foreign workers form the majority of the less-skilled workforce.

asked the Minister for National Development in light of smaller HDB resale flats selling at prices above valuation and the limited supply of HDB rental flats, whether the Ministry has any plans to ensure that smaller HDB flats remain affordable for low-income families.

The Government is committed to ensuring that public housing remains affordable to the majority of Singaporeans, including lower-income families.

There is an adequate supply of affordable HDB flats for lower-income flat buyers. HDB resumed building new 3-room flats in 2004 and new 2-room flats in 2006. New HDB flats are priced with a significant market discount to ensure their affordability to flat buyers, with first-time buyers eligible to take up a mortgage loan from HDB at a concessionary interest rate. Lower-income families with household incomes not exceeding $3,000 per month can also make use of the Additional Housing Grant (AHG) of up to $20,000 to pay part of the purchase price of the flats.

Eligible first-time flat buyers who choose resale flats are eligible for the CPF Housing Grant of $30,000 or $40,000, as well as the AHG.

Public housing has remained affordable to lower-income households. Last year, those who bought new 2-room and 3-room flats used an average of 20% of their monthly household income to service their housing loans. In other words, most of these families can service their housing loan entirely from their CPF Ordinary Account contributions, without any cash outlay.

While the prices of HDB flats in the resale market have increased, this growth is in line with the general recovery of the property market. Lower-income flat-owners also benefit in terms of asset appreciation. I would also like to clarify that not all flats are transacted above market valuation; about half of resale flat transactions were at or below market value earlier this year.

As buying a HDB flat is a long-term commitment, flat buyers should exercise financial prudence and decide on a flat that is within their means.

HDB will continue to monitor the public housing market closely to ensure that public housing remains affordable to the majority of Singaporeans.

asked the Minister for Health (a) how many patients have not been able to pay their hospital bills at all in 2006; (b) what steps has the Ministry or the hospitals taken to recover these arrears; and (c) what Government assistance will be available to these patients who really have no means to pay their bills.

The vast majority of our patients are able to settle their hospital bills. Last year, less than 1% of patient cases were not completely paid due to patients not being able to pay their bills in full. Only a tiny minority could not pay even any portion at all.

Debt recovery generally follows this procedure. A patient who does not pay up within a month will receive a reminder from the hospital. There will be a second reminder, if necessary, during the following month. When there is still no response, some hospitals may refer the case to a debt collection agency to collect the arrears on their behalf.

For patients who have expressed problems paying the hospital bills, the hospital would explore with them options for financial assistance, such as payment by instalments. Singaporeans who have genuine financial difficulties will be assisted through Medifund. Last year, Medifund provided about $40 million to help low-income Singaporeans with their medical bills.

asked the Minister for Education (a) in 2007, how many 'O' level students with perfect scores could not be admitted to junior colleges or polytechnics of their choice; and (b) what steps will the Ministry take to avoid such situations.

Students take different numbers of GCE 'O' Level subjects, with most taking six to nine. So for the purpose of answering the Member's question, I will define a GCE 'O' Level student with "perfect score" as one with the best possible L1R5 score of six points, comprising his/her first language and five relevant subjects. 745 students attained this score in the 2006 GCE 'O' Level Examinations and opted for JCs as their top choices. 95% (710 students) were posted to their first-choice JCs.

In the case of students who opted for polytechnic courses, the best possible score is five points, comprising English Language, two relevant subjects and two best subjects. Seven students who applied to polytechnic courses attained this score in the 2006 GCE 'O' Level Examinations. All were admitted to their first-choice polytechnic courses.

While a student exercises his own choices of institution and courses of study, entry to JCs and polytechnics is through open competition and is based on merit. The outcome is the result of competition among all applicants for the available places. It would not be possible for MOE to guarantee every student with a perfect score a place in his/her first-choice JC/polytechnic course.

Nevertheless, MOE will continue to regularly review the number of places in popular JCs and polytechnic courses, taking into account the aspirations of our students and the needs of our economy.

asked the Minister for Manpower in respect of the Workforce Skills Qualification Scheme (a) which industries are still lagging in terms of employer participation in the scheme and take-up rates by employees; (b) what other efforts are being taken to encourage more Singaporeans to take up jobs in industries such as precision engineering.

The Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) was introduced in 2004 and officially launched in 2005. It is a national skills certification framework developed by WDA in conjunction with industry and validated by employers. WDA has implemented 12 WSQ frameworks, in industries, such as Food & Beverage (F&B), Finance, Tourism and Precision Engineering, and will be developing WSQ in other sectors, such as the Creative Industries, Human Resources, Aerospace and Process Cluster Industries.

WDA has been working closely with NTUC, various economic agencies and industry associations to promote the adoption of WSQ. The take-up has been encouraging. The implementation of WSQ in industries like Tourism and Retail is in full swing and many companies are embracing the WSQ standards. In 2006, over 41,000 workers upgraded their skills through the WSQ system. This increased to over 70,000 by May this year.

In some industries, like Finance and ICT, the delivery infrastructure, such as training programmes, is still being developed so it will be several more months before we can see results. For Precision Engineering, the WSQ framework was launched in August 2006, with the first training intake admitted in April this year. In the first two months, eight workers obtained their WSQ qualification in Precision Engineering. As the Precision Engineering WSQ is relatively new, we will need to monitor and refine the implementation over time.

WDA is working with agencies, such as SPRING and EDB, to promote careers in Precision Engineering through career & education fairs, as well as scholarship programmes to attract local talent into the industry. This is an industry which presents good job opportunities for locals. For example, an experienced machinist can earn up to $2,500 per month, including overtime pay, after working for a number of years.

WDA will continue to work closely with industry and NTUC to roll out WSQ in more sectors and encourage companies to adopt it.

asked the Minister for Manpower in light of Singapore's upcoming projects, such as the Integrated Resorts and Formula One (a) whether he will provide an update on the recruitment of workers in services sector jobs; and (b) what are the take-up rates for services sector jobs in the last one year and whether Singaporeans are taking up these jobs.

Employment in the services sector grew by 33,700 in Q1 2007, accounting for 68% of the 49,400 jobs created for the whole economy in the quarter. For the whole of 2006, 65% (73,700) of the 112,700 jobs created in services went to locals. In fact, four out of every five local job gains in 2006 came from the services sector.

In short, the services sector continues to provide good employment opportunities for locals. To ensure its continued vibrancy, all tripartite partners have to play their part. Workers should upgrade their skills, especially through WDA's Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ), for the services sector. This will make it easier for employers to recognise qualifications relevant to their sector. To further raise standards in the services sector, WDA has built on the Go the Extra Mile for Service (GEMS) movement, launched in 2005, by extending the Customer-Centric Initiative, which originally covered the retail sector, to now include the food and beverage sector. In this tight labour market, employers are encouraged to explore ways of tapping on other sources of local labour, such as older workers or women.

asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance how many Administrative Officers are on (i) grades MR4 and above; (ii) grades SR9 up to, but excluding, MR4; and (iii) timescale.

As at 1st July 2007, there are a total of 234 Administrative Officers. This comprises the following:

4 Administrative Officers in grades MR4 and above;

145 Administrative Officers in grades SR9 and above, but excluding MR4; and

85 Administrative Officers at the timescale level.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law (a) whether there is a regular cleaning, upkeeping and grass-cutting schedule for State land; and (b) if so, if it is possible to place the name of the agency in charge of the upkeep of these areas, on the signage in the vicinity.

The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) does have a regular maintenance programme for all State lands. Such maintenance is done more frequently for State lands within built-up areas, such as residential estates. Generally, for open space in residential estates that are used for community gathering and recreation, cleaning is done daily to remove litter and the grass is cut on a monthly basis.

The Member has suggested that the name of the agency in charge of the upkeep of the State lands be stated on the signboards erected at the sites. SLA and its agent, HDB, have put up 900 signboards at various State land sites. The signboards are placed mainly on sites designated for casual and recreational uses in residential estates, eg, Tanjong Rhu and Stadium Link and at locations where there have been past cases of illegal dumping, eg, Lim Chu Kang and Ponggol. As there are about 3,700 State land sites island-wide with an aggregate land area of 14,000 ha, it would not be practical to place such signs on every piece of State land. SLA has, therefore, concentrated its efforts in putting up signboards in residential estates as these are frequently used by the public. The signboards show the agency responsible for the maintenance of the land and the agency's contact number.

SLA also has an up-to-date, one-stop online portal called LandQuery, from which the public can check the agencies responsible for the maintenance of all Government-owned land, including those owned by statutory boards. Launched in November last year, LandQuery allows a member of the public to contact the Government agency through an

online feedback form or by telephone at the contact number listed in the portal. The public service is free.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs of the four convictions under section 377A of the Penal Code in 2005 and the seven convictions in 2006, how many involved a victim who was below 18 years of age.

In 2005, four persons were convicted under section 377A of the Penal Code. Two persons were convicted for cases involving victims below the age of 18.

In 2006, seven persons were convicted under section 377A of the Penal Code. Four persons were convicted for cases involving victims below the age of 18.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) if there are sufficient parking areas for heavy vehicles where the owners live in HDB estates and the vehicles can only be parked at designated areas in HDB car parks; and (b) if areas for parking of heavy vehicles can be more strategically located as many are overcrowded due to high demand and often located quite a distance from residential areas where the owners live.

There is presently an island-wide supply of about 29,360 parking lots to meet the overnight parking needs of 23,035 registered heavy vehicles. As such, there are more than enough heavy vehicle parking spaces. Many of the excess lots are located in workplaces like factories and at designated places outside HDB estates where heavy vehicles are supposed to be parked in the first place.

However, heavy vehicle drivers/owners prefer to park near their homes for greater convenience as they are using the heavy vehicles as a means of personal transport to get to and from work. This should not be encouraged as heavy vehicles driven through residential areas or parked close to residential premises create disamenities for residents. Besides being a traffic hazard, such vehicles generate noise and pollution. Hence, there are many complaints against allowing them to be parked near residential areas.

Both HDB and URA had, in the past, provided a number of heavy vehicle parks on the outskirts of some HDB estates. It is, however, becoming more and more difficult to provide such facilities near HDB estates because of competing needs for the limited land near HDB estates. Nevertheless, where suitable sites are available and where it is viable to do so, my Ministry will consider providing a few more of such temporary heavy vehicle parks on vacant sites away from residential areas, on a case-by-case basis; and on the understanding that these heavy vehicle parks will have to be removed when the land is needed for future development.