Hansard, 2007-10-22

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2007) To (2007) Mr S Iswaran 24 Sep 28 Sep 08 Oct 12 Oct Dr Lily Neo 25 Sep 30 Sep 06 Oct 14 Oct 23 Oct 27 Oct Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 02 Oct 05 Oct 07 Oct 09 Oct Mr Ang Mong Seng 04 Oct 06 Oct 24 Oct 26 Oct 09 Nov 13 Nov Mr Michael Palmer 04 Oct 15 Oct Mr Ong Kian Min 06 Oct 16 Oct Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 07 Oct 11 Oct 05 Nov 07 Nov Dr Balaji Sadasivan 07 Oct 11 Oct 14 Oct 19 Oct 23 Oct 27 Oct Mr Inderjit Singh 07 Oct 13 Oct Mr Teo Ser Luck 07 Oct 11 Oct 24 Oct 02 Nov Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien 08 Oct 10 Oct Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 08 Oct 09 Oct 17 Oct 24 Oct Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 09 Oct 09 Oct 22 Oct 22 Oct Mr Abdullah Tarmugi 11 Oct 11 Oct 04 Nov 08 Nov Mr Chan Soo Sen 11 Oct 15 Oct 22 Oct 05 Nov Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 11 Oct 16 Oct 25 Oct 27 Oct Dr Lee Boon Yang 11 Oct 14 Oct 25 Oct 28 Oct Mr Lee Yi Shyan 11 Oct 14 Oct 25 Oct 28 Oct 31 Oct 31 Oct 01 Nov 09 Nov 12 Nov 16 Nov Mr Seng Han Thong 12 Oct 18 Oct Mr Teo Chee Hean 14 Oct 18 Oct 29 Oct 31 Oct Mr Gan Kim Yong 15 Oct 19 Oct Mr Lim Hng Kiang 15 Oct 19 Oct Mr Sin Boon Ann 15 Oct 19 Oct Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 15 Oct 15 Oct 23 Oct 24 Oct Mr Arthur Fong 16 Oct 19 Oct Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo 16 Oct 19 Oct Dr Teo Ho Pin 16 Oct 19 Oct Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 17 Oct 17 Oct 27 Oct 29 Oct RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew 17 Oct 27 Oct Mr Heng Chee How 20 Oct 21 Oct Assoc. Prof. Kalyani K Mehta 20 Oct 25 Oct Mr Lim Swee Say 20 Oct 21 Oct Mr Yeo Guat Kwang 20 Oct 23 Oct Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed 20 Oct 26 Oct Mr Khaw Boon Wan 23 Oct 27 Oct Dr Ong Chit Chung 23 Oct 23 Oct 12 Nov 14 Nov Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan 24 Oct 27 Oct 20 Nov 24 Nov Mr Zaqy Mohamad 24 Oct 25 Oct Dr Ng Eng Hen 26 Oct 28 Oct Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 27 Oct 29 Oct 20 Nov 24 Nov Mr Charles Chong 28 Oct 01 Nov 05 Nov 07 Nov Mr Lee Kuan Yew 28 Oct 03 Nov Mr Mah Bow Tan 28 Oct 30 Oct Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M 28 Oct 01 Nov Mdm Cynthia Phua 09 Nov 11 Nov 14 Nov 17 Nov Mr Wee Siew Kim 12 Nov 16 Nov 24 Nov 09 Dec 13 Dec 16 Dec Dr Ong Seh Hong 14 Nov 18 Nov Er Lee Bee Wah 26 Nov 30 Nov 04 Dec 19 Dec 26 Dec 29 Dec

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

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

2nd October,2007 (1) Land Titles (Strata)(Amendment) Bill (2) Building Control (Amendment) Bill (3) Pharmacists Registration Bill 4th October,2007 (1) Monetary Authority of Singapore (Amendment No 2) Bill (2) Inquiries Bill (3) Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) (Amendment) Bill (4) Strategic Goods (Control) (Amendment) Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order. The Nominated Member, Mr Siew Kum Hong, wishes to present a Petition. Mr Siew.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I present to Parliament a Petition under Standing Order No. 18. The Clerk has endorsed this Petition as being in accordance with the rules of Standing Order No. 18(5).

This Petition is presented on behalf on Mr George Bonaventure Hwang Chor Chee, Dr Stuart Koe Chi Yeow, Ms Tan Joo Hymn, and others of like opinion. Including the three petitioners that I have named, there are a total of 2,341 valid signatures.

Sir, the material allegations contained in the Petition concern the unconstitutionality of section 377A of the Penal Code. If and when the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill is passed, private consensual anal and oral sex between heterosexual adults will be permitted, but the same private and consensual acts between men will remain criminalised, due to the retention of section 377A.

The petitioners argue that this is an unconstitutional derogation from the constitutional guarantee of equality and equal protection of the law as set out in Article 12(1) of the Constitution. The petitioners ask this House to repeal section 377A in light of this.

The petitioners pray, and I quote:

"By this Petition, the Undersigned pray that Section 377A of the Penal Code (Cap. 224) be repealed."

I will now hand the Petition* to the Clerk.

Petition handed to the Clerk of Parliament.

*Cols. 2307-2312.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the Petition that has been presented by the Nominated Member be referred to Parliament for consideration during the debate on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill?

Currently, Standing Order No. 18(3) requires a Petition to be referred to the Public Petitions Committee upon its presentation. In the meantime, the contents of the Petition may not be disclosed or discussed by Members until the Public Petitions Committee has met, deliberated and reported to the House. As Members may be aware, the Petition relates to the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, the Second Reading of which has been set down on the Order Paper for today. It does not make sense for Members to avoid discussion of the Petition or the contents therein when debating the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill later today. Besides, the content of the Petition has been widely publicised on the media, and a full copy was posted on the Internet for signatures before submission to Parliament. Therefore, in order to enable the Petition to be referred to Parliament for debate during the Second Reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, I intend to move a motion to seek the general assent of the House to suspend the operation of this Standing Order. I would like to emphasise that the intention of this motion is to facilitate, not avoid, debate on matters raised in the Petition.

The House's agreement to the motion will allow Members to receive a copy of the presented Petition immediately and to fully debate the issues in the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill and the Petition together. This is more appropriate than having the Public Petitions Committee deliberate the Petition. After all, the Public Petitions Committee will not be debating the substance of the Petition but only performing a largely secretarial function by receiving the Petition and then forwarding it back to the House where it may be subsequently debated, if the Member who submitted it wishes. But this issue should be canvassed now together with the other Penal Code amendments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have discussed my proposal with the Nominated Member presenting the Petition, and he is supportive of this motion and its intention.

I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon. Members?

indicated assent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

"That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No.18(3) which require a Petition to be referred to the Public Petitions Committee, the Petition presented by the Nominated Member be referred to Parliament for consideration at the Second Reading on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill."

As I indicated to Members earlier, this motion will enable Members to air their views and raise their concerns on the matters raised in the Petition during the debate on the Second Reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. Matters in the Petition can therefore be thoroughly and properly debated, discussed and decided by Parliament.

Question put, and resolved.

That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 18(3) which require a Petition to be referred to the Public Petitions Committee, the Petition presented by the Nominated Member be referred to Parliament for consideration at the Second Reading on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill.

I will ask the Clerk to make copies of the Petition available to all Members as soon as they are made.

1. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his assessment of the political situation in Myanmar and on whether ASEAN can take bolder steps to press for a peaceful resolution to the problems in Myanmar.

2. Mr Charles Chong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what measures will be considered by ASEAN in support of UN efforts to bring about reform in Myanmar; and (b) whether ASEAN will consider the imposition of targeted sanctions, restriction of non-humanitarian aid and even a review of Myanmar's membership of ASEAN should they fail to comply with the resolutions set by the UN and ASEAN.

3. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in view of Myanmar's recent show of disregard for human rights and its use of force against peaceful demonstrators (a) what is the military junta's explanation to ASEAN on its recent actions against its citizens; (b) what is the impact of the incident on Singapore; (c) what is the impact on Singapore's investments in Myanmar; and (d) what is the impact on the annual trade between Myanmar and Singapore.

4. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on Singapore's stand on continuing trade and investment in Myanmar, and on calls to use economic sanctions against the country.

5. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the recent reaction by ASEAN members on the Myanmar issue heralds the beginning of the end of the policy of non-interference long treasured by ASEAN member countries and how will this change the ASEAN dynamics.

6. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Singapore Government had anticipated the political developments in Myanmar in September 2007.

7. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether Singapore has supplied arms and weapons to Myanmar; (b) what is the total value of investments by Government-linked companies in Myanmar; (c) what is the total value of remittances from Myanmar into Singapore over the past 5 years; and (d) whether the Government intends to take any action, either by itself or as ASEAN Chair, in addition to making statements and writing letters to the junta.

8. Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will consider granting humanitarian assistance and aid to the Myanmar people.

9. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether and to what extent Singapore businesses are or have been engaged with the Myanmar authorities in trade and consulting in the field of military hardware and surveillance equipment.

10. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether and to what extent there are arrangements in place for military cooperation between Singapore and Myanmar.

Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to take Question Nos. 1 to 10 together as they are related.

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Ms Sylvia Lim asked whether the Singapore Government had anticipated the recent developments in Myanmar. The short answer is no. We knew social discontent was building up but we could not imagine the Myanmar Government suddenly increasing fuel prices five-fold. That ignited the protests which took the authorities by surprise.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to answer Dr Lily Neo, ASEAN had decided more than a year ago that since Myanmar preferred dealing with the UN over ASEAN, ASEAN would no longer defend Myanmar at international forums. We were as astonished as anyone else when the leadership suddenly shifted the country's capital to Nay Pyi Taw and were embarrassed when asked about it by others. We were relieved when Myanmar decided to skip its turn as Chair of ASEAN last year. But we refrained from criticising Myanmar openly because it was part of the ASEAN family.

However, we could not stay silent when the Government violently cracked down on peaceful demonstrators including Buddhist monks. ASEAN would have lost all credibility otherwise. Developments in Myanmar cast a pall on the entire region and have been raised at the UN Security Council. ASEAN's policy of non-interference cannot be rigidly applied when internal developments in a member country affect the rest of us. This is not the first time that ASEAN is addressing the situation in Myanmar. At the Summit in Singapore in 2000, ASEAN leaders met privately with Myanmar leader Senior General Than Shwe to express their concerns. In 2003, ASEAN Foreign Ministers publicly called on Myanmar to release Aung San Suu Kyi.

The violent suppression of dissent in Myanmar recently has evoked outrage in ASEAN and around the world. As ASEAN Chair, Singapore had to discharge its responsibility. The Prime Minister called all his ASEAN counterparts who agreed with him that ASEAN should issue a strong statement. PM also wrote to Senior General Than Shwe. I was at the United Nations in New York when the situation broke. After settling the ASEAN Charter, the ASEAN Foreign Ministers confronted our Myanmar counterpart. They agreed for me to issue the statement that I read out to the international media in their presence.

To answer Ms Irene Ng on the present situation, a semblance of normal life appears to have returned but we continue to receive reports of arrests and raids taking place which UN Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari described as 'extremely disturbing'. We hope that the Myanmar authorities will cease these arrests and release those detained quickly. The Myanmar government has offered talks with Aung San Suu Kyi and appointed a liaison officer. However, the offer comes with conditions. Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy has expressed a desire for talks but rejected preconditions. These are just opening moves by both sides. From Singapore's perspective, the only precondition should be a commitment by both sides to work for national reconciliation and to serve the interest of the Myanmar people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no quick and easy solution. All parties in Myanmar need to take a fresh approach because it is clear that the old way led to nowhere. The present lull cannot last if the process towards national reconciliation does not gather momentum. However, we must be prepared for negotiations to be long and complicated. There is a limit to the influence of the outside world. Myanmar is a resource-rich country and the Government has long been inclined to self-isolation since the days of General Ne Win. The Western embargo has not been effective because Myanmar's giant neighbours, China and India, have kept the back and side gates open. ASEAN's economic leverage is not significant but ASEAN does wield moral influence. Myanmar would rather remain a part of the ASEAN family than be by itself a buffer state sandwiched between two rising powers.

Mr Charles Chong, Mr Siew Kum Hong and Ms Irene Ng asked if we would consider putting more pressure on the Myanmar government, such as sanctions, or withdrawal of aid, or even a review of Myanmar's ASEAN membership. Indeed there have been strident calls to bring down the military regime. The key consideration here is to help the process of national reconciliation not make it more difficult. Some external pressure can be helpful. But, as Malaysia's Foreign Minister Syed Hamid said recently, talking about sanctions or expulsion now would make national reconciliation harder not easier to achieve. Aung San Suu Kyi herself acknowledges the need to involve the military. Without the military, Myanmar can dissolve into civil war. The country has many ethnic groups, a number of which are still armed and can easily restart rebellions in the border regions. The last thing we want is a Yugoslavia or an Iraqi situation at our doorstep. In this regard, ASEAN shares a common position with China and India. Thant Myint-U, the grandson of the third Secretary General of the UN U Thant, who is no apologist for the regime, has wisely cautioned that "We don't want Myanmar to be a parallel of Iraq, where we said it's good Saddam Hussein is no longer there, but then did not know how to handle the insurgency that went on after he was gone."

Our priority now must be to support the UN Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari in his mediation efforts. Acting on the authority of the UN Security Council, Mr Gambari plays a critical role as a catalyst. Somehow he has managed to earn the trust of both the military and Aung San Suu Kyi. The Myanmar authorities have made it clear they prefer to deal with him rather than with ASEAN. A year and a half ago, the Myanmar authorities rebuffed the Chairman of ASEAN at that time, Syed Hamid, but they have received Mr Gambari three times and allowed him on all three occasions to meet Aung San Suu Kyi. It is important that whatever actions we take strengthen his hand and not make his already complicated task more difficult. Different countries have different roles to play in accordance with their values and their geopolitical interests. The US and EU have stepped up sanctions and expressed strong views. China has quietly played a very helpful role in facilitating Mr Gambari's last visit to Myanmar. Although Japan has cut aid, it has taken a position closer to ASEAN.

I know a number of Members in this House would like ASEAN to cut off all links with Myanmar. But this would only give us short-term satisfaction. On our own, our economic influence is not significant. If we in ASEAN boycott Myanmar, we would lose our moral influence which is not insignificant. Such an approach would only worsen the long-term position for us. In any case, the preference of all the ASEAN countries is to continue engaging Myanmar and keeping it in the family. This is certainly Singapore's preference.

Ms Irene Ng, Mr Siew Kum Hong and Ms Sylvia Lim have asked about Singapore's economic and military links with Myanmar. Singapore has limited economic links with Myanmar. Before the Asian financial crisis, we did encourage our businessmen to invest and to do more in Myanmar. At that time, there was hope that the Government was taking the Indonesian road from an authoritarian military government to constitutional democracy. But when Suharto fell in 1998, the Government in Yangon froze and the economy slid backwards. Generally speaking, our businessmen are not doing well in Myanmar and many regret having invested there. Singapore companies' cumulative total direct investments in Myanmar for the year ending 2005 was only S$742 million. MTI does not keep track of how much of this is by GLCs, because the Government is not involved in the individual investment decisions of GLCs.

Overall, our total trade with Myanmar last year was S$1 billion, which represents only 0.1% of Singapore's total trade. Myanmar ranked 50th among our trading partners. Therefore, our policy on Myanmar does not hinge on this. Instead, our actions are guided by what is best for the long-term interests of ASEAN. As for remittances, MAS does not track the amount of money remitted into or out of Singapore by any country. For an international business and financial centre like Singapore, funds can be transferred for various purposes including payments for goods and services, trades on the stock exchange, even for school fees. But MAS operates a strict and rigorous regime against money laundering, like all other leading financial centres. Banks and financial institutions in Singapore are required to institute strict procedures, including the need to identify and know their customers, and monitor and report any suspicious transactions. Our rules are vigorously enforced. Should there be links with illicit activity, MAS will not hesitate to take necessary action.

If there are UN mandated sanctions against Myanmar, we will of course comply with them. Whatever policy we adopt must apply to all companies operating in Singapore, not just owned by Singaporeans.

Singapore has very few defence interactions with Myanmar. But we have to maintain links with the military because it is a key institution. These are largely limited to interactions at multilateral events such as ASEAN-related meetings, international defence exhibitions, and sports activities like the Army Half Marathon. As far as defence sales are concerned, it is established policy of the Government not to divulge details publicly. Myanmar is not subject to any UN arms embargo. If there is any UN sanction against Myanmar, Singapore will of course abide by it. Nevertheless, I can say that over the years, defence sales to Myanmar have not been substantial, and have always been carefully limited to items that are not suitable for countering civilian unrest. There have not been any defence sales to Myanmar in recent years and, going forward, we will continue to behave in a responsible manner.

Ms Eunice Olsen asked whether the Government would consider granting humanitarian assistance to the Myanmar people. We would certainly do so if there is a request from Myanmar. Singapore has provided significant technical assistance to Myanmar for human resource development over the years. To date, we have trained more than 6,000 Myanmar officials in several areas, including English language, tourism, IT, civil aviation and telecommunications. We do not intend to stop such assistance. Under the Initiative for ASEAN Integration, we have established a training centre in Yangon. Should one day the Myanmar Government open up and request further assistance from us, we will certainly do all we can.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the UN Envoy Gambari was reported to have asked ASEAN to go beyond this rhetorical support for its mission. Would the Minister tell us if ASEAN is willing to consider trying to influence China, India and Japan to try and bring about change in Myanmar?

China, Japan and India have stated their positions on Myanmar publicly, so these are on the record. Next month, we are having the ASEAN Summit, during which Myanmar is bound to be discussed. We fully expect Myanmar to be present, and to sign the ASEAN Charter, the legal scrubbing of which, was happily completed at midnight on Saturday. Professor Tommy Koh reported this to me this morning. After that, we will have the East Asian Summit, where the leaders of ASEAN will meet the leaders of China, Korea, Japan, India, Australia and New Zealand. I am quite sure at that Summit, Myanmar will be discussed again. In fact, I have received phone calls from some of the Foreign Ministers who informed me that they intend to raise Myanmar during the Summit. Then after that, on 22nd November, the leaders of ASEAN will be meeting the leaders of Europe, during the Commemorative Summit, and no doubt Myanmar will again be an issue on the agenda.

To facilitate our work, I will be visiting Beijing this Friday, to have consultations with the Chinese Foreign Minister, and with the Japanese Foreign Minister the day after in Tokyo. I have also asked to visit New Delhi to consult the Indian Foreign Minister. I will go in my capacity as Singapore Foreign Minister, in order that we can play a more effective role as the Chair of ASEAN. I believe that if we coordinate some of our actions, we can help create a more conducive environment for there to be national reconciliation in Myanmar. That will help, of course, the Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari.

Sir, Myanmar seems to be in a state of denial and is quite impervious to moral censure or economic sanctions. Given that Myanmar has rebuffed ASEAN's approach of constructive engagement for over 10 years, how confident can the Minister be that we can wield any moral influence over Myanmar? And given that we expect Myanmar to sign the ASEAN Charter, would it not tarnish our image and credibility as a grouping? Should we not ask Myanmar to stay home until they can shape up and come to Singapore to sign the ASEAN Charter?

Mr Speaker, Sir, Ms Irene Ng has expressed views that are shared by some Members in this Chamber. There are only bad alternatives. Let us say we decide to ostracise Myanmar, to dis-invite them, if we could, from the Summit. Then what happens? Then Myanmar, on its own, will be an isolated buffer state sandwiched between China and India, each of which eyes the other very carefully. India is very concerned to maintain its links with Myanmar because it sees China having influence over Myanmar. And if there is civil strife there, I believe both would be forced to take bets in their own self defence. If Myanmar is divided, and there is external interference by the big powers, then we'll be dragged in. It won't be in our interest for Myanmar to be balkanised. It cannot be. So we decided to bite our tongue to keep Myanmar in the family because it serves our long-term strategic self interest. But of course, if Myanmar decides on its own to claim that what happens in the country is its domestic affairs, and if they are not prepared to accept the fact that we have every intention in ASEAN to discuss their domestic affairs at our meetings, they can object to this and decide not to attend the meetings. Then we will have to respect their wish. But I do not believe that that would happen because they do know that it is better for them to remain in ASEAN and to stay in the family, than to be left alone outside.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Minister Mentor has said that an unstable Myanmar is a timebomb for South East Asia. Could the Minister elaborate on it? Are ASEAN countries in agreement with this view? Should such scenario be discussed with ASEAN countries so that all can be better prepared to mitigate such an eventuality?

It is true that Myanmar is a ticking time bomb. For the time being, because of the way the government has been able to arrest 'trouble-makers' and intimidate the population, there is an apparent return to normalcy. So the curfew has been withdrawn, some people have been released. But how long can this position remain? There is a lot of anger in Myanmar and among the Myanmar people in Singapore - there are tens of thousands of them here. I met some of them two days ago at the Burmese temple here. There is great frustration. They readily admitted that the recent crackdown was much less than what had happened in 1988, which was a really brutal crackdown. But that was the period before the Internet and handphone cameras, and today whatever happens will be quickly spread worldwide. And the Myanmar diaspora is over 2 million, not only in neighbouring countries, but also in Europe, Australia and America. So there is no way the current situation can go on like this for a long time. There has to be a genuine dialogue. It cannot be a case where the leaders just go through the motion so that things will calm down, and then back to status quo ante. I just had a conversation with Thai Foreign Minister Nitya Pibulsonggram three days ago. We were exchanging views and he said, "There can be no going back to status quo ante ". I told him, "I fully agree with you and that must be ASEAN's position". I believe that the leaders, when they meet in Singapore, will take that position.

Sir, I have two supplementary questions. First, President George Bush of the US has categorically stated that business as usual is unacceptable. Does the Minister agree and, if so, what is the Government doing that goes beyond "business as usual"? Has the Government considered measures, short of general sanctions, that target the Generals specifically? My second question is this. The Minister has stated that ASEAN's economic leverage over Myanmar is limited. But, as I understand it, Thailand and Singapore are the second and third largest investors in Myanmar. I would like to ask the Minister why he considers ASEAN's economic leverage to be limited.

Mr Speaker, Sir, ASEAN's limited economic leverage is a matter of fact. Statistics bear out and for as long as China and India keep the back gate and the side gate open, there is very little which a trade embargo can do. It is a resource-rich country. It has got rice, it has got fish, it has got minerals aplenty, it has got oil and gas. And it is already a country predisposed towards isolationism and does not need very much encouragement in that direction. China supplies it consumer products. Can we take the Western position? The position of America and Europe. It sounds tempting and perhaps emotionally we feel justified to do so. But if we do so, and China and India maintain their present policies the result will be what I said earlier, Myanmar de facto no longer being a part of ASEAN and becoming a buffer state in between China and India, tempting both to interfere in its domestic politics. And one day, giving us more trouble because of this. So for these reasons, it would be better if we take our own position. The Chinese do not want to take an open position because they cling on to a principle of non-interference because they do not want other countries to interfere in their domestic affairs. Therefore they cannot be seen to be interfering in other people's domestic affairs and they will never want to say that they are. To a certain extent, we have to give them cover. If they do things because ASEAN wants them to do certain things, they can say that, no, we are not interfering because we are doing it at ASEAN's request. The Japanese have been an important aid giver to Myanmar. You know when the Japanese journalist was killed, I met Foreign Minister Koumura the day after. They were very affected. Later on when I saw the news reporting of the funeral, the Buddhist monks in Japan wept. Buddhist monks are not supposed to weep at funerals, but they felt it so strongly. I told Foreign Minister Koumura you cannot take the Western position, you have to do something because not doing anything would be wrong. So they have cut off some aid but they will keep closer to the ASEAN position. Each country must respond according to its own interests and its own value system. For their own domestic politics, the US and Europe have got to take the positions that they are taking. That is fine. We cannot take the US position. We cannot take the European position. Neither can we take the Chinese or Indian position. We take our own position and so long as we loosely coordinate, I think we can improve the chances of there being national conciliation. To be sure we are not optimistic. It is going to be difficult. It is going to be troubled, but what is the alternative? The alternative would be much worse. And we may yet to come to that, but for now this is our best bet. It is the only game in town for the time being and we have to go along with it.

Ms Sylvia Lim. Last question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what concerns me is to what extent Singapore might be implicated in somehow propping up the military authorities in Myanmar in their oppressive tactics. The reason I ask this is that there have been some press reports recently as well as in the past. Just to cite one example, a Melbourne newspaper called The Age last month came out with an article called "Web of cash, power and cronies" which reiterated in fact some contents from an earlier article in Jane's Intelligence Review in 1998. The content of those articles was basically to say that Singapore had in fact been much involved in shipping ammunition and other military equipment to Myanmar and had also been instrumental in helping to set up a cyber centre where intelligence equipment was subsequently used to monitor activists. So I would like to ask the Minister to comment on these articles, whether there had been some activities as such in the past and to what extent it has minimised now. Such clarity I think would be very important for us.

On the question of military sales, I have given a full answer earlier. It has been insubstantial. We have always made sure they were items which could not be used against civilians and there has been no sales in recent years. I should not go on beyond that because it is our established policy not to divulge details of military sales. We have replied to the Australian newspaper. As for the reports about helping them establish a listening facility to monitor civilian dissidents, there is no truth in that. We have made repeated clarifications to Australian newspapers. They have printed our replies, but somehow the journalists who wrote subsequently ignored those replies we have made. As for their accusations about us being involved in drug money-laundering, it goes back quite a long time to Dr Chee Soon Juan. We have clarified again and again but they keep being recycled and that article ythe Member has referred to contains some of that recycled hash.

rose ---

No, I have already said that that was the last question, Mr Low. Next Question. Ms Eunice Olsen.

11. Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry deployed its officers to film students organising on-campus activities highlighting the plight of the people in Myanmar; and (b) whether such activities constitute a security threat.

12. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Police had asked persons wearing T-shirts protesting against the Myanmar regime to take them off and, if so, what was the rationale for doing so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take Question Nos. 11 and 12 together, please?

Yes.

Sir, these incidents took place at a time when the Myanmese here were reacting to events back in Myanmar, where the situation was very tense. Emotions were running high amongst the Myanmese community living here at what they perceived as injustice being done to their countrymen back home. Indeed, at the time when these incidents occurred, the situation in Myanmar was deteriorating rapidly. Anticipating that this would further fuel the strong sentiments already gripping the emotions of Myanmese nationals here in Singapore, Police decided to take extra precautions to prevent any breaches of law and order.

It was in this context that Police received information that Myanmese nationals might assemble to stage a protest and deployed officers to patrol areas where Myanmese nationals normally congregated. This included the Peninsula Plaza where the incidents relating to the T-shirts took place in the afternoon of 29th September along Coleman Street.

Sir, there were two instances when Police officers spotted persons wearing T-shirts with words relating to the Myanmar situation. One T-shirt had the message 'Stop the bloodshed in Myanmar' printed on the front and back. The other T-shirt had the words 'Help Burma' on the front and 'Help Myanmar' on the back. They wanted to find out more about the intentions of these persons, in particular, if they were members of an organised group which might cause trouble and create a public order situation. Hence, the Police requested that they proceed to a police station to be interviewed. Police did not engage them in a prolonged interview on the spot as this might attract undue attention and precipitate an incident. Police also advised that they consider taking off their T-shirts, as Police's assessment was that the messages on the T-shirts might stir strong emotions on the part of others who read it, thus leading to a public order situation.

I agree that the Police were perhaps being overly-cautious but let me give the assurance that the officers did not intend to embarrass or offend the persons wearing the T-shirts. Looking back, their actions were probably an over-reaction. But given the tense situation prevailing then, and the possibility of trouble-makers exploiting the situation at that particular location which is known as a congregating point for Myanmese, the Police officers' assessment, at that time, that the T-shirt with its emotive words could lead to trouble can be understood and was not totally unjustified. This is because dynamics of group behaviour is often not entirely rational and can be stirred by emotive slogans and exploited by others for their own cause.

Sir, I take this opportunity to advise those who seek to express their sentiments on the Myanmar situation to do so in a lawful manner. As for the incident referred to by Ms Olsen, that occurred at a vigil organised by students at the Singapore Management University (SMU) on 4th October this year in support of the plight of the people in Myanmar. As explained earlier, given the strong sentiments and the volatile Myanmese situation at the time, Police acted in good faith and assessed that it was necessary to monitor seemingly minor but related events to ensure that such activities did not escalate into public order situations. When the Police do this, its officers would typically be equipped with video cameras for the purpose of recording, primarily to aid investigations later should the situation degenerate and persons present commit offences.

Sir, here again let me give the assurance that such videotaping is not meant to intimidate persons attending the event, but rather to aid investigation should offences be committed. Indeed, these recordings will assist the Police if offences are committed to investigate and discern between those who violate the law and the rest who are innocent of any wrong-doing.

Sir, I have three supplementary questions. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State:

How many persons were wearing the T-shirts in question?

What was the power under which the Police had exercised their right to ask the persons wearing the T-shirts to return to the police station for an interview?

Has the Police ever encountered a situation where the wearing of T-shirts as a form of protest had resulted in law-and-order issues and, if so, what sort of issues were they?

Sir, let me take the third question first.

Sir, the context is important. Like I have explained, the situation was tense on that weekend. It was a Saturday, and the situation was boiling over in Myanmar and also in terms of the Myanmese community in Singapore. We knew that they were gathering at different points. Ordinarily, Police would not ask people to take off their T-shirts. But in that context, in that situation, the Police officers involved thought that was the right thing to do. But having said this, let me say that it was only this team of officers who did it. It was a judgment that they made. Like I have said, they probably over-reacted, because there were also other officers who met other Myanmese nationals who were wearing T-shirts who did not ask them to take off their T-shirts.

The other question is what powers they had to ask them to go back to the station. Well, that was a request. In fact, if the Myanmese nationals had said they did not want to go back, then the Police would not have taken them back. But in the circumstances, because the Police wanted to find out their intentions, if they had interviewed them on the spot, that may be worse because that may attract attention and cause emotions to run, they asked, "Can you follow me back to the station?" One of them followed them back, and the other one went later on to the police station.

Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. I would like to ask whether it serves Singapore's interests as a nation to subject its youths and their spontaneous display of solidarity with their neighbours in Myanmar to such monitoring by the Ministry's officers and whether such actions by his Ministry send a detrimental signal to our youths and damage the values that we are trying to inculcate in our youths and impair their interests in the world, the region and the country.

Sir, I think it is in order for Singaporeans to express their concerns in legal ways, as many have done over that period. But, again, like I have said, the context is important, ie, the situation prevailing in Singapore then. So Police officers went to the spot, videotaped the event, and the reason I have explained why, ie, not to intimidate the students but should there be subsequent offences, then we can discern the wrongdoer from those who are not. Indeed, Sir, police forces all over the world now use video recorders. Some are static, some are mobile. In fact, in London, we hear of the Bobbies now having video-recorders on their helmets. So it is not something extraordinary. No ill intentions are meant. This is just to aid Police in investigations and, basically, in fact, to help innocent parties. The basic message, therefore, is that if you are innocent and are not out to break the law, there should be no fear.

13. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport (a) including the current transport fare revision, how much has the public transport fare increased over the last five years; (b) on which socio-economic group relative to real wage increase over the last five years does this increase have the greatest impact; and (c) what is the Ministry doing to mitigate the impact.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our approach is to allow small and regular public transport fare adjustments to help cover operating cost increases and to fund investments such as new buses and train upgrades. The fare adjustment mechanism protects the public by capping the allowable fare increase instead of letting the public transport operators (PTOs) charge what the market can bear, and by requiring the PTOs to share productivity gains with commuters. Fares have increased by 5.3% over the last five years, including this year's fare increase. This works out to be an increase of about 1% per year, which lags average wage increases of 3% per year between 2002 and 2006.

To ensure that fares remain affordable to the majority of commuters, the Public Transport Council (PTC) tracks the proportion of income that an average commuting household spends on public transport. Based on surveys, this corresponds to the second quintile (which is the 21st to 40th percentile) household income group. This proportion has been falling from 7.0% in 2003 to 6.5% in 2006. So fares have remained affordable for the general public. However,

we recognise that low-income households, ie, those in the bottom 20%, may need additional help to cope with transport fare increases. As such, between 2005 and 2007 when fares were raised, the Government, the public transport operators as well as community organisations contributed some $8.6 million in the form of public transport vouchers for such households. This year, the Government has also committed $10 million to a Public Transport Fund to be given out over three years to provide additional help to lower-income households.

To help low-income families cope with increases in public transport fares as well as deal with larger cost of living concerns, over the past six years, the Government has provided assistance of more than $17,500 to a typical low-income household. This comes from the various assistance schemes such as the Progress Package, New Singapore Shares, Economic Restructuring Shares, CPF Top-Ups, rebates on utilities, rentals, service and conservancy charges and the GST Offset Package. Low-income households and workers will also be receiving more help under the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme.

Let me assure the Member that the Government will closely monitor the affordability of public transport fares of needy households and provide targeted help to those who need it most.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive answer. With the escalating oil price and the likelihood that it will remain high, how will the high oil price impact the public transport sector and the cost to the people? And what are the measures that the Ministry of Transport is taking to mitigate this particular impact? Will the Ministry consider liberalisation of the public transport sector to a more competitive one, instead of the current duopoly? And, lastly, can the Minister give us some updates on the current status of the land transport review, if possible?

The way the review takes place when it comes to public transport fares, we do not have a direct feed through of the operators' costs. The Member is asking what happens if the oil price has gone up, fuel costs have increased and is there a direct feed through? No, it does not happen that way. We use macro structural factors. So, if you look at the formula, the formula basically takes the CPI and the wage index and then you subtract off the productivity gains. This is to address the concern the Member has - that if there is a direct flow through, the fare will go up. So this is why we say that there is a cap to prevent that.

On the Member's second question on the liberalisation of public transport sector, as part of the land transport review, these are some of the suggestions that have been put forth and it is something that the Ministry will consider. We hope to complete the review by the end of this year and by early next year, we will make announcements on what are some of the key initiatives of the land transport review.

14. Dr Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Transport (a) if there are plans to commence operations at the Woodleigh MRT station soon; and (b) whether the figures for daily ridership have been reviewed lately.

The Woodleigh Station was not opened together with the rest of the North East Line (NEL) stations in 2003 because of the lack of residential developments in the station's immediate vicinity. To-date, there are still limited developments surrounding the area.

The LTA is constantly monitoring the pace of developments in the areas surrounding the stations which would in turn affect the ridership for the station. At the same time, the LTA is also working closely with the land use agencies to see if developments in the area can be accelerated.

15. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for National Development (a) how much have new HDB flat prices increased over the last five years; (b) whether the current construction boom will result in further escalation of new HDB flat prices; and (c) whether the Ministry is reviewing the $8,000 household income limit for the purchase of new HDB flats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, property prices in Singapore have increased in recent years, supported by strong economic fundamentals. Prices of private residential property have risen by 23% over the last five years, while HDB resale flat prices have increased by 11% also over the last five years since 2002. In line with the increase in resale flat prices, new flat prices are on average about 8% higher today, compared to 2002.

Notwithstanding the price changes, new HDB flats continue to be sold at subsidised prices. Just as first-time flat buyers of HDB resale flats enjoy a housing grant of $30,000 or $40,000, depending on whether they live near to their families, those who buy new flats from HDB also enjoy a discount off the equivalent market price. The difference between what a buyer pays for his new flat and what it is actually worth in the market is the subsidy provided by HDB to him.

As the selling prices of new HDB flats are pegged to resale prices and not based on costs, the increased activity in the construction industry recently will not directly impact on the prices of new HDB flats.

Sir, the Government remains committed to making home ownership affordable to the vast majority of citizen households, especially first-timers and low-income families. Despite the increase in new flat prices, new HDB flats are still affordable. On average, new flat buyers today use about 20% of their monthly household income to service their mortgage loan. This is below the normally accepted ratio of about 30%-40%. More than 70% of new flat buyers are able to service their housing loans entirely with their CPF contributions.

The MP has also asked if HDB will be reviewing the household income ceiling of $8,000 for the purchase of subsidised new flats.

At the current $8,000 income ceiling, about eight in 10 Singaporean families are eligible to buy subsidised public housing. Higher income households exceeding the income ceiling have many other housing options, including the purchase of resale HDB flats.

First-timer families with household incomes of up to $10,000 can also consider buying new Executive Condominium (EC) units with a housing grant of $30,000. As the vast majority of Singaporean families qualify for subsidised public housing under the current rules, HDB has no plans to raise the income ceiling. However, HDB recognises that there may be cases deserving special consideration and will exercise flexibility accordingly.

HDB will continue to monitor and review its policy on income ceiling, to ensure that the majority of citizen families can continue to enjoy subsidised public housing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. In relation to the recent increase in the construction cost, will there be a slowdown in the rate of the Lift Upgrading Programme? The other question is this. Recently, I was asked by the consultant to cut down on the provision because the tender returns exceeded the budget. I would like to ask the Minister whether there will be an additional fund provided, rather than to cut down on the provision, as we have already made known to the residents.

Sir, on the Lift Upgrading Programme, the Government has, as she knows, committed to completing the Lift Upgrading Programme for all eligible flats in Singapore by 2014. At the moment, the programme is on track. Yes, some of the costs have gone up, but I do not envisage that we will need to go past this target date of 2014 that we have committed to.

As for tender prices, I think it is prudent for us, when the tender prices exceed the budget, to go back to the drawing board and see in what way we can cut down on the scope of works. This is not unusual. We do this all the time. But, of course, where the scope of work cannot be pruned or cut down and the budget is still exceeded, then, obviously, we will have to look into making further budget provisions. But I think it would be wise and prudent of us to rework the project to look at ways in which we can save, rather than to automatically accept whatever tender comes up in the tender process.

Sir, the Minister has mentioned that in the last five years, HDB prices have gone up by 11%. I just wanted to know whether the measurement is based on the reported resale price or the price which buyers normally buy. There is always an above-valuation value. Are those values captured? Recently, I also heard that the prices above valuation have gone up quite significantly. Is this a common practice or is this considered as normal?

The 11% figure that I cited, which is the increase in HDB resale flat prices from 2002 to 2007, yes, that is a reflection of the total price which includes the cash over valuation price. So, in other words, it is the actual transacted price and not the valuation price.

The cash over valuation, or what is called the CoV in the market, is not always positive. In fact, in the earlier years, in 2002 and even before that, the CoV was actually negative. Buyers were not prepared to pay the valuation price. They were only going to pay a price below valuation. But, today, it is a seller's market. So, the cash over valuation has turned positive. It is part and parcel of the market process. Valuations are done on a general basis by a panel of valuers. Sometimes, depending on the market situation and depending on the individual preference of buyers, they may be prepared to pay a lot more than the valuation. Hence, you have the phenomenon of a very positive cash over valuation situation today. The CoV actually goes up and down, depending on the state of the HDB resale property market.

16. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many 2-room and 3-room flat owners who are 62 years old and above and who are first-time HDB flat buyers will be eligible for the lease buy-back scheme; and (b) whether his Ministry will consider allowing some flexibility in its implementation so that even those who are second-time buyers of such flats and who are facing hardship will be allowed to benefit from this scheme on a case-by-case basis.

Sir, based on preliminary estimates, about 25,000 elderly households living in 2-room and 3-room sold flats should be able to qualify for the lease buy-back scheme (LBS). This number is likely to increase in the future as our population ages.

One of the conditions of the lease buy-back scheme is that HDB lessees who have already enjoyed two housing subsidies will not be eligible. Why is this so? Because of the policy of limiting each household to two housing subsidies. We need to ensure that housing subsidies are fairly and equitably distributed among eligible households.

Mdm Halimah asked if HDB will exercise flexibility to extend the lease buy-back scheme to those who have taken two housing subsidies but who are now in financial hardship. As with our other housing policies, HDB is prepared to be flexible in implementation to help those in genuine hardship. But each appeal will have to be evaluated carefully and factors such as whether there is family support available will be taken into account. This is to ensure that the subsidies we offer through the scheme are well targeted at those elderly households who need the additional help.

Two supplementary questions, Sir. First, I would like to ask the Minister, of these 25,000 households, what percentage of the total number of 2- and 3-room flat owners does it constitute? Second, I am happy that the Minister is prepared to consider flexibility on a case-by-case basis. But, in a similar vein, I would like to ask the Minister whether he would also extend that same flexibility to first-time buyers of 4-room flats because the whole idea is actually to assist older Singaporeans to take care of their retirement needs and therefore we should extend it to the smaller flat owners. For the 4-room flat owners, older Singaporeans will fall in that category of those needing assistance for their retirement and income.

The 25,000 households that I referred to earlier constitute about 10% of the total number of 2- and 3-room households in Singapore. So it is not insubstantial. If I may explain - what is the purpose of this lease buy-back scheme? As we are preparing our population for retirement adequacy, we must recognise that there is a very major asset which many Singaporeans, if not most Singaporeans, own, and that is, their HDB flat.

The value that is captured within this asset is very substantial.

We did a survey about two years ago and the Department of Statistics' figures showed that the average net value - that means after deducting loans and so on - of a typical HDB flat in Singapore was about $154,000. That is overall. For the lower income, it was quite significant too. It was over $100,000. So this value is there.

The challenge for us is to see how we can monetise the flat - unlock the value that is in the flat in order to allow people to provide for their retirement. But an equally important challenge is to see how we can continue to let them have a roof over their heads. We have implemented several options over the last few years in order to help to monetise the flats. For example, studio apartments. These studio apartments are suitable for those who have got larger flats. They can sell their large flats and downgrade to studio apartments. They can then unlock the value of their large flats. Even after they have paid for the studio apartment, they would have a surplus. Those who do not wish to downgrade to a studio apartment, they can downgrade to a 2-room flat or even a 3-room flat if they are living in 4-room or 5-room flats.

This latest proposal - the lease buyback scheme - is another option that we are offering. But because it is such a new scheme, it is important for us to help people to understand this scheme. It is a scheme which, I believe, will be very attractive. We are making it attractive by adding another subsidy to the scheme. But we want to make sure that people understand the scheme. There will be some who will not understand. There will be some who may be misled or whatever. So let us roll out the scheme first to those households who really need the scheme. By this, I mean the lower income households, those who are living in 3-room flats. Those who are living in larger flats - 4-room or 5-room flats - they have other options, the option of downgrading. They also have another attractive option which is to rent out a room. If a person has a 4-room flat, he can rent out one or even two of those rooms and earn quite a handsome income. A room can now rent for about $450. A person can rent two rooms for about $900-$1,000. Or if he has an opportunity to move in with his children or relatives, he can rent out the whole flat, which again provides him with an additional income of something like $1,500 to $2,000.

Sir, my answer to Mdm Halimah really is: let us implement this scheme first for the 3-roomers. Let us help people to understand the benefits of this scheme, make it popular and then, if necessary, we can start looking at larger flats. Because the 3-room flat households actually have less options, especially the low income ones. Let us concentrate on helping this group first and later on we can consider expanding it to other flat types as well.

17. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) if he can give an update on the pace of wage restructuring, including the percentage of companies which have moved away from a seniority-based wage system; and (b) what percentage of companies is required to do so before the Ministry will consider restoring the CPF cut for workers above 50 years old.

18. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) of those companies that have moved away from a seniority-based wage system to a flexible wage system, what percentage of these companies do the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) constitute and what does this percentage translate into for the SMEs as a whole; (b) what percentage of the workforce is employed by SMEs and what percentage of the workforce in the SMEs will have to be moved to the non seniority-based wage system; and (c) what programmes are in place to help SMEs adopt flexible wage systems and what time duration is the Ministry working on.

Sir, may I take Question Nos. 17 and 18 together?

Yes.

Sir, Ms Irene Ng and Ms Ho Geok Choo asked for an update on the pace of wage restructuring. The Tripartite Taskforce on Wage Restructuring had made three key recommendations to make wages more flexible and performance-based:

move away from seniority-based wage system and narrow the maximum-minimum salary ratio to an average of 1.5 or less;

build up the Monthly Variable Component; and

implement variable bonus linked to Key Performance Indicators.

Our data shows that as at December 2006, 83% of the private sector workforce worked for employers who had implemented at least one of the three measures.

As at December 2006, 60% of the workers worked for firms that had narrowed or were narrowing the wage ratio to 1.5 or less, an improvement from 52% in June 2004. SMEs that employ more than 25 and less than 200 workers were under-represented in this group. Although the SME workforce is about 41% of the total workforce in the private sector, SME workers who worked in firms that had narrowed or were narrowing the salary ratio comprise only 24% of the total workforce in the private sector.

A similar pattern can be seen when looking at the level of adoption by firms. 62% of workers in large firms, compared to 58% of workers in SMEs, had narrowed or were narrowing the salary ratio.

More effort is required to help SMEs understand how a flexible and performance-based wage system could be implemented. For example, the Ministry and the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in partnership with other employers' organisations, recently organised a Mandarin Seminar on Wage Restructuring specifically for SMEs. An easy-to-read handbook was published in both English and Chinese and distributed to SMEs through various employers' organisations as a reference guide in implementing flexible wages.

Ms Irene Ng asked about the restoration of CPF cut for workers above 50 years old. Employers' CPF contributions are important in providing social security to Singaporean workers. However, this must be balanced with the impact on the overall employability of locals and the cost competitiveness of our economy. These considerations underpin our calibration of CPF rates.

These were also the reasons why in the 2003 CPF retuning exercise, the House agreed that the long-term target CPF contribution rate should be reduced from 40% to a range of between 30% and 36%, depending on economic performance and for workers not more than 50 years old, with the employer contribution varying between 10% and 16%. To improve the employability of older workers, a further reduction was made for those aged 50 to 55 which was lowered over two years to range from 24% to 30%, with the employer contribution varying between 6% and 12%. There were no changes to the employer contribution rates for workers above 55 in 2003.

In view of the buoyant economy and labour market, the employer CPF contribution rate was increased for all employees by 1.5% in July this year, except for older low wage workers above the age of 35 and earning up to $1,500.

For older low wage workers, employers' CPF was instead reduced to further enhance their employability. This reduction, however, will be more than made up for by the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS), starting in January 2008. Workers above 45 years of age, earning between $500 and $1,000 inclusive, will receive $1,200 in total WIS, which translates to about 10%-20% increase in annual income.

Sir, given that we have a tight labour market with wages going up quite rapidly, is it not a good idea to divert some of the wage rise into CPF savings by restoring some of the cuts for those above 50 especially? Besides helping our workers to save for their retirement, will this not also help to dampen inflation rate trends?

Can I also ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware of a recent survey which found that middle aged and older workers in the past two years had found it easier to find jobs because of the stronger employment market? For instance, in September 2006, 74% of retrenched degree holders aged 50 and above found re-employment in six months, up from 64% in September 2005. Does it not show that the CPF cut for workers aged 50 and above, especially for the higher skilled, is not a key factor in keeping them employed?

Ms Ng, are you making a speech or are you asking a question?

Does it not show that the CPF cut for workers aged 50 and above, especially for the higher skilled, is not a key factor in keeping them employed in good times?

Do you have a question, Mr Hawazi?

Yes, Sir. I wanted to ask what was her question.

Mr Hawazi asked what is your question, Ms Ng?

Sir, we are all for re-employment for older workers. But I am arguing that, given the surveys done, it shows that older workers find it easier to get employment. Is it quite irrelevant for us to keep harping on cutting CPF for the older workers as a tool for them to get employed, especially with schemes like the Advantage Scheme and the flexible wage system coming in?

Sir, all the measures that have been taken by MOM together with our stakeholders - the unions and employers' organisations - are meant to help workers who are likely to have more problems of getting jobs, and these include older workers and low-educated workers. We must look at the long-term employability of these workers. We can always be encouraged by the short-term buoyancy and employment rate of all our workers, including older workers, but we must take into consideration the long-term viability of their employment. With that in mind, we decide very cautiously on the CPF rates, including the rate at which increases are made.

Sir, three supplementary questions. First, what are the reasons for the rather slow progress among the SMEs moving on to the non-seniority wage based system? Second, what can the Government do to speed up this conversion? Third, why is the CPF restoration for those above 50 years of age incumbent on the company and the employee being on the non-seniority wage system?

Sir, SMEs may be slow in subscribing to the flexible wage system, because they may not have the full information. That is why MOM, together with the Chambers of Commerce and employer organisations, is working closely to reach out to them to explain through seminars and workshops on the workings of the flexible wage system - the three components that I briefed the House earlier. More can be done, of course, to reach out to them, including detailed explanations on how they can implement the monthly variable component of the wage system.

On CPF restoration for older workers, we have many ways to help older workers, including the WIS. We should not look at just one component of the wage system. We are looking at a comprehensive way of helping through income supplementation too.

19. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what plans does the Government have in terms of other measures to establish a secure retirement other than changes made to the CPF scheme; (b) whether the Government has considered the taking up of annuity insurance to be taken up at the commencement of work just like the CPF; and (c) if he can provide updates on modifications, if any, to be made to the proposed annuity scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans can achieve retirement adequacy by remaining employable, saving enough for their own needs and using their CPF funds prudently. With the recently announced interest rate changes, our projections indicate that a 20th income percentile CPF member, starting work at age 20 at an income of $1,200, can afford to buy a 3-room flat and still meet the Minimum Sum with property pledge when he reaches age 55.

We have also recently made changes so that members who are better off can help other family members. We have expanded the list of beneficiaries who can receive top-ups and increased the maximum sums allowed.

The CPF Board will also step up its efforts to assist members to make better financial decisions for their retirement. The Board has been conducting outreach to members through annual roadshows, as well as online retirement planning tools. It is reviewing other ways to reach out to members. To assist those who want to invest their funds for higher returns, sales and management charges for investment products under the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS) were recently capped so as to reduce cost for members. The CPF Board will continue to monitor the CPFIS to determine where improvements can be made.

These measures complement other steps taken by other Ministries. For example, the Ministry of Health has improved the MediShield and ElderShield schemes. The Ministry of National Development has also announced the Lease Buyback scheme. When budget conditions permit, the Government has been making distributions to Singaporeans, and these are usually targeted at the older and less well-off segments of our population. Since 2001 and including the GST Offset package, special transfers from the Government have totalled $11.7 billion.

The Member has also asked whether the Government has made any modifications to the National Longevity Insurance Scheme. The Government has appointed a National Longevity Insurance Committee, chaired by Prof. Lim Pin, to study the options, and to recommend the optimal design for the scheme. The Committee has already begun its work, and its recommendations should be ready within six months. I am sure that in the course of their work, they will have the opportunity to consider the Member's suggestion for the insurance to be purchased earlier than age 55.

I would like to ask the Minister of State whether the Government is also engaging some actuarial experts to review the viability of the annuity scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Committee, chaired by Prof. Lim Pin, will indeed consult actuarial experts to understand the insurance scheme better and to design a scheme that is suitable for Singaporeans.

20. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Education in light of the sexual permissiveness of teens and the rising number of teenage abortions from 1,279 cases in 2005 to 1,391 cases in 2006, will the Ministry consider revising the "Abstinence-only" message in its sex education classes to include prevention of unintended pregnancies and contraception as well.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Education (MOE) adopts a balanced approach to its Sexuality Education (SE) to help students appreciate the value of healthy relationships, understand the consequences of at-risk sexual behaviour and to equip them with the skills and knowledge to make responsible decisions.

Different emphases are applied to students of different age groups to suit their level of maturity and the challenges they face. At primary level, for example, family values are emphasised so as to build a strong foundation. At secondary and post-secondary levels, greater emphasis is placed on responsible decision-making, skills to manage relationship, use of contraception and preventive measures. In addition, for students who are at risk, we counsel them individually.

MOE constantly reviews its Sexuality Education programmes to ensure that it remains relevant and effective, given the changing trends in society. An example of a recent initiative is the Breaking Down Barriers (BDB) programme, a joint project between MOE and Health Promotion Board, introduced to Secondary 3 students in schools. This programme covers topics such as STIs/HIV, the use of contraceptives and acquisition of skills such as assertiveness and responsible decision-making. The take-up rate for this programme has been very encouraging, with about 80% of secondary schools either having implemented, or in the process of implementing it. All secondary schools are expected to adopt the programme by mid-2008.

Teenage pregnancy and abortion are complex issues. In addition to an effective and relevant sexuality education in our schools, stronger family support and community collaboration are equally crucial in addressing these issues. We will continue to work with the various stakeholders on this.

I just want to ask the Minister of State whether he feels that the trend is likely to improve and, if not, what other measures can be introduced. Out of the 1,391 cases of teenage abortions, I note that 19 of them were girls who were under 15 years old. I am very concerned that this has to be tackled. I know it is a difficult problem. I understand this balanced approach. But I think more needs to be done, and it may involve more than just the MOE in this case.

Mr Speaker, I agree with the Member that this involves more than just MOE. As I mentioned in my speech, we want to work with all the stakeholders - the community, the family, the parents - to address this issue in a holistic way. Within our schools, we also allow them to adopt a differentiated approach so that the schools are able to address the needs and the interest of the students more directly, reflecting the profile and the problems faced by the students. So, we allow the principals to have some autonomy and flexibility in how the sexuality education programme is being conducted in our schools.

21. Mr Gautam Banerjee asked the Minister for Education given that the current and projected shortage of trained teachers is one of the reasons why international schools operating in Singapore are not able to expand to meet rising applications, whether the Ministry will consider setting up a second teacher training institution which will produce teachers with internationally recognised teaching qualifications.

Mr Speaker, MOE engages the international schools on education and professional matters from time to time. Based on their feedback, the international schools have been able to recruit international teachers with the requisite qualifications to meet their needs. The feedback from some of them is that they generally have a good stream of applications for their teaching positions and they do not foresee a shortage of teachers in the next few years.

There is therefore no immediate need for the Government to set up a second teacher training institute. However, if the Member is aware of any particular international school having specific difficulties in teacher recruitment, he can ask the school to approach my Ministry or the Ministry of Trade and Industry and we will explore ways to help them.

22. Mr Charles Chong asked the Minister for National Development (a) why did the Government adopt the two-envelope system instead of the usual 'price only' approach for the Beach Road tender; and (b) how were the tender proposals evaluated and what safeguards were there to ensure that the evaluation was fair and objective.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Beach Road site offers a unique opportunity to realise a large scale, high-quality landmark development for our city centre. The development promises to be a major element of the city skyline as it will be highly visible from Nicoll Highway, the Padang, War Memorial Park and Marina Bay. At the same time, the site poses a number of design challenges due to the scale of the development, the unique context of the site, the need to integrate the development with the Esplanade MRT station, and the need to sensitively complement four conserved buildings.

Hence, the Government has adopted a two-envelope tender approach for the Beach Road site to allow us to achieve a high-quality development that can add value to our city and, at the same time, achieve a competitive price. The conventional "price only" tender approach is not able to achieve both these objectives. Although it is possible to stipulate broad planning and urban design parameters under the "price only" tender approach, such guidelines cannot assure the quality of the development as a whole.

The Government has used the two-envelope system twice prior to the tender for the Beach Road site - for the Urban Entertainment Centre site at Victoria Street in 2005, and the Collyer Quay site in 2006. Under this approach, tenderers are required to submit two envelopes at the time of tender submission - one containing the Concept Proposal and the other containing the Bid Price. The Concept Proposals are evaluated first by a Concept Evaluation Committee (CEC), which comprises representatives from both the public and private sectors who have the relevant experience and knowledge regarding development projects as well as expertise in evaluating architecture and urban design concepts.

Proposals that are deemed to be acceptable by the CEC then move on to the second stage of tender evaluation. At the second stage, the price envelopes of only the short-listed tenderers are opened. The site is then awarded to the tender with the highest bid among the short-listed tenderers, taking into consideration the Government's reserve price. The price envelopes of the other tenders that are not short-listed are returned un-opened.

In line with the vision for the Beach Road site, the evaluation criteria for the site focused on four key aspects: (i) appropriateness to context; (ii) quality of architecture; (iii) composition and placement of uses; and (iv) track record of the tenderer and the design team. These criteria have also been used by the Government in evaluating the concept proposals for the two Integrated Resorts.

Various steps have been adopted for the Beach Road site tender to ensure that the criteria are transparent and well understood. These include a public briefing to all prospective tenderers on the evaluation criteria early in the process to ensure that they are clear on the tender conditions before they work out the details of their proposals.

All the prospective tenderers have also been given an opportunity to present their proposals to the CEC after the close of tender.

The use of the two-envelope system, the assessment criteria, the composition of the CEC and the final award of the tender have been approved by a Ministerial Committee, comprising the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law, the Minister for Trade and Industry, the Minister for National Development and the Second Minister for Finance.

We have and we will continue to apply the two-envelope system very selectively for Government Land Sales sites where we want to achieve very specific development outcomes.

23. Prof. Thio Li-ann asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) if he will provide an update on the presentation of Singapore's Third Report before the Committee overseeing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) at its 39th session; (b) whether Singapore's performance of its treaty obligations has improved; and (c) whether any action will be taken on the recommendations the CEDAW Committee has made or reiterated.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore presented its Third Periodic Report at the 39th Session of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women on 1st August 2007. I am happy to report that the UN Committee has commended Singapore on the significant progress made by our women, especially in the areas of health and care for the elderly.

The Committee welcomed the withdrawal of Singapore's reservation to Article 9, which requires States Parties to grant women equal rights with men to acquire, change or retain their nationality. When Singapore first appeared before the Committee in 2001, a child born overseas could only acquire citizenship by descent if the father was Singaporean. With amendments to Article 122 of the Constitution, a child born overseas can now be a citizen by descent as long as the child's mother or father is a Singaporean.

Other significant milestones included the removal of the one-third quota on the intake of female medical students to the National University of Singapore's medical faculty in 2003 and the equalisation of medical benefits for civil servants in 2005. The gender wage gap has also been narrowing. Women earn 86% of what their male counterparts earn, up from 83% a decade ago. Our younger and better-educated women are earning wages comparable to their male counterparts. The Gender Empowerment Measure ranked us 18th out of 175 countries, which goes to show that our women have economic and political opportunities comparable with that of our men.

The Committee was also pleased that an Inter-Ministry Committee on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) had been set up to monitor Singapore's implementation of the Convention. The Committee cited it as an example which other countries could follow.

While the Committee welcomed the significant progress made by women in Singapore, it made comments on a few issues. These include the lack of explicit laws against gender discrimination, the application of Syariah law in matters relating to family and inheritance for the Muslim community, the level of women's participation in politics, the trafficking of women, the protection of foreign domestic workers and foreign wives. The Committee also urged Singapore to withdraw our four remaining reservations to the Convention, namely, Articles 2, 16, 11 and 29, and to consider acceding to the Optional Protocol.

MCYS has taken note of these comments. The present reservations on Articles 2 and 16 are necessary to protect the rights of our indigenous population in our multi-cultural society. Our Inter-Ministry Committee on CEDAW will continue to review our reservations and the specific issues raised by the UN CEDAW Committee.

Singapore's dialogue with the UN Committee was a valuable learning experience. Women in Singapore have come a long way but there is room for improvement and more can be done to raise the status of women.

We will continue to work with the Women's NGOs such as the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations, the National Trades Union Congress Women's Committee and the People's Association Women Integration Network (WIN) Council to raise awareness of CEDAW and gather feedback on the aspirations of women in Singapore. These apex organisations represent more than 90% of women's groups and are our valuable partners in the promotion of the status and well-being of women.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 23, 25, 29 and 33-34 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 24, 26-28, 30-32 and 35-38 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 23rd October 2007.]

*Cols. 2293-2302.

"to amend the Agency for Science, Technology and Research Act (Chapter 5A of the 2002 Revised Edition), and to make consequential amendments to the Health Sciences Authority Act (Chapter 122C of the 2002 Revised Edition), the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board Act (Chapter 303A of the 2002 Revised Edition) and the Weights and Measures Act (Chapter 349 of the 1985 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lim Hng Kiang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Geneva Conventions Act (Chapter 117 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to make consequential and miscellaneous amendments to the Singapore Red Cross Society (Incorporation) Act (Chapter 304 of the 1985 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Health (Mr Khaw Boon Wan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to establish the National Registry of Diseases and to provide for the compilation of information on the incidence of certain diseases for use as a basis for the direction of programmes for disease prevention and control, and for purposes connected therewith",

presented by Mr Khaw Boon Wan; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 2004 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86 of the 2005 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

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

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

Order for Second Reading read.

3.03 pm

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

Sir, the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act ( CWPA) was passed in the year 2000 to give effect to Singapore's obligations under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, or the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), in short.

The Act has established the licensing-based regulatory regime for the use, development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention or transfer of scheduled chemicals for permitted purposes. Permitted purposes included protective research, medical, pharmaceutical and law enforcement purposes. The licensing system is administered by the National Authority (CWC) established under the Singapore Customs.

The licensing system has facilitated a gathering of information from companies dealing with scheduled chemicals to enable Singapore to make periodic declarations to the Organisation established under the Convention. This regime has served us well over the years, and our industry is familiar with the controlled chemicals and regulatory requirements.

Reasons for amendments

Why is there a need now to amend the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act? Let me elaborate further on this.

Since the entry into force of the Convention, State Parties have met annually to discuss issues pertaining to the operational aspects of the Convention. Notably, State Parties were cognisant of the needs and demands of the global chemical industry and the legitimate use of controlled chemicals and have thus decided to lift certain declaration requirements for activities involving chemical mixtures containing low concentrations of controlled chemicals.

Sir, my Ministry is therefore proposing to amend the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act so as to align our domestic legislation and licensing regime with the Convention.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now outline the key features of the Bill.

Appointment of Director-General of Customs for the administration of the Act

First, Singapore Customs is currently the appointed National Authority to implement Singapore's obligation to the Convention. Therefore, it follows that the Director-General of Customs should be responsible for the administration of the Act, subject to the directions of the Minister. In addition, all officers of Customs would be designated as authorised officers to assist the Director-General in the administration of the Act.

New definition of "produce"

We are inserting a new definition of the word "produce" in line with the decision made by the State Parties to the Convention. The term "produce" refers to the formation of the scheduled chemical through chemical, biochemical or biologically mediated reaction and includes the forming of the scheduled chemical as an intermediate, by-product or a waste product during the manufacturing sequence of another product, whereby such intermediate, by-product or waste product is chemically stable enough to exist for a period to allow for possible extraction and isolation, as their isolation is not possible under normal operating conditions.

The new definition will provide greater clarity to our industry on the scope of control on the production of chemicals that is subject to licensing.

Concentration limits of mixtures containing scheduled chemicals that are subject to licensing

At present, companies involved in activities such as production, processing or import and export of products containing a mixture of chemicals, regardless of the concentrations of the controlled scheduled chemicals are regulated and subject to licensing. In line with decisions made by State Parties to the Convention, chemical mixtures containing scheduled chemicals below a certain concentration will be exempted from reporting to the Organisation established by the Convention.

The Act will provide for the Minister to prescribe the concentration limits for chemical mixtures where activities involving these chemicals are exempted from licensing.

Implementation measures

These are the key features of the Bill.

1. Exempt licence requirements for activities involving chemical mixtures of low concentrations

Mr Speaker, Sir, in drafting the Bill, we received feedback from the industry, through the National Authority, that the implementation of concentration limits for product mixtures containing scheduled chemicals will reduce their cost of compliance. This is because they do not need to apply for a licence if their products contain scheduled chemicals below the specified concentration limits.

2. Enforcement efforts

My Ministry reassures the House that the exemption of licensing for low concentrations of chemical mixtures will not increase the risk of the misuse of such mixtures by terrorists to produce chemical agents for their illicit purposes. This is because chemical precursors of high purity are required for viable production of chemical agents. It is not feasible to extract chemical precursors from chemical mixtures containing low concentration of such chemicals.

The National Authority will balance the exemption with audits and inspections on chemical production facilities and traders to detect illicit activities and enforce the Act.

Outreach programme

To ensure that the industries are familiar with the new amendments and existing controls under the CWPA, the National Authority has planned a series of outreach and courses commencing from November this year to educate the industry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this proposed Bill will bring our legislation in line with international standards in curbing the proliferation of dangerous chemical weapons. It will also provide the industry with greater clarity in our regulatory requirements.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.13 pm

Sir, I rise in support of the amendments to be made in the above Bill.

Singapore's main focus has always and will continue to be the regulation and inspection of chemical facilities and operators. This would include all those companies and industries dealing with chemicals stipulated in Schedules I to IV. It is important to have frequent inspections, discussions and engagement of these vendors and companies. This is also because there is very rapid development in the area whereby partially related or so-called cousin chemical may be produced from R&D activities. Therefore, the new definition of the word "produce" is indeed appropriate.

A register of all these companies and persons in charge should be maintained adequately. Also, if we do have foreign workers and foreign nationals working in these sensitive areas, it may be time to consider stricter monitoring. In these days and age where terrorist network can be extensive, we have to remain highly vigilant, in particular when dealing with areas such as this with a high potential for hazards. Can I also enquire if these premises dealing with such chemicals can be clearly demarcated and have signages? No doubt, many of these may already be sited away from residential and educational areas.

Another query I have, Sir, is whether the inspections of these premises are conducted ad hoc or the owners are pre-informed beforehand so that they can prepare the premises adequately. I would like to suggest a kind of spot-check type approach, if this is not already being done, to increase the so-called surprise element and to see what really goes on on a day-to-day basis. Also, perhaps, the monitoring of accidents and incidents or the industrial injuries and explosions can be used as KPIs for these companies and industries.

With regard to the amendment to section 9, I support the addition of the relevant phrases to make it clearer and certainly more specific. The concentration limits and types of chemicals must be prescribed by the regulations. The stiff penalties must be maintained as it is certainly a deterrent. The amendments in the Bill, Sir, ensure that practical steps are clearly defined and delineated in our quest towards preventing any chemical weapons threat.

I support the amendments as we align ourselves with the international convention.

3.16 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for her comments.

First, I would like to reassure the Member that in no way will these amendments endanger our current regulatory system. In excluding the companies from reporting requirements, only companies which are using low concentrations of these scheduled chemicals are involved, and this involves about 20 companies which are using chemicals under Schedule IIB and Schedule III with concentrations under 30%. The products involved are common household or industrial items such as photographic solutions, print cartridge and ink cartridge chemicals. So these are relatively safe chemicals from mixtures, from which it is generally not technically possible for any terrorist group to extract dangerous chemicals from.

As for inspections, the current regime of scheduled as well as unscheduled audits will continue. Since the time the Act was passed, these audits had found minor infringements. Ten companies had been given warning and one company was fined because it was a repeat offender. We will continue to audit and inspect companies that deal with these chemicals.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Balaji Sadasivan].

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

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.40 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.17 pm until 3.40 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm

With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present,

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the proceedings on the Second Reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the speeches to be made by the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, the Penal Code is the primary criminal statute in Singapore with more than 500 provisions. It is a key part of the corpus of Singapore's laws which have served us well in keeping our law and order situation under control all these years. As a major criminal law statute, its provisions reflect our society's norms and values. This review is the most comprehensive undertaken since 1984, when we amended the Penal Code to introduce mandatory minimum punishment for several serious offences. Now, we are amending the Code so that it remains effective in a dynamic and changing environment that remains challenging.

Working closely with the Attorney-General's Chambers, Ministry of Law and other Government agencies, we updated the Code's provisions to reflect present realities, addressing the changing nature of crime and ensuring that there is adequate protection for the more vulnerable members of our society, such as our young and mentally disabled. Stretching over two to three years, the process was a measured and deliberate one, taking into account, where applicable, legislative changes in other jurisdictions. In amending some provisions, we also took into account comments made by the Judges in their judgments.

Consultation process

Sir, the amendments now before the House have been refined through a robust process of public consultation, with inputs from members of the public, professional organisations, as well as stakeholders of our criminal justice system. During the consultation period, we received about 300 responses through multiple points of engagement, such as the REACH e-portal, letters and articles to the media, email messages, as well as input at three focus group discussions with people from different walks of life. And, thereafter, continued to receive more feedback. In addition, institutions, such as the Law Society, Subordinate Courts and Singapore Academy of Law, gave valuable input. It is heartening that Singaporeans took an active interest in this review. I say "thank you" to all of them for contributing time and effort to make this consultation exercise a very meaningful one.

We carefully considered every feedback received, holding discussions with the relevant agencies to explore the ideas, suggestions and views that surfaced. Indeed, as rightly pointed out by some contributors, this is a valuable process which has helped to further refine and improve the proposed amendments. About 30 provisions were further amended as a result of suggestions received during this consultation period. In all, this review will see 77 provisions expanded, updated or clarified, four provisions repealed, and 21 new offences enacted to address identified gaps in the law, strengthen enforcement capability and accord better protection to vulnerable persons. In addition, we have undertaken a comprehensive and holistic review of all the penalties set out in the Code.

Let me now cover the key features of the Bill.

Penal Code will be updated to reflect current realities and crime trends - keeping pace with technology

Sir, there has been a wave of technological advancements since the Penal Code was last substantially amended. Increased use of the Internet, mobile phone and credit card has changed our lives dramatically. Unfortunately, there is a darker side to this phenomenon as law-breakers, criminals and terrorists also leverage on these tools to further their objectives. It is therefore critical for us to update the Penal Code to ensure that the scope of its provisions take into account these developments.

With Singapore's reputation as a financial hub and the increased use of electronic payment, including credit cards, it is vital that we take firm measures to tackle credit card fraud. We will therefore amend section 30 to put beyond doubt that the term "valuable security" is deemed to include credit cards, charge cards, stored value cards, automated teller machine (ATM) cards, and such other cards which have money or money's worth, or other financial rights attached. Following feedback from the Subordinate Courts and the Singapore Academy of Law, MHA has decided to remove the term "privileges" from the new definition of "valuable security", so as to exclude reward cards and discount cards as this would unnecessarily widen the scope of the offence.

In addition, a new section 31A defining "die" and "instrument" will be introduced to deal more effectively with card-based fraud. New sections 473A, 473B and 473C which relate to the making or possessing of equipment to make a false instrument have also been introduced to deal more holistically with credit card fraud.

In addition, Sir, these amendments recognise the fact that with the pervasive use of IT and the Internet, the world no longer operates solely in a "brick and mortar" or "paper" environment. Many of our messages are transmitted through the electronic medium, such as through emails, SMS messages and, for some, blogging. It is therefore the right thing to do to enhance the coverage of relevant Penal Code provisions to cover the various electronic means and media which can be used to perpetrate crime.

Hence, 18 provisions will be amended to reflect this development, by adding the term "electronic record" or expanding the definition of "document". In particular, the sale of any obscene object by a person through the Internet, the making of statements on a person's blog with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, or the sending of an SMS message that contains an incitement to violence or that counsels disobedience to the law would be criminalised under amended sections 292 (Sale of obscene books, etc), 298 (Uttering words, etc, with deliberate intent to wound the religious or racial feelings of any person) and section 151A, now renumbered section 267C respectively.

However, Sir, let me assure Members that Police has no intention to monitor what takes place online, such as the Internet. Neither should netizens, bloggers and the many of us who regularly send SMS messages worry that these provisions will inhibit our use of these communication channels. Law-abiding users should have no fear. Indeed, the underlying offences remain unchanged in substance although the means of transmission have now widened.

Also, to enable us to better deal with white collar crimes involving electronic or digital records and documents, we will update the relevant provisions to incorporate acts committed via the Internet and digital forms of document. This way, Sir, Police can more effectively deal with forgery offences involving, for example, the falsification of electronic records and documents, fabrication of email messages and use of forged electronic certificates. As of now, these pose challenges to the Police in terms of establishing an offence under the Penal Code. Addressing threat of extremist terrorism

Sir, another key development that we have addressed in these amendments is the new security climate in the post-911 environment and the threat posed by extremist terrorism. While our security forces currently already possess the necessary powers to act in dealing with acts of terrorism, and also guidelines as to the proper exercise of these powers, MHA proposes to include additional illustrations to provide greater clarity with regard to the legitimacy of actions by our security officers under certain threat scenarios. This is particularly important, considering that the Penal Code was drafted primarily to deal with crime, not terrorism.

These illustrations will be inserted to existing sections 79 and 81 under chapter IV titled "General Exceptions". But let me emphasise that these illustrations do not grant additional powers to our security forces but rather aim to provide clarity in the law. More importantly, they give greater operational confidence to our officers on the ground in taking the necessary actions to neutralise security threats that confront them.

Inserted in consultation with MINDEF, they cover scenarios pertaining to potential suicide bombers, a hostile vessel ramming against another vessel, and an apparently hijacked vessel that appears to be on a "suicide mission" to cause harm to innocent human lives at a ferry terminal. We only need to recall the London Bombings of 2005 and the attack on USS Cole to know that these are plausible scenarios in today's security climate. Although the illustrations are not exhaustive, they are adequate to highlight the type of scenarios our security forces may have to contend with. The principles underlying these additional illustrations can be extrapolated to similar situations that may arise. In cases where there is credible intelligence received of a possible terrorist attack, security personnel on duty at these locations should factor such intelligence in determining their course of action when confronted with threatening situations.

But here, again, Sir, let me say that, notwithstanding the inclusion of these illustrations, it will ultimately be the Public Prosecutor, when deciding whether or not to prosecute, and the Courts, when determining the guilt or otherwise of an accused, to assess if any of the Defences or General Exceptions applies in the circumstances of the case.

Preserving religious and racial harmony in the new global security climate

Sir, the current security climate also necessitates a re-look at offences that aggravate religious and racial sentiments which are now more likely to yield graver consequences than before. The likelihood of extremists stirring up enmity or ill-will in a religious setting and fanning racist flames has increased tremendously. We have seen examples in other countries where a particular race or religion has come under fire in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. The need to tend carefully to the expression of religious and racial sentiments has become crucial today, in the context of a globalised world facing the threat of terrorism driven by religious extremism. Indeed, Inhope, the International Association of Internet Hotlines, reports that monthly trends of reports processed worldwide over a 28-month period, up to December last year, showed that racism and xenophobia grew by 33%. All the more so, Sir, in multi-religious, multi-racial Singapore, maintaining religious and racial harmony is critical. We will only be able to continue enjoying racial and religious harmony if we practise tolerance and moderation as well as sensitivity. We should never take for granted the tolerance and mutual respect between the different religions and races which we have painstakingly nurtured over the past decades.

These amendments will strengthen our laws against those who promote enmity between different racial and religious groups on grounds of religion or race and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony and those who utter words or gestures with deliberate intent to wound the racial or religious feelings of any person. Currently, Sir, section 298 criminalises words and gestures made with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of a person. The cases of the racist bloggers, Benjamin Koh and Nicholas Lim, who were charged and convicted under the Sedition Act, raised the question whether there was a need to prosecute the offenders under such a high signature Act. To provide for greater prosecutorial discretion, the scope of existing section 298 will be expanded to cover the deliberate wounding of the racial feelings of a person.

In addition, a new section 298A will be introduced to criminalise the deliberate promotion by someone of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different racial and religious groups on grounds of race or religion. This plugs a gap as currently actions that are likely to cause racial or religious disharmony between different racial or religious groups are not criminalised under the Penal Code. Section 298A therefore complements section 298. Both sections will cover online transmissions, especially as the impact of such transmissions is much wider than face-to-face or hard copy transmission.

Sir, whilst feedback received supported the need for these amendments, concerns were raised over the seemingly broad scope of the offences. To assuage these concerns, we have inserted the requirement of "knowingly promotes" in new section 298A that mirrors the requirement of "deliberate intention of wounding" in section 298. This is a clear signal that the bar set for these offences is a high one.

Words that are carelessly spoken will not be caught. It is not likely too that a journalist writing an article based on facts, notwithstanding that it may be racially or religiously sensitive, will be caught. A critical but rational and objective discussion of religion and religious principles will also not likely be caught. But, of course, ultimately, the Public Prosecutor exercises his discretion in deciding whether or not to prosecute, based on the particular facts of the case.

In addition, everyone has the right to hold his own religious beliefs and to accept or not to accept any religion. As such, it is not likely that a person who shares his testimony of his conversion from one religion to another in his personal Internet website, stating how he found fulfilment and meaning in life after he converted to the other religion, without denigrating another person's religion, would be caught.

Nevertheless, in multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore, Singaporeans should recognise the sensitivities of other religious groups. It is one thing to preach to a person who is interested to hear your views. However, it is quite another to try to convert a person to your religion by denigrating his religion, especially when he has no desire to be converted.

Sir, to underscore the seriousness of offences involving or motivated by hostility towards racial or religious groups, we are providing that enhanced penalties may be meted out to offenders who commit offences such as wrongful restraint, causing hurt, rioting or wrongful confinement that are racially or religiously aggravated. When the facts of the case warrant increasing the punishment, new section 74 will enable the courts to mete out up to one and a half times the maximum penalty for the offence concerned. This is similar to the approach we have taken for offences against foreign domestic workers. We are not alone in enhancing penalties for racially or religiously aggravated offences because other countries such as Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the state of New South Wales in Australia have also adopted such an approach.

Transnational nature of crime

Sir, increasingly, crimes have assumed cross-boundary dimensions. Just as economic activities have globalised, so too has crime. We are therefore amending the Penal Code to reflect this phenomenon.

New section 108B (Abetment outside Singapore of an offence in Singapore)

Currently, our laws provide for the punishment of a person who, whilst in Singapore, abets the commission of an offence overseas. However, the reverse situation is not provided for in the Code. Thus, a person who abets, whilst overseas, an offence which is committed in Singapore is not liable as an abettor. This does not make sense as harm is done to Singapore when the offence is committed here! Also, with advances in modern technology, it has become easier to abet offences in Singapore, whilst physically overseas.

This amendment will make it easier for our law enforcers to tackle crime more holistically by also targeting those who perpetrate their criminal intentions from afar. In this way, those who plan robberies or murders here, or send drugs from overseas to Singapore, or plan terrorist attacks here will be subject to this provision. If these people are apprehended in Singapore, they can be prosecuted. Here, again, we are not alone in adopting this approach as Australian states such as Queensland and Victoria have similar provisions.

New section 4 (Jurisdiction over public servants for offences committed outside Singapore)

Sir, whilst we ensure that those who do us harm by abetting, whilst overseas, offences committed in Singapore are caught by our laws, we must also address the situation where our own people commit crimes overseas that cause harm to Singapore. Because this is a departure from the widely-accepted territorial basis of establishing jurisdiction for criminal offences, we have scoped it appropriately. New section 4 will be enacted to enable our courts to try a public servant who is a Singapore citizen or Permanent Resident, and who commits an offence under Singapore laws while acting or purporting to act in his official capacity overseas. This will plug a gap that surfaced in a case involving a public servant posted to work in our High Commission in India. As the offence was committed outside Singapore, our courts had no jurisdiction to try him for the offence of dishonestly misappropriating property. He was eventually charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which has extra-territorial jurisdiction effect with respect to Singapore citizens.

Sir, this provision is only applicable if the public servants concerned commit offences whilst acting or purporting to act in the course of their official duties. Criminal acts committed under such circumstances will have adverse effects on Singapore, thus justifying the state extending its criminal jurisdiction over them.

New section 376C (Commercial sex with minor under 18 outside Singapore)

Sir, another provision with extra-territorial application is the new provision on commercial sex with minors. Currently, Singaporeans who have sex with young persons in other countries cannot be prosecuted under our laws prohibiting sex with young persons, as these laws do not extend jurisdiction over them. In this review, we took cognisance of the fact that similar laws in countries such as Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, UK and US had extra-territorial effect.

The new section 376C will have extra-territorial effect so that it would be an offence for Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents to solicit or engage in commercial sex with minors under 18 in other countries. Sir, in doing so, we join other countries in doing our part to prevent the sexual exploitation of children around the world by denying sex tourists a safe haven back home if they exploit children in these countries.

It will not be easy to enforce this provision. Indeed, it will be challenging to gather the necessary evidence as foreign witnesses would have to be interviewed including, very likely, the victim concerned. This would be exacerbated by factors such as the language barrier, and the cooperation level of local officials. However, notwithstanding these constraints and difficulties, the new offence will be a strong signal that Singapore does not condone such heinous acts, an expression of societal value in this regard. But we know full well that the enactment of extra-territorial laws is only part of the solution. In order that we successfully reduce the incidence of child prostitution in other countries and worldwide, host countries must themselves enact tough laws against child prostitution and enforce them strictly. Other stakeholders must also chip in with relevant publicity and education and extend counselling and practical help to victims who come forward or who are identified.

Penal Code to enhance protection of vulnerable persons as victims of crime

Sir, whilst the Penal Code protects society generally, we should be mindful that some amongst us are more vulnerable to crimes than others. These include persons of a young age and persons with mental disability.

Minors

The amendments we are making to our laws to further protect minors from sexual abuse received strong support from many quarters. Let me mention the key ones.

Sexual penetration of minor under 16

Feedback received highlighted concerns over female sexual abuse of male minors. On further consideration, we accept that these younger male children could be exploited by older women. Consequently, we have decided to make it an offence for a woman to engage in penile penetrative sexual acts with a male minor under 16 and to have commercial sex with a male minor under 18. Section 376A will be introduced to make oral and anal sex, whether consensual or non-consensual, with a minor under 16, an offence, attracting an imprisonment term of up to 10 years or fine or both. This new offence will also cover other penetrative acts such as penile-vaginal penetration and penetration of the anus or vagina by any part of the body or object. Causing a minor to penetrate or be penetrated by any person will also be an offence. Whilst there is some overlap with the Women's Charter and the Children and Young Persons Act, we believe that this new offence will provide the prosecution with greater prosecutorial discretion in deciding on the appropriate charge to prefer based on the circumstances of the case.

Commercial sex with minor under 18

Sir, whilst prostitution per se is not an offence, new section 376B will make it an offence for a person to solicit, communicate or obtain sexual services from a minor under 18 years of age. Young persons, because they are immature and vulnerable and can be exploited and, therefore, should be protected from providing sexual services. Although there is no evidence to suggest that we have a problem with 16- and 17-year-olds engaging in commercial sex in Singapore, we decided to set the age of protection at 18 years so as to protect a higher proportion of minors. By doing so, we join other countries such as the UK and Australia which have also adopted the approach of criminalising commercial sexual activities with persons under 18 years of age, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 and the Stockholm Declaration and Agenda for Action 1996 whilst maintaining the age of consent for consensual non-commercial sexual activities at the age of 16.

Commercial sex with minor under 18 outside Singapore

Sir, as mentioned earlier, new section 376C will be introduced to protect minors in other countries from being sexually exploited by our nationals. Many have welcomed this move. New section 376D will also be introduced to make it an offence for any person to make or organise any travel arrangements for or on behalf of any other person with the intention of facilitating the commission by that other person of child sex tourism, whether or not such an offence is actually committed by that other person. It also criminalises a person who transports any other person to a place outside Singapore with the intention of facilitating the commission of child sex tourism by that other person, again, whether or not such an offence is actually committed eventually. This provision also makes it an offence for a person who prints, publishes or distributes any information that is intended to promote conduct that would constitute an offence under section 376C, or to assist any other person to engage in such conduct. This offence will discourage demand for child sex tourism. I note that the National Association of Travel Agents in Singapore has urged industry players to behave responsibly even if it means blowing the whistle on those who break the law.

Sexual grooming

Sir, even whilst we protect minors in the physical realm, we are mindful that surging Internet usage has created a new phenomenon - that of sex predators prowling the online landscape for prey under the guise of making friends. On 17th July this year, I informed the House that there has not been any significant increase in the number of Internet-related sexual crimes, but that this remained an area of concern as it involved young victims. I also informed the House that MHA was considering introducing a new offence of sexual grooming, taking into account feedback from both in and outside this House, and recognising that this tide will gather momentum rather than recede. Thus, we have decided to introduce a new section 376E on sexual grooming of a minor under 16.

Sir, this section, modelled after section 15 of the UK Sexual Offences Act 2003, provides that an adult of or above the age of 21 years who meets or travels to meet a minor, either male or female, under 16 years of age within Singapore with the intention of committing a sexual offence, will be guilty of an offence if the person had met or communicated with the minor on two or more previous occasions. Like the UK, we had set the bar at two or more communications or meetings as this signals repeat behaviour, that is to say, rather than being one-off, the offender is more likely priming the victim by gaining his or her trust and confidence for a "strike" later. These prior meetings or communications can take place face-to-face or over the Internet.

Besides the two prior communications or meetings, a key element in this new offence is that the offender possesses a criminal intent at the time of meeting the child or at the time of travelling to meet the child to commit a sexual offence against her. The meeting or travelling must take place in Singapore, even if the earlier communications or meetings had taken place outside Singapore.

Sir, this new offence will strengthen Police's hand in preventing any harm from befalling the victim. Currently, in order to secure a successful prosecution for an attempted sexual offence, it would require the offender to be caught in doing something very close in proximity to the sexual offence in question, for example, undressing the victim. This, of course, is not satisfactory. With the new offence, Police will be able to intervene much earlier. What is needed is for Police to show that there has been the requisite number of communications wherein the predator has prepared the ground, after which he acts with the intention of committing a sexual offence against the victim, ie, by travelling to meet her or actually meeting her. The penalty is a maximum term of imprisonment of three years, or fine or both.

In practice, what this offence does is to allow law enforcement authorities to step in when, for example, a child receives sexually suggestive communications over the Internet, or a child is seen being met by a stranger in suspicious circumstances. That law enforcement authorities can now intervene at an earlier stage would be sufficient to send a chilling effect on would-be sex predators. Besides being a deterrent, those who persist will be apprehended more easily. This is borne out from the experience in England and Wales where more of such predators have been caught. The UK crime statistics show an increase in the number of sexual grooming cases recorded by the Police: 185 in 2004/05, 237 in 2005/06 and 322 cases in 2006/07. Action was taken against the suspects in 43% of the 237 cases in 2005/06, and 39% of the 322 cases in 2006/07. Of some significance is that the percentage of sexual grooming cases where action was taken against the suspects is higher than the percentage for other types of sexual offences against minors, such as rape of female minors under 16. That is the UK experience.

Persons with mental disability

Now, let me move on to elaborate on how we are enhancing protection for another group of persons, ie, persons with mental disability who, as a group, are vulnerable to sexual exploitation. We are introducing new section 376F (Procurement of sexual activity with person with mental disability) which makes it an offence to procure sexual activities with a person with mental disability who is capable of consent, but where inducement, threat or deception was used to obtain that consent. While capable of consenting to sexual activities, the capacity of a person with mental disability to consent may be more easily compromised, making them vulnerable and more compliant to lower levels of inducement, threat or deception.

The introduction of the offence does not mean that persons with mental disability can no longer exercise their right to engage in sexual activities. A balance between the right of such an individual to enjoy sexual intimacy and the need to protect his vulnerability has to be struck. The mischief we are addressing here is the exploitation of someone vulnerable, who is impaired in his or her ability to make a proper judgment in the giving of consent to sexual touching, by reason of mental disability.

Sir, we received feedback expressing concern that there could be sexual abuse of male persons with disability by exploitative females. On reflection, we will now make it an offence for a female to engage in sexual activities with a male person with mental disability, to also include penile-penetrative acts.

Rape/marital immunity

Sir, now, let me touch on marital immunity. This is understandably an emotive topic for some, especially those who know of wives who may be sexually abused by their husbands. Indeed, victims of sexual exploitation tend to be women due to their physiological make-up. This is why we are moving to accord them greater protection by lifting marital immunity under specified circumstances but not to abolish it altogether. We believe that such a balanced and calibrated approach is a better one.

Under existing section 375, a husband cannot be prosecuted for raping his wife who is not under 13 years of age. During the consultation, whilst we received fairly extensive feedback calling for marital immunity to be abolished, there were others like law academics Professors Leong Wai Kum and Debbie Ong Siew Ling, two family law experts, as well as the Law Society, who supported our practical approach. Together with others like the Subordinate Courts and the Singapore Academy of Law, they focused on improving the drafting of the exemptions; in particular, expanding the circumstances under which the wife's consent to the husband's conjugal rights may be deemed withdrawn.

Our calibrated approach affords the necessary protection to women whose marriages are, in practical terms, on the verge of a breakdown or have broken down, and who have clearly signalled that they are withdrawing their implicit consent to conjugal relations, so that their husbands are forewarned that marital immunity has been lifted. There is certainty and no second-guessing, which can be a problem if there is a general marital rape law, as it is almost never the case that both husband's and wife's desire for sex, whether articulated or not, is of the same intensity at any one time. With our measured and calibrated approach, we feel that we have struck the right balance.

Under such an approach, wives will receive the necessary protection. At the same time, a husband will also not be open to potential abuse by a vindictive wife who may have actually agreed to sex, perhaps reluctantly, but cries "foul" later. Indeed, as Professors Leong and Ong opined, this aspect of criminal law should take its cue from family law which exhorts husband and wife to act with mutual respect and consideration for one another. Thus, the approach we are taking strikes the right balance between the needs of women who require protection, general concerns about conjugal rights and the expression of intimacy in a marriage. Abolishing marital immunity altogether will likely change the complexion of marriage drastically with negative impact on the marital relationship between husband and wife.

Nevertheless, whilst keeping the basic approach, in view of the feedback we received, we have decided to widen the circumstances under which a wife's consent to sex within the marriage is deemed to be withdrawn. Pre-consultation, the circumstances were that:

the wife is living separately from the husband under a judgment of judicial separation or an interim judgment of divorce not made final;

there is in force a court injunction restraining him from having sexual intercourse with his wife; and

there is in force a protection order or expedited order made against him pursuant to an application by his wife.

Post-consultation, we have included the following additional circumstances as follows:

the wife is living apart from her husband under an interim judgment of nullity;

the wife is living apart from her husband under a written separation agreement;

the wife is living apart from her husband and proceedings have been commenced (and not terminated or concluded) for divorce, nullity or judicial separation; and

the wife is living apart from her husband, and proceedings have commenced (but not terminated or concluded) for a protection order or expedited order for the benefit of the wife.

Sir, in addition, where there is a judgment of judicial separation or an interim judgment of divorce not made final, which are pre-consultation circumstances, just like the new circumstances I have just mentioned, the wife need not be living separately from her husband as long as she is living apart from him, ie, they can still be living under the same roof but are essentially living in separate households. I think lawyers amongst us would know that. And this indeed was the feedback that we hear and we have taken on board.

In order that this provision achieves maximum positive impact on the ground, it is important that wives are fully apprised as to how they can avail themselves of the enhanced protection afforded. The key therefore is on education, counselling and empowerment of women. In this regard, MHA will work with MCYS to achieve this goal.

The rights of family members to protection from family violence, including sexual abuse by a spouse, as well as the avenues for help, are currently covered under the Women's Charter and supported by a spectrum of family violence public education programmes. Public education materials, like pamphlets, posters and collaterals, would be distributed at key locations such as polyclinics, social service agencies, police stations, libraries and schools.

MCYS started a Co-Funding Scheme in 2003 under which the Government co-funds public awareness projects organised at the community level. Organisations seeking to explore ways to publicise the rights of couples under the new provisions can submit their proposals for consideration. At the same time, through the National Council of Social Services, the existing 36 Family Service Centres (FSCs) can also gear up to help abused wives more effectively.

Sir, there were concerns expressed that wives did not know where to seek legal advice. Recently, the Ministry of Law and the Law Society initiated two legal clinics at North-West and South-East CDCs. These will operate over four week days. Troubled wives can turn to these legal clinics for help by calling 65360650. In addition, they can turn to the Legal Aid Bureau for legal advice and assistance.

Sir, we will also publicise more widely how abused wives can apply for Personal Protection Orders at the Subordinate Courts. I think that is the key point. This is a well-established process where no lawyers need be engaged. I understand that the cost to the complainant is just $6. So PPOs are accessible and affordable for those in need.

Penal Code will be tightened to enhance the course of justice

Genocide

Sir, let me now turn to another set of amendments. Let me now deal with a few offences that enhance the course of justice. Firstly, we are introducing a new offence of genocide. This is intended to give greater effect to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which Singapore acceded to in 1995. As section 302 already covers murder, this new provision would cover actions that extend beyond the killing of individuals per se, such as acts committed with the intention of destroying, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group, eg, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

Section 204A (Obstructing, preventing, perverting, or defeating course of justice) and section 204B (Bribery of witnesses)

Second, we are introducing a new section 204A to plug gaps arising from the general offence of perverting the course of justice, which can be committed in various ways. The new section 204A will plug this gap. Situations covered include deliberately assisting a person to evade lawful arrest; destroying or falsifying potential evidence, whether or not legal proceedings have already been instituted or pleading guilty to an offence committed by another person, in order to shield that other person.

A new section 204B creates several offences in relation to bribery and other means of influencing witnesses. It is more specific than the provisions in the Prevention of Corruption Act, as it focuses on bribery of witnesses. We have also taken in feedback that section 204B should be scoped such that it would only apply to offences where a person has a legal duty to report under section 22(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Section 94 - Act to which a person is compelled by threats (defence of duress)

Sir, another suggestion arising from the consultation which we have taken on board, this time from Ms Sylvia Lim, is to expand the scope of the defence of duress under section 94, to include the threat of instant death to any other person other than the person himself. This makes sense as when a person is compelled to do something by a threat which reasonably causes the apprehension that instant death to any other person will otherwise be the consequence, the person should be allowed to raise the defence of duress.

Section 377D (Mistake of age)

Sir, we had proposed to introduce a young person's defence, where in the case of a person below the age of 21 years, the presence of reasonable cause to believe that the minor was above the age of 16 years would be a valid defence on the first occasion he is charged, similar to that provided under existing section 140(5) of the Women's Charter. This defence will be introduced for the offences of sexual penetration of minor under 16 and prostitution of minor under 18 in Singapore and overseas.

On this, Sir, we have accepted the Law Society's suggestion that this defence be denied only if, at the time of the offence, the person charged for that offence had previously been charged in court for an offence under the relevant section. This is fairer as an accused who is charged with, for example, two charges (which because the offences involved different dates, time, places and victims, he could not be jointly tried) would now not be denied the defence on the second trial on the second charge.

Certain provisions in the Penal Code would be rationalised and clarified

MHA will also be clarifying the scope of certain offences to reflect existing case law

Next, Sir, we are taking the occasion of this review to amend section 141 in line with how the Court of Appeal has interpreted it. In Tan Meng Khin v PP, Yong CJ (as he then was) held that an offence of unlawful assembly would be constituted if the common object of the assembly is to commit any offence (punishable with at least six months imprisonment for non-Penal Code offences), whether or not it relates to public tranquility. Sir, Yong CJ put it this way, "...it is the very fact of an assembly of a number of people coming together and forming an intention to commit any criminal offence that is a threat to public tranquility...wherein members of the assembly mutually reinforce their criminal intentions, intimidate those who may choose to leave their membership or intimidate those who are affected by the assembly...".

Section 141 will not apply if the assembly's common object is to commit a minor non-Penal Code offence punishable by law with imprisonment for a term below six months. Hence, people gathering to participate in an unlawful assembly or procession in contravention of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, will not be caught as these participants may be fined only. The section will also not apply if people gather to meet with no intention of committing any offence, and the onus of proving this common object is on the Prosecution. So, this, Sir, should reassure civil society groups who have expressed concern that this amendment may restrict their activities.

Sir, we will be enhancing the punishment from a maximum imprisonment term of six months to two years. This is not excessive and is justifiable. Firstly, six months is too low for such an offence which impacts Singaporeans' sense of safety and security. And, secondly, if not checked in time, unlawful assemblies would likely escalate to the commission of other offences, some of which could have serious and violent consequences such as rioting.

Updating Penal Code provisions to reflect societal norms and values

Sir, next, section 498 which criminalises the enticing, taking away, detaining or concealing with criminal intent a married woman will be repealed as it is an archaic offence. The section was enacted at a time when a wife was considered a chattel belonging to the husband. This provision does not cover a situation of two consenting adults delighting in a consensual tryst. Quite the contrary, the offender here entices a woman from her husband with intentions of himself or some other person having illicit sex with her. Therefore, contrary to what some may think or even attempt to argue, the repeal of this provision does not decriminalise adultery or extra-marital sex. Indeed, when the provision was enacted in 1892, I believe, adultery was not an offence in England.

Section 377

Next, Sir, we will be removing the use of the archaic term, "Carnal Intercourse Against the Order of Nature" from the Penal Code. By repealing section 377, any sexual act including oral and anal sex, between a consenting heterosexual couple, 16 years of age and above, will no longer be criminalised when done in private. As the Penal Code reflects social norms and values, deleting section 377 is the right thing to do as Singaporeans by and large do not find oral and anal sex between two consenting male and female in private offensive or unacceptable. This is clear from the public reaction to the case of PP v Anis Abdullah in 2004 and confirmed through the feedback received in the course of this Penal Code review consultation.

Sir, offences such as section 376 on sexual assault by penetration will be enacted to cover non-consensual oral and anal sex. Some of the acts that were previously covered within the scope of the existing section 377 will now be included within new sections 376 - Sexual assault by penetration, 376A - Sexual penetration of minor under 16, 376B - Commercial sex with minor under 18, 376F - Procurement of sexual activity with person with mental disability, 376G - Incest and 377B - Sexual penetration with living animal. New offences will be introduced to clearly define unnatural sexual acts that will be criminalised, that is, bestiality (sexual acts with an animal) and necrophilia (sexual acts with a corpse).

Section 377A

Next, Sir, section 377A which criminalises acts of gross indecency between two male adults will be retained. Public feedback on this issue has been emotional, divided and strongly expressed with the majority calling for its retention. Sir, Singaporeans are still a largely conservative society. The majority find homosexual behaviour offensive and unacceptable. Neither side is going to persuade or convince the other of their position. We should live and let live, and let the situation evolve, in tandem with the values of our society. This approach is a pragmatic one that maintains Singapore's social cohesion. Police has not been proactively enforcing the provision and will continue to take this stance. But this does not mean that the section is purely symbolic and thus redundant. There have been convictions over the years involving cases where minors were exploited and abused or where male adults committed the offence in a public place such as a public toilet or back-lane. Sir, whilst homosexuals have a place in society and, in recent years, more social space, repealing section 377A will be very contentious and may send a wrong signal that Government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life.

Penalties reviewed to give the Courts greater discretion and to reflect crime trends

Principles of review and overview of recommendations

Sir, another major focus of this review is the updating of the penalty regime. In this regard, a key objective is to provide our Judges with greater sentencing discretion to mete out appropriate sentences in the cases they hear. In this vein, we are also amending the Criminal Procedure Code to enable the courts to mete out any combination of penalties, ie, imprisonment, fine or caning, where the court deems appropriate.

Out of a total of some 360 offences reviewed, we are maintaining status quo for the penalties of 208 which is about 60%. A total of 56 offences with stipulated fine amounts will be revised to today's value, using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to take into account changes in the purchasing power of money. Increasing the fine quantum will give the Courts greater flexibility to impose heavier fines and shorter imprisonment terms if the facts of the case warrant it, and this is something our Judges had commented on in their judgments.

Sir, the principles we adopted were as follows:

First, the type and quantum of punishment should provide sufficient flexibility to the Courts to mete out an appropriate sentence in a particular case;

Second, the prevalence of the offence;

Third, the proportionality of the penalty to an offence, taking into account its seriousness;

And, fourth, the relativity in punishment between related offences.

In particular, we sought to reduce the number of offences carrying mandatory minimum punishment and the gap in imprisonment terms for double-limb penalties.

Review of mandatory minimum penalties

Sir, we will remove mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for four offences. These are sections 379A, 411 and 414 relating to theft or concealment of stolen property where it involves motor vehicle or components, and section 454 relating to lurking house trespass or housebreaking in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment. In addition, we are removing the mandatory minimum disqualification for section 379A relating to theft of motor vehicle or component part. Responding to feedback that more mandatory minimum sentences should be removed, we reviewed all the remaining offences with such sentences and added section 454 to the list. Also, instead of imposing mandatory disqualification from driving for sections 411 and 414 relating to dishonestly receiving stolen property or assisting in concealing stolen property, we will now make it discretionary.

Introduction or removal of life imprisonment

Life imprisonment will be removed for 13 offences, such as those relating to the counterfeiting of coins and Government stamps and forgery offences. These offences are neither prevalent nor serious. It will however be introduced for two offences as optional sentences. These are section 121A relating to offences against the President and section 124 relating to assaulting the President, Cabinet Member or MP with intent to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power. These are very serious offences, deserving of a higher punishment tariff.

"Double-limb" penalties

Sir, heeding comments made by our Judges, we have reviewed all the existing double-limb penalties to calibrate them more appropriately to reflect the seriousness of the offence and give the Courts greater flexibility in sentencing. The Law Society has welcomed this move. We have decided to keep this approach because doing away with double-limb penalties will have the tendency of enhancing imprisonment terms as the punishment tariff will then only reflect the upper limit.

Others

As I have continually illustrated, we took on board many inputs from the consultative process. One other example is by differentiating between penalties for compelling the Government (which attracts a higher punishment) and any person (which attracts lower punishment) to do or abstain from doing any act by way of kidnapping or abduction.

Consequential and related amendments to other legislations

As a result of the amendments to the Penal Code, consequential amendments are proposed for other legislation such as the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), the Women's Charter (WC) and the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA). With the changes to the Penal Code, we also reviewed Schedule A of the CPC including whether the Police may ordinarily arrest without warrant or not and by what court triable besides the High Court.

Conclusion

Sir, in conclusion, this review has taken two to three years because we wanted to be thorough. Not only have we examined every provision in terms of its substantive coverage and scope by updating, clarifying and enhancing some of them, we have also introduced new offences to plug identified gaps, especially in view of latest technological developments and crime trends. We have also combed through all the sections to ensure parity and coherence in their assigned punishment tariff, doing this not only within the Penal Code itself but also, where applicable, cross-checking them with related provisions in statutes such as the Women's Charter and Children and Young Persons Act. And, finally, we took the opportunity to do some house-cleaning work and have removed references to archaic terms such as "bullock", "carriage", "chariot", "schoolmaster", "ice-house" and "penghulu ".

Finally, Sir, I assure Members that even though the review is over, we will continue to monitor how these amendments will work out in practice. And, if necessary, we will finetune the provisions to ensure that they achieve their desired outcomes.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.40 pm

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

Sir, the proposed changes to the Penal Code will provide more protection to the vulnerables in our society, especially young children. These changes are long overdue as the last major revision of the Penal Code was in 1984. Over the last 23 years, Singapore has seen changes in our societal norms. Today, there is extensive use of new technologies such as Internet, mobile phones, and electronic devices by our people. New crimes have also emerged due to these societal changes and new technologies.

As such, the existing provisions in our Penal Code are inadequate to provide a comprehensive framework to prevent new crimes, and punish these new offenders appropriately. I fully support the amendments to provide further protection to minors from sex predators, additional measures to maintain racial and religious harmony among our people, and the provision of more discretion to our courts to mete out appropriate punishments for different offences.

Sir, let me discuss the details of the Bill as follows:

Sexual acts against minors

Sir, sexual act committed against minors, especially young children, is one of the most despicable crimes in any society. Child sex abuses will not only destroy the lives of young children but leave them with emotional and physical scars for a lifetime. In a report by The Daily Telegraph (London) on 12th June 2007, it was highlighted that over the last five years, almost 8,000 people (including rapists and child molesters) who admitted to sexual offences had not been proceeded against in court. These included 1,600 offences involving children (350 of them aged under 13 years and 250 rape offences). Very often, the Police cannot obtain evidence to bring the cases to court as the victims are not able or will not testify. As such, many of these offenders were not punished and were given only a warning. This is a serious loophole in the law.

Although the number of child sex abuse cases in Singapore is low, I wish to ask the Minister as to how many cases of child sex abuse were not prosecuted in courts due to the lack of evidence by the Police over the last five years. With the provisions of section 376, will these new sexual offences provide adequate protection to minors and deter sex predators?

Sir, in Scotland, the Parliament has passed a legislation which provides jail sentences of up to 10 years for paedophiles who groom children for unlawful sex. But the new section 376E of the Bill only provides a penalty of a maximum term of imprisonment of three years for sex grooming. This may be inadequate to deter sex predators from grooming minors for sex. Furthermore, section 376E stipulates that the offender must at least meet or communicate with the minor twice before action could be taken against him. Sir, why is there a need to have at least two contacts to prove sex grooming? In today's context, an offender can spend hours grooming a child through a single Internet chat, and thereafter, lure her for sex. I do not think it is necessary to impose the two contacts requirement to prove sex grooming. Evidence from the Internet communication will be sufficient to reveal the intention of the sex predator, and he should be punished accordingly, irrespective of the number of times he meets or communicates with the victim. Therefore, we should remove the two contacts requirements as stated in section 376E.

Sir, I would like to propose to the Minister to reconsider the three years' maximum sentence for sex grooming offenders. We should instead impose mandatory jail sentence for such offences. This will serve as a strong deterrence for sex predators of minor in Singapore.

As for commercial sex against minor under 18, I fully support that we should send a clear message to curb the demand for child prostitution both in and outside Singapore. Sections 376B, C and D will enhance the protection of child's rights, and hopefully, reduce child trafficking or abduction for sexual services. As reported in today's Straits Times, the child sex industry is thriving in South-East Asia, despite some high profile prosecution of child sex abuse cases. The key failures are due to homegrown demand for child sex and the lack of co-operation among governments. Sir, I am indeed very concerned about the effectiveness of sections 376B, C and D. We must do more to curb demand for child sex and punish child sex offenders heavily. Thus, I propose we increase the maximum two years' sentence under section 376B. Can the Minister provide more details as to how we can effectively enforce section 376C on commercial sex with minor under 18 outside Singapore?

Marital immunity for rape

Sir, I share the concerns expressed by AWARE (Association of Women for Action and Research) with regard to section 375 of the Penal Code. Rape is indeed a serious crime and should not be condoned under any circumstances or relationships both within and outside marriages. Sex between adults must be consensual and non-violent.

But the sexual relationship between husband and wife is a very private matter. It is also difficult and not practical to identify circumstances where sex between them is non-consensual unless explicitly expressed by the husband or wife. Therefore, I support the Ministry's approach to take a calibrated approach to protect the rights of women and privacy of marriages.

Sir, a report by The Times (London) on 26th November 2002 revealed that conviction rate for rape had fallen over the years (8% in 1999-2000) while the acquittal rate had risen (60% in 1999). One contributing factor of the fall is the difficulty faced by forensic medical examiner to collect evidence of rape. It will be even more difficult to collect evidence of rape for married couples especially when there is a need to determine whether consent was given. Consent for sex may not necessarily be given just before sex between married couples. Thus, it will be difficult to gather evidence on marital rape.

Sir, removing marital immunity for rape will not address the problem of husbands who force their wives to have sex. We should instead focus on helping women in marriage to exercise their rights to protect themselves, and not suffer in silence by having forced sex in their marriages.

Women in strained marital relationships should exercise their rights to express their non-consent for sex with their husbands through divorce, separation or court injunction order. These procedures provide clear intention of no consent for sexual activities between married couples, and thus will remove the immunity of husbands under section 375. I would propose that the Ministry provide more flexibility in section 375(4) to allow the Minister to add new circumstances where no consent for sex was expressed by wives, thus removing marital immunity for rape. In this way, we will be able to accord more protection for women in marriages.

Maintaining racial and religious harmony

Sir, I support that the amendment of section 298 will further promote racial and religious harmony among our people. The new section 298A will also set OB markers for people who have ill intention to cause friction among races or religions. Race and religion are sensitive matters and should be dealt with carefully, especially in a globalised and cosmopolitan society like Singapore. We must continue to provide choices for Singaporeans to choose their religious beliefs.

Sir, there is a thin line between promoting religion and promoting enmity between different groups of people on grounds of religion. Believing in a religion must be a "draw" instead of a "push" initiative by individuals. The Government should focus its efforts to further increase the awareness of our people on the different types of religions in Singapore, and allow free choices among our people. The aggressive promotion of religion by any religious group will usually result in unhealthy competition, and tension among different religious groups, thus disrupting our national unity. I would propose that the Home Affairs Ministry work closely with the Ministry of Community Development, Youths and Sports to provide guidelines to all religious organisations to comply with section 298.

Sir, I wish to clarify with the Minister whether cracking casual jokes on races or religions among friends will constitute an offence under section 298. Very often, casual racial or religious jokes or remarks are used in the arts and cultural performances as a form of entertainment. These jokes are usually not intended to hurt the feelings of any races, religions or persons, but purely for entertainment purposes. In fact, cracking such jokes in casual settings among friends sometimes helps to strengthen friendships among people of different races or religions. May I ask the Minister whether words or acts on races or religions under such circumstances will also be a punishable offence under section 298?

Sir, I support the Bill.

4.53 pm

The retention of section 377A is a non-amendment. Yet, its retention has attracted the most press. Some argue to repeal it and provide reasons to support their position. Others say repeal because the law is archaic, not abreast with the times, displays Singapore to be inflexible.

I do not agree with this position and provide a number of arguments in support of retaining section 377A and, in so doing, record my support for the Bill.

Consequences of repealing section 377A

The first argument is a basic one. It involves the possible consequences of appealing section 377A. A repeal of section 377A will not merely remove an offence. It is much more significant than that. Because of the concept of negative liberty, the removal of section 377A puts homosexual lifestyle on par with heterosexual lifestyle. It is to accord both lifestyles a sense of parity.

As a result, homosexual lifestyle no longer remains private but travels into spheres traditionally reserved for heterosexual couples. The point I make is this. It is a misconception to argue for the repeal of section 377A on the ground that "what goes on behind closed doors will not affect us, so no point criminalising it". It is also a misconception to argue that "what is private, will stay private" and therefore there is no harm repealing section 377A. Such arguments are incorrect.

The truth of the matter is that if we do repeal section 377A, what is in private will not remain private. There are far-reaching consequences. If it is repealed, arguments can be made that rights accorded to heterosexual couples must be accorded to homosexual couples. This has happened in many jurisdictions - the United States, UK, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, to name a few. In Singapore, we have had recent calls by lobby groups advocating the trumping of minority interests over wider society's preferences and priorities. This argument is attractive. But, really, what are the consequences? What if section 377A is repealed? Surely, the answer to this must be weighed in the balance. So, let us consider the consequences of repealing section 377A.

Marriage

One major consequence is the effect that such an appeal may have on the institution of marriage. Take Massachusetts, for example. In the case of Goodridge v the Department of Public Health, the US

Massachusetts court ruled that a law denying marriage licences to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. The court disagreed with the argument that child-rearing was best performed under the care of a heterosexual couple.

It is the same situation in the United Kingdom, except that gay marriages are termed same-sex civil partnerships. In fact, the law in the UK is entrenched in the Civil Partnerships Act of 2004. Under that Act, a civil partnership is defined as a relationship between two people of the same sex which is formed when they register as civil partners of each other. Perhaps, some supporting the repeal of section 377A may say, "Well, that does not matter. That marriage relationship can still be private. It does not pervade common space." Unfortunately, that is incorrect. There has been recent judicial opinion in the United Kingdom that the Civil Partnership Act 2004 grants the same-sex couples the same legal recognition that the law grants to opposite-sex couples. It allows them a formal status with virtually identical legal consequences to those of marriage. Incidentally, the United Kingdom is the jurisdiction with which Singapore law has the most intimate relationship. What happens there could happen here, if section 377A is repealed.

So, this is not a private matter between two consenting male adults. It is a public matter, the effects of which will be felt by all in the wider community.

Adoption

Adoption by same-sex couples may be the second consequence of a repeal of section 377A. Is this far-fetched? No. The UCLA School of Law reported in March 2007 that, to date, 10 states in the US allow same-sex partners to adopt children as couples. About the same number either implicitly or explicitly state that sexual orientation cannot legally prevent homosexual persons from adopting. The same 2007 report from Williams Institute, UCLA, states that gay and lesbian parents are raising 4% of all adopted children in the United States. Is this just a US phenomenon? No. The International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family stated in a 2002 report that the Danes have since removed the prohibition on same-sex couples adopting, while the Netherlands has expressly legislated to permit such adoptions. This has forced societies to accept what some academics called the modern family in its many variations. Do we want our family-centric culture and the traditional definition of family to be threatened? They will be, if section 377A is repealed. This is not just a private matter.

5.05 pm

Spousal rights

Another consequence, if section 377A is repealed, is the effect it will have on spousal rights. Same-sex partners may be statutorily entitled to benefits because of their new-found spousal status. This is already the position in some states in the US. Where Massachusetts is concerned, the Goodrich decision now permits same-sex spouses to take advantage of statutes allowing an employee to include his or her spouse in the health insurance coverage. How will we cope in Singapore, where traditional definitions of family and marriage had been the bedrock of the HDB policies? How would it affect the laws of intestacy? Would we then change the definitions of spouse under, say, the CPF Act or Income Tax Act? These are far-reaching consequences.

Education

The last consequence of a repeal of section 377A is its effect on how we may have to educate our children. It flows that with changes in how marriage, the family nucleus and spousal rights are defined, there will be pressure to change our curricula in our schools. Do we want to see our children being taught that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle choice? This is something that we should all think carefully about.

In the light of these consequences, I ask that we do not treat these calls for the repeal of section 377A lightly. It is a misconception to think that repealing section 377A is simply the repealing of an outdated and obsolete offence. Instead, such a repeal would have far-reaching consequences.

Harm

Some say that the retention of section 377A does not shield society from harm. I do not think that line of argument is defensible in light of the possible consequences the repeal may bring.

Lack of enforcement

The lack of enforcement is another argument put forward by those advocating a repeal. Whether section 377A is enforced or not is the decision of the Executive. In fact, the Ministry has just confirmed in the Second Reading of the Bill that it has been enforced in certain circumstances. By retaining section 377A, the consequences listed above can be prevented. In any event, enforcement cannot be construed as the sole litmus test for an effective law. The effectiveness of section 377A is seen in what it prevents beyond the act criminalised. For example, to attempt suicide is an offence in Singapore. Yet, how many are prosecuted for it? I dare say a negligible percentage of those who do attempt to commit suicide. Yet, the offence remains on the books even after this amendment because it conveys the message that we do not want people taking their own lives. Will that message become weaker if the offence is taken off the books? Of course, it will. That is why we cannot only be fixated with enforcement.

Scientific arguments that homosexuality is genetic

In recent years, by comparing identical twins to fraternal twins, scientists have attempted to prove a genetic basis for homosexuality. However, such studies are now called into question because the scientists drew their subjects from non-representative samples. Indeed, the earlier twin studies were criticised as being "ascertainment-biased", in that homosexuals with gay siblings were more likely to volunteer for studies. Later twin studies have been drawn from broader, more representative samples. In a recent large-scale study by two universities, ie, Yale and Columbia, researchers concluded that "We find no support for genetic influences on same-sex preferences net of social structural constraints."

However, even if we take the argument that homosexuality is genetic at its best - I do not agree with it - but even if we take that argument at its best case, does that merit a repeal of section of 377A? It does not. Natural predispositions should not translate into exceptions from the law. Genetic or natural predispositions do not translate in removal of related offences. For example, it is a known fact that some members of our society suffer from a medical condition known as kleptomania. However, this does not merit repealing all the offences in the Penal Code relating to theft.

The open letter

I have read the open letter to the Prime Minister seeking the repeal of section 377A. Several points are worth highlighting.

Firstly, the letter states: "a gay man should have exactly the same rights as a straight man or woman," and "Singapore will be woefully out-of-step with the rest of the world should it retain this legislation." I have just read the Petition which was put on the seat, and it seems that the Petition takes the same position. It seems from these words that the letter seeks not just a repeal but an unreserved embracing of the homosexual lifestyle, ie, marriage, adoption, spousal rights and so on.

Secondly, the letter seems to adopt the position that section 377A should be repealed even if "those who disapprove of gay people outnumber those who support them."

Thirdly, the letter claims that section 377A contravenes Singapore's Constitution. Any analysis of the relevant Article, ie, Article 12, must come with a study of the authoritative judgment in Ong Ah Chuan. To my mind, this case will not support the letter's position.

For these reasons, I support the Government's retention of section 377A.

The review of the Penal Code has also seen several timely inclusions of new offences, improvement of existing ones and a rethink of sentences, including a significant review of the concept of "mandatory minimum sentences." I aim to deal with three amendments which display the comprehensiveness of the review.

First, the new section 108B criminalises the abetment outside of Singapore of an offence in Singapore. To date, we only criminalise the converse, ie, abetment in Singapore of offences committed outside of Singapore, which meant that we protected other countries from crimes which were manufactured in Singapore. It is timely that section 108B is introduced due to the rising transnational nature of crime which allows crimes to be planned in one country but executed in another. Section 108B, therefore, assists in crystallising culpability for acts done abroad, the effects of which are felt in Singapore. This also takes into consideration advances in modern communication technology, which has made it easier to abet offences in Singapore while being physically in another country.

Second, the new section 376E makes it an offence to meet or travel to meet a minor under 16 years of age after sexual grooming. Again, this is timely as the new offence seeks to protect minors from the rising number of sexual predators who prowl in the Internet to coax or attempt to coax them into performing sexual activities. There are two mechanisms built into the section to ensure culpability is not imputed arbitrarily. Importantly, there must have been (i) a prior meeting or communication, which can take place within or outside Singapore, on at least two occasions as an indication of the offender's intent of grooming the minor for sexual activities, and (ii) the offender has to travel to meet or intentionally meet the victim in Singapore, with the intent to commit a sexual offence with the minor. I seek clarification from the Minister in relation to the second limb. Presuming an offender is overseas when he communicates with the minor, would he have fulfilled the second limb if he flies to Singapore to meet the minor? I ask this question principally on the same grounds as Dr Teo Ho Pin, because I think limb (ii) should be fulfilled if there is an attempt to meet and should not be conditional on a meeting. This is so in order to prevent the harm which may arise out of the meeting.

Third, the revised section 304(a) is a sentencing provision and it allows the Court to sentence an offender who was convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder to either (i) up to 20 years' imprisonment, or (ii) life. This is an immense improvement over the old section 304(a) which allowed judges the discretion to sentence an offender up to 10 years or life, but nothing in between. What made the old position even more ineffective was the wide gap between life imprisonment (interpreted as the remainder of the offender's natural life) and the relatively short alternative of "up to 10 years". The amendment has remedied this. It gives the Court flexibility when sentencing offenders, especially those who need to be imprisoned for a length of time between 10 and 20 years. The judgments in the case of Tan Kei Loon Allan [1999] 2 SLR 288 and the more recent case of Chee Cheong Hin Constance [2006] 2 SLR 707/[2006] 2 SLR 24, displayed the need to give the Courts more discretion to deliver punishments which match culpability. The new section 304(a) achieves this.

Apart from the new offences introduced in the Bill, a sum total of no less than 360 penalties have been reviewed. Of these, there have been 56 increases in maximum fines, two introductions of life imprisonment, 110 increases of maximum imprisonment terms, 13 removals of life imprisonment and four removals of mandatory minimum imprisonment. This is a massive review, and has involved immense efforts and diligent work by the officers of MHA, MinLaw, and members of the investigative and enforcement agencies of the Police, AGC and the Courts. They are to be complimented on their achievement.

I support the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because the amendments are timely and ensure the continued safety and protection of our citizens.

5.11 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will begin my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Penal Code amendments are timely and even necessary, with various developments in society, crime patterns and our social situation. Basically, these legislative amendments aim to continue to preserve Singapore's well-being and security, and tighten our protection. From some changes suggested, we can see how the amendments aim to respect our daily lives as well as our multi-cultural and multi-religious culture. It also ensures our children are safely raised. It is our responsibility to protect our young children as they have the right to grow in a safe situation in this country.

*Cols. 2313-2316.

Overall, I support the Government's effort to update the Penal Code to protect our interests. However, there are a few areas that raise concerns and need further refinement. We have to look at the Penal Code changes in totality to bring the benefits and effectiveness of law to all levels of society. I hope that the focus of debate on this Bill will not be dragged into too much attention to heated arguments on homosexual activities under section 377A.

In my view, the Government's status quo stand on homosexual activities under section 377A is for the benefit of society as a whole. The fact is, even though our country is open and receptive to changes and diversity, our society's majority view is still conservative in many aspects of life. But I concede that current points of view, especially amongst youths, are changing to a more progressive one. Homosexual activities, although undoubtedly exist, are still considered a lifestyle outside the mainstream society. From a secular point of view, it is something personal and I feel that it is good to leave it as such. But many of my constituents and community leaders have given feedback that by making the activity not considered as an offence, it can be seen as an endorsement or support and this will divide society. They believe that the Government will make the appropriate decision that will reflect our social situation in Singapore. And this includes the consideration for the Petition presented by NMP Siew Kum Hong in Parliament just now. I feel we should not make the issue a big one, and let us look at the Penal Code amendments from a bigger perspective and for the benefit of the majority of Singaporeans.

I will now talk about section 298A that covers racial discrimination offences. I support the suggestions regarding punishment for offences with racial and religious motives, including rioting, causing hurt, molest and criminal threat. These changes make such offences have clearer definitions and it does not solely rely on the Sedition Act that may have limited scope. One area that may be hard to monitor under section 298A is the new media activities with regard to racial and religious threats or instigations. Not all countries see this as an important issue and a criminal offence. The Internet has a wide content and some involving religions, and some contents, especially amongst foreigners, are uploaded to divide religion. Certain movements may take advantage of the new media's freedom to promote their agenda. However, I concur that the new media's influence and trend is not something that can be easily dealt with. We need time. At the same time, we must increase our society's knowledge and awareness. So amendments to the Penal Code on racial discrimination issues are the correct move and show that we do not take lightly racial and religious issues to maintain our harmony.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will now continue my speech in English.

(In English ):

Sexual grooming of minors (section 376E)

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the changes to the Penal Code, and I feel comforted that it covers a broad spectrum which is aimed to protect all facets of society, including the preservation of our multi-racial society and protection of minors. The more we are becoming an increasingly open society, the more the need for us to take stock of our laws to ensure that they remain relevant to the times, changes and social developments around us. Here, I would like to touch on changes that seek to provide greater protection for children, particularly against sexual grooming of minors and commercial sexual exploitation.

Let me begin with the introduction of section 376E which concerns the sexual exploitation of minors under 16 years of age after sexual grooming. I believe that this new inclusion reflects Singapore's progressiveness to address the evolving threat of sexual crimes against minors - taking into consideration the dark activities arising from Internet access, mobile technologies and social networking sites.

According to a recent newspaper report, the number of molestations and rapes in which the victims met their perpetrators over the Internet or phone chat lines has increased. Teenagers made up 64% of molestation victims and 84% of rape victims last year.

The landscape has certainly changed today. Adults from unknown backgrounds now have access to our children anywhere - even in our homes. This makes it easier for our children to be influenced and sexually groomed. In the past, parents had control over who their children meet. Today, I too speak as a concerned parent with two children who are already exposed to the Internet.

Thus, I fully support this measure, given the rising trends of sexual crimes arising from minors meeting strangers over the Internet. This law sends a deterrent signal to Internet prowlers and predators that legal provisions have been made to take pre-emptive actions against them.

While the law criminalises an adult, aged at least 21, with the intent of grooming, meeting up with a minor to sexually abuse him or her, however, the law is not clear on the definition of sexual grooming. At least, with crimes like theft and murder, their outcomes are so obvious. Many, including professionals in the legal industry, often give me a puzzled look and ask, "Sexual what?" or "Grooming what?" Many did not have a good sense of what this crime constituted because of a lack of a clear definition. So this makes it difficult to prove and provide evidence because the law does not explicitly explain how any prior communication or meeting with a supposed child victim could amount to sexual grooming.

There is also a grey area on the criteria to show sufficient evidence or motive to convict sexual grooming offenders. As such, perhaps the Minister can clarify on these boundaries and measures put in place to protect the accused in a 'cry wolf' situation. It seems that section 376E today only requires proof of meetings and past records of communication, and does not need proof that "the defendant went beyond committing merely preparatory acts". Of course, the advantage with this new section is that it raises awareness for adults to be more concerned on whom they interact with and get to know on the Internet.

Given the deterrent nature of the law, there has also been feedback that the focus on sexual grooming should not be confined to just the new media and mobile communications. The positioning of the new law certainly gives rise to this impression.

The 'offline' aspect of sexual grooming is just as important. Many incest and sexual violations also happen as a result of sexual grooming while the children are in the care of trusted persons. They could suffer abuses from their own family members or caregivers. Thus, the Government should broaden the methods in which sexual grooming is performed and not confine it simply in the context of online grooming.

Sir, I am aware that current provisions exist, based on circumstantial evidence, to convict potential perpetrators with the current laws. However, given the inclusion of section 376E, consistency in the approach and definition of sexual grooming will make it clearer on deterrence and enforcement.

So, going beyond legislation, I also believe that there is a greater role that the Government can take to create awareness and intensify our education process. The Government should do more to ensure - through education, social awareness and enforcement - that children are educated about their rights and the dangers of sexual grooming. At the same time, let us do more to create awareness so that the public can help in spotting these threats and protect our children because this is the first line of defence against such violations.

I understand that MHA will monitor the progress locally as well as in other countries such as the UK which have enacted similar laws to refine the enforcement of the law. Therefore, I welcome the changes to this section which are committed to deal with such crimes from becoming commonplace. The new laws are certainly a good first step taken to signal intent and to show deterrence.

Commercial sex exploitation of minors (sections 376A, B and C)

My last point concerns the protection of minors from commercial sex exploitation under new sections 376B and C of the Penal Code.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the greater protection provided by the law to cover minors below 18 as well as extending the law beyond our shores to make it criminal for Singaporeans and Permanent Residents from procuring, purchasing or soliciting sexual services from minors under the age of 18.

We live in South-East Asia where many human rights reports cite us as a region that draws sex tourists. The recent arrest of teacher suspect, Christopher Paul Neil, in Thailand last week draws attention to the fact that minors are readily available in South-East Asia for sexual predators who travel to the region for the sole purpose of having sex with minors. He is accused of sexually assaulting 12 boys and posting 200 pictures of the crimes on the Internet. Such is the extent of the nature of the crime today.

On section 376B, I think the issue concerning commercial sexual exploitation involving Singaporean minors and the extent of the industry in Singapore is perhaps not commonplace, due to the strict control and tight Police enforcement action within our shores. The enhanced protection signals our intent to better protect our young against the backdrop of this demand of commercial sex tourism in the region, given the risks and premiums placed by sex tourists on minors. Perhaps, the Minister can also update us on the current statistics involving local minors and those trafficked to Singapore from overseas in his response.

Section 376C, in my opinion, reflects a more realistic picture of the extent of the commercial sex trade demand by Singaporeans and PRs in the region. We know that sex tourism involving young children or teenagers in and around popular tourist destinations in the region exists. It is no secret that some Singaporeans patronise sex tourist spots overseas, and the mention of going to places like Batam and Bangkok for a good time has become the butt of jokes amongst many heartlanders.

But this is no laughing matter when sex exploitation of minors is concerned. Sex trafficking and sex tourism are heinous crimes that victimise the most vulnerable among us. The latest Penal Code amendments give prosecutors tools to bring those who commit these crimes to justice.

Those who profit from victimising children in the sex trade are only one half of the problem. The other half are those who patronise this exploitive industry. These new changes hold those who travel to do so, and those who benefit from arranging that travel, accountable.

While we protect our young, we cannot practise double standards when it comes to minors in other countries. It is also about our principles and we must be tough against exploitation wherever it occurs. Perhaps, there could also be studies to see if the patronage of these services overseas by Singaporeans and PRs is linked to the number of sexual abuses of children here. Given these, I think the Government should do more to strengthen its collaboration with law enforcement agencies in the region to make sure that these tools are used to their fullest extent. Therefore, I believe that more can be done to address this, so that our laws are not just seen as token legislation, just to stay politically abreast and aligned with the rest of the world. Many countries have implemented these changes and enforced them to take a serious view. So, I think we can also do more, given our position and social values.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Penal Code amendments.

5.26 pm

Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate.

The last amendment to the Penal Code was 22 years ago, in 1985. The amendments that we are making today must be one of the most extensive provisions in the Penal Code, mostly enhancing the punishment sections.

The use of caning has been expanded. Cesare Beccaria, the Italian philosopher, in 1766, wrote:

'The objectives of the penal code system of a country should be to devise penalties only severe enough to achieve the proper purposes of security and order. Anything in excess is tyranny.'

I think if he were alive today, he would brand the majority of the punishment section meted out in the Penal Code as tyrannical, eg, under section 338, a person commits a negligent act. A negligent act usually is one which does not have an intention. It is only due to carelessness. As in law, they say it has got no mens rea or no intention to harm anyone. Yet, one who commits a negligent act, although the act is a dangerous act, it is punished severely with two years jail, or $5,000 fine or both. I think the sentence is too severe for a negligent act.

The Bill has amended the definition of "imprisonment for life", to mean imprisonment for the duration of a person's natural life. This is in contrast to the old definition of "imprisonment for life", to mean imprisonment for 20 years. Judges can now lock up a person for good without any chance of parole or early release. With this amendment, are we looking forward to the abolition of capital punishment for certain less serious crimes, like drug trafficking, whilst retaining it for more heinous crimes like murder and treason?

Great Britain abolished the death penalty in 1965 and has since not restored it. Nearly all the EU members agreed to do away with the death penalty. Those countries which have abolished the death penalty consider it as inhuman and very cruel as a punishment. As a deterrent, the death penalty has its use. Singapore has used the death penalty for drug trafficking because the Government believes that it is a good deterrent. Actually, the traffickers who are caught and hanged are only the petty runners. The syndicate bosses are not caught. They still exist and the drug problem is still with us. The Government should give it a try and abolish the death penalty for drug trafficking, say, for four or five years. And if the situation deteriorates and does not improve, the death penalty can be restored.

Under the new definition, once a trafficker is caught and he is sentenced to imprisonment for life, he shall be put out of circulation permanently. For that person, it is as good as being hanged. With such an enlightened law, Singapore shall be viewed in a better light. We shall not be branded an "uncivilised" country and more Europeans shall be coming to Singapore as their holiday destination.

I am glad to see that there are so many amendments in the Bill which stop the exploitation of young girls. These crimes now attract enhanced punishment and longer prison terms. Rape is a serious crime. The jail sentence remains at a maximum of 20 years and to a fine. When the crime is committed against a woman of under 14 years against her consent, there is a minimum jail sentence of eight years and also mandatory caning of 12 strokes. I think this sentence is right. If a young girl under 14 is sexually attacked, her whole life may be ruined.

There are amendments against commercial sex and minors below 18 years of age outside Singapore. Tour operators of commercial sex with minors under 18 are also caught under the new section 376D. The Government takes these crimes seriously because any person caught having sex with minors, whether inside or outside Singapore, shall be liable to a maximum jail sentence of two years. And for tour operators who organise such tours outside Singapore, they shall be liable to a jail sentence which may extend to 10 years or with a fine or both. This heavy jail sentence shows that the Government is taking these crimes seriously.

5.34 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Bill.

Ever since the Bill was introduced to the House, I have been concerned about two things; first, whether I could plough through the entire 181-page document; and, second, whether I would accidentally mispronounce the word "penal". I have to admit that I have not done so for the former. So I hope that the odds of the latter happening are slim too.

To begin, I find that the key changes to the Penal Code broadly come under three categories, namely, laws on terror, laws on racial harmony and laws on sexual crimes. I would like to focus on the latter in my speech. In that regard, I have both credit and criticism for the amendments. Criticism because for all the modernising the updated Code is meant to reflect, there are some laws that need to be abolished entirely, in particular, marital immunity for rapists.

With the latest revisions, husbands can no longer plead immunity for raping their wives under some circumstances, such as when the couple is waiting for their divorce to be finalised. According to the Ministry, total abolition of marital immunity would be too radical a step, as there is a general concern about conjugal rights and intimacy in a marriage. Total abolition would change the whole complexion of marriage in our society, according to media reports of the Ministry's stand.

Sir, I can understand how and why the Ministry might arrive at such a conclusion. But it is a conclusion for which the underlying assumptions are flawed, and the key considerations need to be re-based.

Let us go through the issue step-by-step. First of all, before we can approach the issue of marital rape per se, we have to start with the basics, with first principles, and we have to ask: what is society's view on rape, in general? Under the very same Penal Code, a man who is guilty of rape shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning. Contrast this to the act of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, an offence under section 325, for which a person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, which is 13 years less, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning. Acts such as permanent disfiguration of the face, permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint, would constitute such an offence, for example. These are serious crimes, but the laws reflect that the State and, by extension, society still adjudges rape to be a worse crime.

With this in mind, only then should we consider that the issue of whether rape is no longer a crime if it occurs within a marriage. The logical question that must be asked is: does the union of marriage eliminate the criminal nature of violent behavior such as rape or, therefore, behaviour that would be ordinarily considered criminal? Let us see. If a husband were to assault his wife and disfigure her permanently - a far less heinous crime ordinarily according to the law - does the Ministry give marital immunity? The answer is no. A husband can even be charged with stealing from his wife, and vice versa, I am sure. So, marriage does not grant the husband or wife immunity from the rule of law. But right now, the Ministry is effectively saying a woman has a right to protect her purse but not her body, or at least not when it comes to rape.

So, the question must be asked: why the exception for marital rape? If it is about preserving and respecting intimacy in a marriage, why is it that one of the amendments in the Bill is to repeal section 498, which makes it an offence to entice, take away or detain a married woman with the intention of having illicit intercourse with her, which according to the Ministry is an archaic offence and no longer relevant in today's context? Why is one law archaic and another not? Why is one law which was meant to symbolise the State's respect for marriages repealed while another purporting to do the same is kept? So, marital rape immunity cannot truly be about preserving and respecting intimacy in a marriage.

Those who object to the abolition of marital rape immunity have invariably cited conjugal rights and, with that, the associated arguments about implied consent or the marriage contract, the unity of persons theory, which is based on Judeo-Christian doctrine, and the property theory. Sir, Singapore is known for its pragmatic, practical approach to problems, based on a realistic view of the world. There is no better issue than marital rape immunity where such an approach is needed. Do we honestly believe that in modern Singapore, where women are as educated as men, the vast majority of husbands are forcing themselves on their wives, insisting on conjugal rights, and disregarding the wishes of their wives? Do we not think the realistic view is that in the vast majority of cases, there is give-and-take in various aspects of marriage, including intercourse? Sir, do we really think that a tidal wave of wives are waiting for nothing more than a law to be put in place so they can gleefully have a headache for a month, thus turning the Ministry's worst fears about changing the complexion of marriage into reality?

Since we are a realistic people, and if it is true that the vast majority will not be affected by the abolition of marital immunity, then for whom is the change needed? It is for the small group of vulnerable, likely lowly-educated or possibly foreign wives who are dependent on their husbands and trapped in the marriage. Sir, these are women who are most likely not in a position to divorce or leave their husbands. The abolition of marital immunity is not going to solve the problem of loveless marriages. But in such marriages, what is crucially needed is to stop husbands from legally raping their wives. The Deputy Prime Minister and Law Minister Prof. S Jayakumar said last week that there is a core set of fundamental principles undergirding the rule of law that should exist in every society, one of which is the right to personal safety and security. Wherefore is the personal safety and security of these women?

I urge the Ministry not to see the abolition of marital immunity as a quasi battle of the sexes. This is not about women asserting their sexual rights, and I hope the women see it that way too. I urge the Ministry not to give in to fears, stemming understandably from our patriarchal society, that women will use this as a weapon against men. It is misplaced unless there is no love in the vast majority of marriages.

For the isolated vindictive cases that may arise, surely they can be ably dealt with in our criminal justice system. I urge the Ministry not to let such isolated cases stand in the way of protecting vulnerable women. Of course, the law is not a panacea, or a silver bullet, that will put an end to all marital rapes. But abolition of immunity is one form of deterrence. It sends a signal that will surely also be reinforced by education, and it is a more accurate reflection of the principles in our society and what we stand for.

Of course, it would be far better if, in this debate, a few good men in this House were to speak up against marital immunity. Marital rape was made a crime in all 50 states in the United States in 1993, while the United Kingdom removed the marital exemption in 1994. Is it too radical a step for Singapore to protect the group of vulnerable women in its society?

Sir, on another note, I would like to commend the Government for finally introducing a law to prohibit sex with minors overseas and finally befitting Singapore's status as a developed and advanced nation. I hope that this is not just a token move to vault Singapore back into tier 1 in the trafficking in persons report issued by the US government after we were demoted to tier 2 this year.

In an ABC news article in July, according to US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' 2006 trafficking report, there have been 55 child sex tourism cases and 36 convictions brought under the Protect Act, despite difficulties in making arrests.

I understand that there are difficulties in apprehending these paedophiles. But recent cases like the arrest of Christopher Paul Neil in Thailand show that it is not a lost cause and it is a worthy law and not just one that is in the Statutes symbolically but it is one that can be put to use to catch these despicable fiends.

In an article in Today on 27th April 2005, it was reported that Singaporean sex tourists make up the largest number of sex tourists visiting Indonesia's Riau Islands where many of those they sexually exploit are under the age of 18. Knowing this and with the law in place, without the arrests being made soon, one would think that the Ministry will need to do something to convince the public that they are serious about making a change for the better in the region.

Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister the following:

Firstly, what capabilities is the Government developing in order to enforce the new laws on the prohibition of sex with minors overseas?

Secondly, what role can the public play to help society to weed out paedophiles?

Thirdly, how will MHA go about enforcing this law?

And, fourthly, I would also like to ask the Minister how did the Ministry decide on what should be the appropriate sentence. How do the penalties compare to other developed countries, like the United States?

Sir, we are walking the right direction by introducing a law that condemns sex with minors overseas. How we act on this law is imperative and will determine the sincerity that we have towards protecting the lives of children in other countries. Singapore has always been known to punch above its weight on the international stage and now we have a law that allows us to do so in the issue of child sex tourism. I urge the Ministry to do it justice.

5.45 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Home Affairs first floated the Bill for public consultation a year ago, and I am glad to see that in this version tabled before Parliament, some of the feedback have indeed been taken into account. Nevertheless, there were still many areas of concern. And, today, I would like to address the following aspects of the Bill:

Increases in punishment;

Laws on unlawful assembly;

Combination of imprisonment, fine and caning for the same offence;

Defences concerning security operations;

Law on extortion; and

Why the Bill should be sent to Select Committee.

First, increases in punishment. Generally, I have no quarrel with the increase in fines as it reflects the change of value of money due to inflation in the past decades. To pay a fine of $500 in the past hurt people more than to pay $500 in today's dollars. So, the increase in fines is understandable. However, I have deep concerns about the increase in the maximum jail terms. The loss of liberty 20 years ago does not cause less today. As MHA has acknowledged, there have been increases in the maximum terms of imprisonment for 110 offences. Besides the broad sweep, the extent of the increases for each offence is significant. Some offences have their maximum terms quadrupled; some tripled. To take some examples, punishments for several offences have doubled. For example, for distribution of pornographic material, it has been increased from six months to one year; harbouring offenders, from 10 years to 20 years; causing hurt, from one year to two years. In some cases, the punishment has been tripled or worse, for example, assault on a Minister or MP, from seven years to life imprisonment; and unlawful assembly from six months to two years, quadrupling of the maximum sentence. I shall say more about unlawful assembly later.

Another group of offences seem to be attracting heavier punishments is offences committed by public servants and offences committed against public servants. Jail terms are up under sections 221 and 222 where a public servant facilitates escape of persons in custody. The same is true of offences committed against public servants. For example, under section 225, the punishment for someone who tries to obstruct an arrest is being doubled and can go up to 20 years' jail.

The general justification given by the Ministry is that it has taken into account trends in society from 1984 to now and that punishments have not been increased unnecessarily. The Senior Minister of State earlier mentioned proportionality and prevalence of the offence, but, Sir, I do not think this general statement is sufficient to justify disturbing these penalties which seem to have worked for years.

First, punishments reflect how seriously society views a particular crime. Hence, we punish murder more seriously than theft. By quadrupling or tripling the maximum jail term, is the Ministry saying that from 1984 to now, these crimes have become three or four times more serious in their nature? Increased punishments can sometimes be justified because certain offences are prevalent and we would like to deter people from committing these crimes. Are we facing soaring crime rates? We should also remember that our population numbers have gone up from 2 million to 4.7 million. Any statistics used to show crime increases must be adjusted for population since we can expect more crimes when there are more people. Therefore, even if there is an increase in the number of offences, it does not mean that we have a bigger crime problem on our hands.

The Senior Minister of State has said that the maximum jail term does not mean that the judge must give the maximum sentence. That is true, but it will increase the exposure and, generally, sentences will go up once the maximum point is increased. Once maximum sentences go up, accused persons, even the innocent, may face pressure to plead guilty. This is because under sentencing practice, a guilty plea usually attracts a discount in sentence as it is supposed to indicate some remorse. A person who claims trial and is found guilty after a trial would generally get a higher sentence than one who pleads guilty.

Now, how does a higher maximum affect this calculation? To illustrate, an unlawful assembly may have gathered and a passive bystander is also rounded up by the Police. Currently, this person will have to ask himself, "If the judge does not believe that I am a passive bystander, then I will face a maximum of six months' jail, and I'm willing to take the risk and fight the case."

Now, after the amendments proposed, this person will have to ask himself whether he is prepared to face a maximum of two years' jail. If he is not, then he may consider pleading guilty even when he is not. Let us not forget that the vast majority of people hauled before our courts have no lawyers to speak for them and may have no confidence that they can successfully mount their defence.

So, unless there is a compelling need to raise the maximum sentences, we should bear in mind this unacceptable side effect of doing so. Sir, I do find it somewhat regressive that in this day and age when we have many more sentencing options at our disposal, including community-based sentences, we still seem to be relying on sending people to jail as a response. What about rehabilitation and reintegration? Already, according to the International Centre for Prison Studies, Singapore has the second highest rate of imprisonment in Asia with 350 inmates out of 100,000 persons, excluding the population in our drug rehabilitation centres.

Sir, we must also be very careful that we maintain a sense of proportion in dealing with pegging punishment for offences. Parliament had over-reacted in the past, with over-harsh punishments under the Immigration Act, sending pastors and elderly landlords to mandatory minimum jail terms for unintentionally harbouring illegal immigrants. Then, in 2004, the Act was amended to make it more reasonable. Similarly, today, we should be wary of subjecting our people to excessive punishment before realising years later that we were over-zealous.

Sir, my next point is the law on unlawful assembly. This refers to clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill. By clause 29 of the Bill, we are removing the heading, "Offences Against Public Tranquility", and replacing it with "Offences Relating to Unlawful Assembly". By clause 30, we will be deleting "Mischief or Trespass or Other Offence" and replacing it with "to commit any offence". As the Senior Minister of State has pointed out, section 141 is being amended to bring it in line with the recent Court of Appeal case of Tan Meng Khin. Now, an assembly will be unlawful if people intend to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment of six months or more, even if it is peaceful and does not disturb public tranquility. Under our law, a person who organises a procession or assembly after the Police rejection of a permit, can be punished with a maximum six months' jail under the Miscellaneous Offences Act. Hence, five or more people who gather to do so will become members of an unlawful assembly.

Sir, the decision in Tan Meng Khin's case overturned another Court of Appeal's decision, PP v Foo Son Hing, one year before that. In the earlier case, the Court of Appeal considered the words of section 141 and determined that it was aimed at gatherings which threatened public tranquility or a breach of peace and hence peaceful gatherings would not be punished as unlawful assemblies. In the later case of Tan Meng Khin, the Court of Appeal changed its mind and read section 141 to cover gatherings to commit any offence even if there is no threat to public tranquility.

Connected with this, offences connected to unlawful assembly show drastic increase in the maximum jail terms under the current amendments. Being a member of such an assembly will see stakes rise from six months to two years, and joining an unlawful assembly, knowing it has been commanded to disperse, will go up from two years to five years.

Sir, we should bear in mind that there are already many laws in place which can punish people who attempt or collaborate with others to commit any offence. The prosecution has enough to choose from to charge groups of people who collaborate to commit crime, for example, abetment, conspiracy, or attempt.

Sir, Article 14(1) of the Constitution supposedly enshrines the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms. Although Article 14(2) allows Parliament to set limits to this freedom, it is stated that it should be for the security of Singapore and public order and no more than that.

Sir, it is important for us to distinguish between gatherings which are violent, such as rioting, and those which are peaceful. The constant refrain of fearing law and order problems makes a mockery of the licensing law. Why have a law saying a permit is needed when it is seldom granted? The Minister for Law mentioned on Friday that Singapore needs controls as we are a densely populated country - but so is Hong Kong where peaceful protests are frequently seen.

Sir, as our society continues to evolve, the time is surely ripe for us to allow peaceful outdoor protest as a form of expression. By all means, we can have laws about how, where and when such processions may be held. But a wider law reform is needed. Section 141 should be restricted to offences which threaten the public peace, and other laws, such as the Miscellaneous Offences Act which require permits for peaceful assemblies, should be modified.

Sir, my third point concerns combination of jail, caning and fine for the same offence. The amendments will allow, for the first time, a combination of jail, fine and caning for certain offences. This has not been allowed up to now because the Criminal Procedure Code has a section disallowing the High Court from imposing all three punishments in one case. Up to now, the sections of the Penal Code also state that only two forms of punishment may be combined in any one case. The Ministry is proposing to remove the restriction to two punishments and says that this proposal to allow combination of all three punishments will give flexibility to the sentencing judge.

But we should go back to first principles. What are the purposes of jail, fine and caning? Caning is controversial internationally, but if one must justify why we cane offenders, it is just deserts for pain which the offender has caused to the victim, for example, hurt, injury or the threat of violence. Caning is a severe punishment, and it is always combined with jail as the offences tend to be serious and to make it easier, administratively, to arrange for the caning to take place. On the other hand, a fine is usually meted out for less serious offences or can be combined with jail usually for non-violent offences.

Sir, the offences which the Ministry has identified for all three forms of punishment include abduction, voluntarily causing hurt with weapon, culpable homicide and outraging of modesty. But what kind of scenarios would justify combining caning with a fine and jail? Would there be an overkill? Clarity is needed on this point.

Sir, next, I move on defences concerning security operations. Section 79 of the Code deals with a defence of justification. It provides that a person has a valid defence if he commits an offence thinking, rightly or wrongly, that he was justified to do the act. A typical scenario is where a Police officer arrests someone, having information that he is a suspect which information later turns out to be wrong. The Police officer has a defence in that he acted in good faith at the time of the offence.

Clause 17 introduces three new illustrations to explain this defence in the context of counter terrorism operations. While MHA has explained that these are not intended to expand the defence, illustration (c) seems to suggest that Police are given large latitude to shoot to kill. In illustration (c), the scenario is that information is received that someone is attempting to plant a bomb at an MRT station and a profile of the suspect is given. A person who fits the profile is spotted carrying a backpack and behaving suspiciously.

When the Police officer approaches and orders him to stop, the person runs towards a crowd. The Police officer exercising judgement in the circumstances decides that the suspect has the bomb and shoots the suspect.

Sir, this scenario seems similar to a fatal shooting which occurred in London at Stockwell tube station in July 2005. There, the Police mistook a Jamaican student for a suicide bomber and shot him at least five times in the head. According to some versions, he was seen running away. Despite intelligence, the Police still found an incorrect match between the profile and the subject they shot. Transplanting that to the scenario here, the Police can tell you that many people run from them, not just suspected terrorists, people who have committed minor offences, overstayers, foreign workers afraid of the law or even the mentally unstable may do so. Reading the illustration, I would worry if this indicates a "shoot to kill" policy especially since we do not know how specific the profile given to the Police is. Will certain demographic stereotypes be more vulnerable to being mistakenly killed? MHA has said that in any court case, the judge will still need to decide if the shooting was justified. But this illustration is supposed to give our security officers and, I quote, "greater operational confidence to take necessary actions" which, read in another way, may be a signal that if one has not much information or when in doubt, one should shoot. May I ask the Senior Minister of State whether the intention is to entrench such a "shoot to kill" policy and what safeguards there are to prevent mistaken shootings?

Next, Sir, I move on to the point on the extortion law. Sir, this relates to amendments to section 383 of the Code which, in my view, completely change the nature of the crime of extortion. For many decades, extortion referred to someone threatening to do something illegal and demanding money in order not to carry out the threat, for example, "Pay me $10,000 or I will burn your house." Burning the house is something illegal. By clause 73 of the Bill, section 383 is to be amended to cover situations where the threatened action is legal. A new illustration C is a scenario where a Police officer threatens to report someone who has actually committed an offence. The Police officer in that scenario demands money not to report the matter.

Sir, in my view, the amendment clearly confuses extortion with corruption. There have in fact been court cases such as PP v Chua Boon Teck where it was ruled that Police officers demanding money so as not to exercise lawful powers of arrest are not guilty of extortion, but are guilty of corruption. I do not know the rationale for merging the two concepts which, in my view, should be distinct.

Sir, next, I would like to say a few words on the Petition presented by the Nominated Member on section 377A. Sir, the Workers' Party leadership, several months ago, discussed extensively the issue of whether section 377A should be retained or repealed. After much deliberation, we were unable to arrive at a consensus that it should be repealed and, as such, we would not be calling for its abolition.

Sir, my last point relates to why the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. A Bill of this nature which introduces significant amendments to our main criminal legislation should be referred to a Select Committee. Sir, a Select Committee comprising Members familiar with the administration of criminal justice and social affairs should do a comprehensive review of the criminal law. They should scrutinise each clause to see if each change is justifiable and what else should be changed. MPs should receive expert opinions from legally-trained persons on whether the drafting or wording of the provisions requires finetuning. The Committee should also revisit court decisions interpreting certain important provisions in order to clarify the intent of those provisions and make amendments, where necessary.

Although there has been a round of public consultation before the First Reading, the weakness of that process is that the feedback given by the public is not a matter of public record and will not be accessible. Also, views submitted in the public consultations are filtered by civil servants. Parliament, as the law- making body, should allow MPs or a selected group of them to have direct access to representations by people on very important legislation such as this. There may also be groups from the public who would like their concerns recorded in an official parliamentary report of the Select Committee, for example, those concerned with spousal violence or sexual orientation. Recording such input in an official document is a testament to the vibrancy of our public discourse and participation.

Sir, the Penal Code is our main criminal law and expression of society's barometer of what is criminal and what is not, the relative seriousness of offences and how citizens are to be punished. I strongly urge the Government to put this Bill to a Select Committee.

Resolved,

That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Debate resumed.

6.04 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, and on the petition I had presented to Parliament earlier. I will first speak on two aspects of the Amendment Bill not related to section 377A and then on section 377A and the Petition.

The Penal Code is one of the most important statutes that we have because the criminal law touches so many people so intimately. This Bill represents the first review of the Penal Code in 22 years. It seeks to do a lot and yet it leaves so much undone.

The Bill introduces some positive changes. For instance, there is a new offence of sexual grooming. Going by the experience in the UK, this could well become an important weapon in the arsenal against sexual predators, especially those on the Internet.

Another important change is the criminalisation of child-sex tourism, extending to acts performed overseas. Notwithstanding potential issues of enforcement, this will help greatly in closing the door on Singaporeans engaging in such despicable practices.

But, Sir, some aspects of the amendment Bill are not so positive. I will focus on three in my speech.

General increase in maximum imprisonment sentences

Firstly, clause 105 of the Amendment Bill increases the maximum sentences for a number of offences. I echo Ms Sylvia Lim's comments on this increase and would add to them. Sir, depriving a person of his or her liberty is a very serious matter. We should not be hasty in increasing the maximum sentences for so many offences. The general increase in maximum fines is clearly justifiable, even necessary, given that they were last reviewed in 1952.