Hansard, 2008-08-25

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 (2008) To (2008) Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed 25 Jul 31 Jul Mr K Shanmugam 26 Jul 27 Jul Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M 27 Jul 29 Jul 22 Aug 24 Aug Mr Hawazi Daipi 02 Aug 08 Aug Mr Lee Yi Shyan 02 Aug 05 Aug 26 Aug 30 Aug Mr Charles Chong 04 Aug 09 Aug Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong 04 Aug 09 Aug Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 04 Aug 05 Aug 08 Aug 09 Aug 12 Aug 14 Aug 20 Aug 25 Aug Mr Inderjit Singh 06 Aug 08 Aug Mr Lee Kuan Yew 06 Aug 09 Aug Mr S Iswaran 06 Aug 08 Aug Mr Wee Siew Kim 07 Aug 08 Aug 14 Aug 16 Aug Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 11 Aug 14 Aug Er Lee Bee Wah 12 Aug 25 Aug 31 Aug 03 Sep 10 Oct 14 Oct 25 Nov 29 Nov 13 Dec 23 Dec Mr Teo Chee Hean 12 Aug 22 Aug Mr Teo Ser Luck 14 Aug 25 Aug Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 18 Aug 22 Aug 26 Aug 26 Aug Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 21 Aug 23 Aug 02 Sep 04 Sep Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 24 Aug 25 Aug 02 Sep 04 Sep 18 Sep 26 Sep Column: 2967Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 24 Aug 25 Aug Er Edwin Khew Teck Fook 25 Aug 28 Aug Ms Indranee Rajah 25 Aug 27 Aug RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew 25 Aug 29 Aug Ms Sylvia Lim 26 Aug 26 Aug Mr Ang Mong Seng 27 Aug 28 Aug 02 Sep 04 Sep Dr Lee Boon Yang 27 Aug 30 Aug Mr Lim Boon Heng 28 Aug 28 Aug 29 Sep 14 Oct Mr Lim Swee Say 01 Sep 06 Sep 26 Sep 28 Sep Mr Mah Bow Tan 01 Sep 06 Sep Dr Ong Seh Hong 01 Sep 04 Sep Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien 02 Sep 05 Sep 16 Sep 18 Sep 25 Sep 28 Sep 30 Sep 06 Oct Dr Lam Pin Min 02 Sep 06 Sep 13 Dec 23 Dec Mr Lim Hng Kiang 02 Sep 12 Sep Mr Seng Han Thong 02 Sep 06 Sep Mr Wong Kan Seng 02 Sep 05 Sep 19 Sep 27 Sep 03 Oct 06 Oct Mr Alvin Yeo 10 Sep 12 Sep 16 Sep 22 Sep Mr Matthias Yao Chih 11 Sep 28 Sep Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan 19 Sep 21 Sep Mrs Josephine Teo 12 Oct 17 Oct 23 Oct 25 Oct 06 Nov 14 Nov 02 Dec 16 Dec

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bill was assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated:

1st August,2008 (1) Singapore Totalisator Board (Amendment) Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order. I wish to inform hon. Members that on 23rd July 2008, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (3), I have appointed Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad to be the Chairman of the Estimates Committee following the vacancy of the chair left by the late Dr Ong Chit Chung.

Under the provisions of Standing Order No. 102, I have also on 23rd July 2008 nominated Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim to the Estimates Committee to fill a vacancy arising therein.

1. Mr Michael Palmer asked the Minister for Defence (a) whether he will give an account of the reported leak of radioactive water by the USS Houston when it called at Singapore in September 2006; and (b) whether the Government is

confident that public safety was not compromised.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 1st August 2008, the media reported that the US nuclear-powered submarine USS Houston had been found to be leaking trace amounts of radioactive water. The leak had been discovered by the United States Navy during a routine dry dock maintenance of the submarine at Pearl Harbour Naval Shipyard in Hawaii in July 2008. The media noted that the US had informed Japan of the leak, as the United States Navy's investigations had determined that the USS Houston could have been leaking when the USS Houston made its port call in Sasebo, Japan in March 2008.

At that time, there was no information to suggest that the leak went beyond the port visit that the USS Houston had made in Sasebo, Japan. Nevertheless, as a precautionary measure, we had asked the US on 4th August 2008 for information about the leak. The USS Houston had last called at Singapore nearly two years ago from 22nd to 26th September 2006. We also went through our own monitoring records for the period when the USS Houston was berthed in Singapore at Changi Naval Base.

On 7th August 2008, the US informed MINDEF that the USS Houston had been leaking trace amounts of radioactive water since June 2006. This suggested that the USS Houston could have been leaking during her port call at Changi Naval Base in September 2006. During this period, the USS Houston had also called on other ports in the region, besides Singapore, including Japan, Malaysia, and Guam.

The US informed us that after the initial detection of the leak and the report that the submarine had been leaking while in port in Japan, the United States Navy

The US has assessed that the cumulative amount of radioactivity that could have been leaked in Changi Naval Base was approximately 0.095 micro curies. To put things into perspective, the US indicated that this was less than the amount of radioactivity found in a common smoke detector, and would not have any adverse effect on human health, marine life or the environment.

Apart from the information provided to us by the US, MINDEF also has its own independent monitoring system. Since February 2003, MINDEF has put in place a round-the-clock Integrated Environment Monitoring System (IEMS) at Changi Naval Base. The IEMS takes readings of air quality, and water and sea-bed samples to determine the normal background environmental radiation level, and to detect whether there has been any abnormal level of radiation which may be of safety concern. The safety limits are set by our National Environment Agency's Centre of Radiation Protection and Nuclear Science.

While the USS Houston was in Singapore in September 2006, the IEMS did not show any abnormal readings. After the news of the USS Houston's leak in Japan broke, a review of the IEMS data for the period of the USS Houston's visit also confirmed that there were no abnormal readings recorded. Our IEMS has therefore provided independent verification that public safety was not compromised at any point during the USS Houston's port call in Singapore in September 2006. Our Defence Science Organisation scientists have also assessed that based on the figures provided by the United States Navy, the potential exposure is 100,000 times less than exposure from natural radiation in a year.

With the assurances from the US, verification from the data collected from our own monitoring system and our own experts' assessments, I am confident that there was no adverse impact on public health, marine life or the environment as a result of the USS Houston's port call in Singapore in September 2006, and that the safety of Singaporeans was not compromised by the reported leak.

had conducted more tests to determine the extent and duration of the leak. The US informed us that through these tests, the United States Navy was able to determine that one of the USS Houston's shut valves was leaking water at a rate slightly above the United States Navy's Nuclear Propulsion Programme's stringent design specifications. The US told us that further tests by a specialised US government nuclear laboratory, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL), were required to determine the extent of radioactive material being leaked, as well as the duration of the leak. KAPL eventually determined that the leak could have begun as early as June 2006. The US also told us that KAPL confirmed that the trace amounts of radioactive water leaked were so low that the monitoring systems onboard the USS Houston itself could not detect the leak.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just three supplementary questions. First, what steps are we taking, going forward, to make sure that this does not happen again, because the next time it may not be a trace leak? Second, why is it that nothing abnormal was picked up by MINDEF's monitoring system even though there were leaks? Is that because it was so low? Third, are we sure that it will pick up any leaks that may occur in the future and has the US assured that none of their other nuclear-powered ships are leaking?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we continue to engage the United States

Why has the IEMS not detected radioactive activity in spite of there having been a leak? The reason is that the radioactive leak was so low that it was below the threshold which the IEMS was designed to detect. The IEMS threshold is set at the safety level which has been designed and determined by the National Environment Agency. In fact, the USS Houston, which itself has a radiation detection system, did not detect such a leak. It is my belief that for the submariners themselves, because they are living next to the reactor 24 hours a day, they are the ones who are most keenly interested in whether or not there are radioactive leaks from the reactor. Their own radiation detector did not pick up such a leak. And that is the main reason why the IEMS did not pick up anything.

We will continue to look at the IEMS system to make sure that it remains up-to-date and that it continues to be able to perform the mission that we have set out for it.

Navy to understand and to ensure that their ships which call in Singapore, particularly their nuclear-powered vessels, are safe. The US Navy has assured us that their nuclear-powered vessels are designed to extremely stringent standards and these standards include being able to operate in a combat shock environment. They tell us that the nuclear material is contained in four ways. First of all, in the fuel itself, so that radioactive material is not likely to escape from the fuel rods. There is the containment vessel, the compartment in which the reactor is mounted, and the hull of the ship itself, be it the submarine or surface vessel. So within these four very strongly built containment systems, the US Navy's assessment is that it is highly unlikely that there will be a leak of radioactive material. That is also our own assessment. The US Navy has operated nuclear-powered vessels for 50 years without incident.

2. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government will continue to adopt a strong Singapore dollar policy in view of the weaker GDP and non-oil domestic export data; and (b) whether the weakness in the manufacturing sector will extend beyond the pharmaceutical segment, leading to weaker employment prospects.

3. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how can Singapore avert the further shrinkage of economic growth as manufacturing exports fall in volume; (b) what measures are being taken to ensure that job losses in the manufacturing sector are minimised; (c) what is being done, either through retraining or other means, to soften the impact of retrenchment for those in the less knowledge-intensive manufacturing sector.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 2 and 3 together?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore adopts an exchange rate-centred monetary policy to maintain price stability for sustained economic growth. In setting the exchange rate policy, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) seeks to strike the right balance between inflation and growth.

Since 2004, MAS has adopted a policy of targeting a modest and gradual appreciation of Singapore's trade-weighted exchange rate, amidst robust economic growth. In its last two policy announcements in October 2007 and April 2008, MAS announced that it would allow a stronger appreciation of the Singapore dollar, through a steeper slope

Mr Liang Eng Hwa has asked whether the Government will maintain the policy of an appreciating Singapore dollar, in view of weaker GDP and export figures. We recognise that a strengthening Singapore dollar could have some restraining effect on exports in the short term. There is therefore a limit to how strongly the Singapore dollar can appreciate to offset the effects of global inflation passing through to the Singapore economy.

At this stage, the current monetary policy stance remains appropriate in the context of achieving low inflation for sustained economic growth over the medium term. MAS will analyse inflation and growth data in a holistic assessment to determine the appropriate policy at its next scheduled policy review in October.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now proceed to answer the questions on manufacturing. The manufacturing sector contracted by 5.2% in the second quarter of 2008 because of weaknesses in pharmaceutical and electronics output. Mirroring the slowdown in these two key exporting segments, our non-oil domestic exports contracted by 5.7% in July.

A large part of the recent downturn in manufacturing can be attributed to volatility in the pharmaceutical industry. Significant swings in pharmaceutical output occur quite regularly due to changes in product mix, but these do not reflect fundamental weaknesses in the industry. In fact, employment in the pharmaceutical industry has grown steadily over the years, as has the value-

Besides pharmaceuticals, we are also seeing some slowdown in other industries. The electronics industry grew by just 0.2% in the second quarter of 2008; the chemicals industry by 1.2%. Precision engineering fell by 1.7%. All these sectors depend crucially on external demand, especially from developed countries like the US, Japan and Europe. But demand from these countries has come down considerably and is expected to remain weak for some time to come.

Notwithstanding these short-term difficulties in some manufacturing segments and exports, we have not yet seen significant numbers of retrenchments besides those arising from the closure of a Motorola plant earlier this year. In fact, employment went up by about 144,000 in the first half of this year, of which 22,000 were attributed to the manufacturing sector. But we should expect that job creation will slow down and some retrenchments may be inevitable in the manufacturing and export-oriented sectors, as they adjust their employment with the falling global demand. It is still too early to tell whether there will be significant retrenchments, and we are monitoring the situation closely.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked what measures the Government is taking to minimise job losses in the manufacturing sector.

and an upward re-centring of its policy band, respectively. These were considered and measured responses to counter the inflationary pressures that were building up in the economy and the sharp increases in global food and fuel prices. If left unchecked, these price pressures could erode Singapore's cost competitiveness and derail our economic growth.added. Nonetheless, the short-term outlook for biomedical manufacturing will remain weak due to global trends such as competition from generic drugs and delays in government approvals for new drugs.

Realistically, we cannot seek to protect every manufacturing job or to prevent job losses when the industry restructures or adjusts to slower business demand. Nevertheless, we can reduce the effect of cyclical job losses to the minimum by ensuring that we have a

Our investment commitments for 2008 remain strong. In the first half of 2008, we attracted S$12.9 billion of fixed assets investments and S$4.8 billion of total business spending. These projects are expected to generate S$9 billion of value-added and more than 10,000 skilled jobs. We are therefore confident that there is strong sustained investment momentum as evidenced by the recent project announcements, including 3M's new facility to produce film coatings, Wyeth's expansion of its nutritional manufacturing facility, and Procter & Gamble's new perfume manufacturing facility. Many of the new investment projects that we are bringing in will create quality jobs for Singaporeans. We will continue to pursue such high-end investments from both established industries as well as from new growth areas such as clean energy, environment and water.

It is important that our existing workforce can be trained to meet the needs of these new industries. The Government is committed to investing in training programmes to ensure that the skill-sets of workers fully meet industry requirements.

There are joint initiatives put in place by the Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WDA) and the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) to equip our workers with portable skill-sets to meet the needs of growth sectors. For example, the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) is an initiative that was launched in February this year by NTUC in partnership with WDA and the Singapore Labour Foundation. It is a one-stop shop that provides employability assessment and coaching, skills training and job placement opportunities for workers. It reaches out to a broad spectrum of

Mr Speaker, Sir, to sum up, we remain confident that manufacturing as a whole will still generate good employment for Singapore. Our strategy of constantly upgrading the sector and workforce will ensure that manufacturing remains a key part of our economy, with meaningful and well paying jobs for Singaporeans.

strong pipeline of investments. Some existing jobs will be lost, but new and better paid jobs will also be created.existing and displaced workers with different needs and challenges such as the retrenched workers, the lower-wage workers and older workers.

Sir, in the second quarter economic survey, we have seen unit labour cost and inflation rose but productivity fell. I would like to ask the Minister whether we are seeing some early signs of wage inflation; and if this trend continues, coupled with our weak economy, we would be seeing more job losses as a result of this reduction in our competitiveness. What more could we do to reduce our overall business cost to retain our competitiveness?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we track our competitiveness, in particular, our cost structure very carefully. What we are seeing in recent months of our unit labour cost going up and productivity coming down is partly due to the cyclical changes. As you know, the economy performed extremely well in the last few years and employers have been building up their workforce. Now, with the sudden, abrupt reduction in demand, this has caused productivity to drop. Overall, we believe we still remain competitive as evidenced by most of the international competitiveness reports. Also, our EDB offices overseas, the companies that they deal with, look at the value proposition of Singapore and they remain very confident that Singapore is a very attractive investment location, as is evidenced by our strong pipeline of investments. But, nevertheless, we are always watching our cost structure and we will continue to do so.

I would like to ask the Minister what strategies are being put in place for our pharmaceutical industry to meet the delay for approvals for new pharmaceuticals and stiff competition posed from the generic drugs industry, especially since the pharmaceutical industry is the largest contributor to the manufacturing industry, making up 22% of the total output, and since Singapore's high cost structure will not enable us to compete with the generic drugs industry.

The second question is: do we have a sense of how many employees will be affected and released from the workplace in the pharmaceutical industry?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned in my earlier response, in fact, we are quite confident about the prospects of the pharmaceutical industry. The characteristics that are shown by the pharmaceutical industry represent the very lumpy nature and very high capital intensive nature of the investments. We are still in the early stage of building up the sector. The companies that we have here have sunk in very heavy investments. They produce active pharmaceutical ingredients for the global market, particularly for the developed markets. And so every time they change the production mix, we get this impact on our value-add but the workers remain there. In fact, as I mentioned in my response earlier, the employment figures are going up. And because these are very highly capital intensive, high value-added, the wages in this sector are very high and, therefore, the employment prospects of our workers there are very good. So far, we have not seen significant retrenchments in the pharmaceutical sector.

The slowdown in output in this quarter is just reflective of the volatility of the production mix. Another contributing factor which I mentioned was the delay in

the introduction of new products because of delays in government approvals for new drugs. But this is something that the drug manufacturers have taken in their stride and they have readjusted their production schedules accordingly. So, going forward, we remain very confident about the prospects of the pharmaceutical sector.

Mr Speaker, Sir, apart from labour cost, companies have also complained that other costs also affect their competitiveness, like rental of office spaces and factory spaces and also accommodation for foreign workers. Is the Ministry also looking into these areas to ensure that we continue to remain competitive and attractive to investments?

When I said that we track cost, we track cost holistically, not just labour cost but also facilities, whether it is office space, commercial space, industrial space or accommodation for foreign workers. Also, a very important part about cost is utility cost. Because of the high dependency on energy imports, we have to pay world prices for utilities. In fact, utility cost is one of the key components of our cost structure. But, nevertheless, despite all these components, I believe we are still competitive. Recently, we commissioned EIU to look at our structure and their primary feedback to us is that investors look at the two sides, not just the cost but also the value that you bring to the table. This is where we also have to continuously work hard at to raise the skill-sets of Singaporeans, raise productivity and all the other things that we put onto the table – connectivity, our stability, and all the other attributes. So, on balance, the value-add that we can bring vis-a-vis the cost, I believe, we remain competitive and EDB is confident

that the investment pipeline will continue to be strong.

4. Er Edwin Khew Teck Fook asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security if he will provide an update on the progress of the Bali Road Map negotiations since the 13th Conference of the Parties Meeting of the UN Climate Change Conference in December 2007.

Since the 13th Conference of the Parties Meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali in December 2007, two meetings in Bangkok (31st March – 4 April 2008) and in Bonn (2nd to 13th June 2008) have been held this year to clarify the Bali Action Plan and to discuss the framework for the negotiations in 2009. A third meeting in Ghana is taking place right now. Further discussions are scheduled to be held later in Poland in December. To date, I am afraid progress has been slow especially on substantive issues. This is because the discussions are complex and also highly politicised.

Discussions have thus far proceeded along the divide between the developed (Annex 1) countries and the developing (non-Annex 1) countries. Developing countries want to see a greater commitment from developed countries to reduce CO2 emissions. They would also like to see greater transfer of technology and financial support from the developed countries. On the other hand, while developed countries subscribe to the principle of "Common but Differentiated Responsibilities" (CBDR), they would want to see the major economies amongst the developing countries taking on

Our assessment is that progress will continue to be slow this year as 2008 has been earmarked for exchange of views and discussions to facilitate the actual negotiations which are scheduled for next year. The forthcoming US presidential elections, with policy changes, including for climate change, by the new US Administration in 2009 has also been a contributory factor.

For the reasons which were outlined in my answer in this House in January this year, Singapore attaches great importance to these international discussions on climate change, in which we have been participating actively. As PM Lee Hsien Loong outlined at the Bali meeting, any new framework must recognise the vital importance of economic growth and take into account differences in national circumstances and constraints of the countries concerned. As a responsible global citizen, we will continue to play our part on climate change if there is a global agreement to do so.

commitments to reduce the growth of emissions.

5. Mr Alvin Yeo asked the Minister for Law in view of the public comment that has generated, if he will make clear the Government's position on the letter written by the Attorney-General's Chambers to the Straits Times on 14th May 2008 that people acquitted of crimes may not necessarily be factually innocent.

6. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Law whether the Government supports the presumption of innocence and if yes, whether he will clarify the comments in the letter by the Attorney-General's Chambers to the Straits Times Forum page on 14th May 2008.

Sir, with your permission, I will take Question Nos. 5 and 6 together.

Yes, please.

The two hon. Members have asked about the Government's position on a letter written by the Attorney-General's Chambers to the Straits Times Forum page on 14th May 2008. It is first necessary to set out the context in which the letter was written.

The Attorney-General's Chambers made two statements on 8th and 14th May 2008, to the effect that "an acquittal does not mean that an accused is innocent" and that an acquitted person could be "guilty in fact". These statements were made in response to a journalist's question. The question posed was whether compensation ought to be awarded where there has been an acquittal. The Attorney-General's Chamber's statements must therefore be understood in the context that the AG was dealing only with the issue of compensation. He was explaining why compensation could not be paid to everyone who gets acquitted, by pointing out that not everyone who gets acquitted is necessarily innocent.

Having set out the context in which the statements had been made, let me now deal with the specific issues on the presumption of innocence that have been raised by the two hon. Members.

In our criminal justice system:

When a Court finds an accused guilty of an offence with which he has been charged, it means that the judge is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence charged. In other words, the judge is convinced that the accused is guilty.

On the other hand, when the Court acquits an accused, it simply means

The position that has been stated is:

logical;

supported by jurisprudence from respectable common law jurisdictions; and

the position publicly taken by the then-AG Mr Chan Sek Keong in 1996.

that the Court is not convinced that he is guilty. This is because the Court does not have to go into the question of whether the accused is in fact innocent. An acquittal (often) simply means that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. In such a situation (when there is any reasonable doubt), the Court has a duty to acquit the accused, regardless of whether the Court thinks the accused may have in fact committed the offence. It is therefore possible for a person who has committed the offence to walk away free. We accept that as an unavoidable consequence of our trial system, as procedural justice is important. This position has been stated by DPM Prof. Jayakumar in Parliament, in 1994 and 1996 and again by SMS Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee in 2004 and 2006. These statements were made by the Government after obtaining the advice of the then-Attorney-General, Mr Chan Sek Keong, now Chief Justice. The AG was thus restating a similar position in the statements he made on 6th and 14th May 2008.

Let me elaborate.

As stated earlier, it is entirely possible for a person to have committed acts which amount to a crime and yet, there may be no conviction. I emphasise: no serious lawyer will question this possibility. There are many reasons why there might be an acquittal. Witnesses

The Government's position is, therefore, simply a statement of logical and undeniable fact: a person may have committed a crime and yet get an acquittal in Court.

The propositions which have been stated are consistent with jurisprudence from other countries

In the English House of Lords, in Director of Public Prosecutions v Shannon [1975] AC 717, the effect of an acquittal was considered by Lord Salmon in the following terms:

"Interesting questions have been debated before your Lordships as to the true effect of an acquittal. An accused is entitled to be acquitted unless the evidence satisfies the jury beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. A verdict of not guilty may mean that the jury is certain that the accused is innocent, or it may mean that, although the evidence arouses considerable suspicion, it is insufficient to convince the jury of the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The verdict of not guilty is consistent with the jury having taken either view. The only effect of an acquittal, in law, is that the accused can never again be brought before a criminal court and tried for the same offence. So far as the Crown is concerned, the accused is deemed, in law, to be innocent [at p. 772]." [emphasis added.]

The House of Lords could not have been clearer on the meaning of a "not guilty" verdict.

In Scotland – a well-worn system tested over the course of 250 years – the jury in criminal trials has the choice of three verdicts: "guilty", "not guilty" and "not proven". The verdict of "not proven" has the effect, just as a not-guilty

Thirdly, in a major public lecture on Criminal Law, in 1996, the then-AG Mr Chan Sek Keong pointed out that the trial process is designed to prove guilt. It is not designed to prove innocence [Tenth Singapore Law Review Lecture, The criminal process – The Singapore model (1996) SLR 433].

AG Chan's lecture is very instructive and a tour de force, carefully analysing the concepts of legal and factual innocence and the presumption of innocence. He pointed out that a person acquitted of a charge is legally innocent but may not be factually innocent. He explained that the presumption of innocence is a presumption that an accused is legally innocent. It is simply an expression, that in a criminal trial, the prosecution is obliged to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Mr de Souza has asked if the Government supports the "presumption of innocence". Sir, let there not be any doubt on this point: the presumption of innocence is an important and fundamental principle, and is one of the foundations of our Criminal Justice System. The Government is absolutely committed to upholding the presumption of innocence, as a core principle in our commitment to the Rule of Law. There is no intention to question or qualify that principle in any way. I am surprised that any doubt at all should have arisen about this and I thank Mr de Souza and Mr Yeo

I would add that the AG's statements made in May 2008 do not in any way seek to encroach on the function of the Courts. It is for the Courts, and the Courts alone, to exercise judicial power and decide the question of guilt, in a trial. That is a fundamental principle of our Constitution. The AG did not question that principle. He was simply pointing out the reality of the trial system: that a person may have committed a crime but, nevertheless, the Prosecution may not succeed in Court, because of a gap between the commission of a crime and the prosecution's ability to prove that guilt in Court. The presumption of innocence does not preclude us from acknowledging that possibility. As I stated earlier, the Court can only look at the evidence in Court and must acquit the accused (if there is any reasonable doubt), even if the Court thinks that he probably committed the crime – because such probability is not enough for conviction under our law.

It is possible that some confusion had arisen because this is a technical area and there is tendency in common parlance to equate a finding of "not guilty" in court with actual innocence. A recent article by the Massachusetts Bar Association [http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:NoXWb4Px41EJ:www.massbar.org/about-the-mba/press-room/journalists%27-handbook/6-not-guilty-does-not-mean-innocent+massachusetts+bar+association+journalist+innocent&hl=en&gl=sg&strip=1] points out this common mistake and calls for more precise terminology. A finding of "not guilty" is not to be equated with actual innocence.

However, as we acknowledge the realities of the trial system, it is also important to stress that just as a person acquitted may not necessarily be innocent, he may well also in fact be innocent. We should not assume guilt by

I trust that I have made the Government's position clear. I wish to again thank both Mr Alvin Yeo and Mr de Souza for having raised these important questions.

may not be found at trial. Or they may change their evidence, either because they genuinely fail to recall essential facts, or for other reasons. Or there might be an acquittal on a technicality.verdict, of an acquittal. However, the verdict of "not guilty" suggests that the accused definitely did not commit the crime which is a positive declaration of innocence, whereas the verdict of "not proven" implies only that the accused's guilt has not been conclusively demonstrated. The latter verdict may often leave the public with the perception that the accused was guilty but this guilt could not be proved because of some inadequacy in the evidence.for raising this issue and allowing me to clarify the position. reason of a person being charged because our legal system, like many others, and for various sensible reasons, does not go on to establish the factual innocence of the accused.

I thank the Minister for his clear answer and am heartened by the affirmation of the Government's stand of presumption of innocence. Could I ask whether the Minister is prepared to consider a system of compensation for defendants who are in fact acquitted and whom they consider factually innocent?

That is the question that the Attorney-General was dealing with, and it raises a number of serious issues, including whether we want to fundamentally change our system to one where we require the accused to go further and prove their innocence. In the jurisdictions where compensation has been considered, by and large, they have been required not just to prove that they have been acquitted but to go further and say, "I am actually innocent". That means the burden of proof passes on. That raises a variety of policy issues and I have to say that it is not something that we are considering at this point in time.

Thank you, Minister, for your response. I am afraid I do not agree that the issue of cost creates opportunity for parties to second guess judicial pronouncements. So, I do have three questions arising out of this.

First, if we take the argument on the issue of cost to its logical conclusion,

Secondly, does the Minister agree that the principal and unique role accorded to our Courts in criminal cases is to vindicate or to convict? If so, what right do parties have to second guess such vindication?

Thirdly, does the Minister agree that where a man has been acquitted by the Court of Final Appeal, it must be unjust for parties to the proceedings to cast aspersions on his guilt that will hang over him all his life? More so, if the Court has pronounced a "not guilty" verdict.

would the Minister then think it is acceptable for a defence counsel, whose client has been found guilty by the Court of Final Appeal to say publicly that his client could be factually innocent and, therefore, need not have to pay cost? This is possibly a real issue because under section 401 of the CPC, prosecution can request cost.

Sir, as to the issue of cost, the way to resolve itself is as follows: at the end of the day, when there is a verdict by the Court, the Criminal Procedure Code has provisions for the prosecution to ask for costs in certain types of cases. Whatever the parties may think, it is for the Court to decide, upon an application by the prosecution, to decide whether it is an appropriate case for costs and, if so, whether the defence in that case should pay it. If the defence takes a view that costs should not be paid, it will not be the first time parties before a Court disagree with the verdict but nevertheless have to comply with it. There is really no public policy issue involved in that.

Secondly, Mr de Souza also asked: is it appropriate for parties to second guess what happens in a Court, ie, there is a verdict, what if the person is acquitted, should parties cast aspersions? While he said there is a third question, I think the third question is really a reformulation of the second question, so I will take them

together. That is what my answer has been about. Take it as matter of logic. Do we accept that when the accused gets charged and there is a trial and gets acquitted, there can at least be two categories: some who are really innocent; and some who get acquitted despite the fact that they actually committed the offence but the prosecution is unable to prove it. As a matter of logic, no one will question that, and that is why I went through the jurisdictions in England and Scotland, where they actually have a "not proven" verdict as well, and the fact that our own Attorney-General has expressed those views. I will give Members one obvious example of that: most of the Members here will recall the O J Simpson case. He was acquitted in a criminal trial but that did not prevent his next-of-kin from suing in a civil case and getting damages because the standards of proof were different. So, the only recourse that a person who gets acquitted in Court of a criminal trial has, if someone outside says he in fact committed the offence, is to sue in defamation, in libel. But as a matter of logic, as a matter of factual proposition, as a matter of legal proposition, it will be absurd to suggest that simply because you get acquitted in a criminal trial, no one can say that you actually did it.

Sir, while I can accept the differentiation between innocent in law and innocent in fact, and the fact that compensation in the acquittal situation is a matter of policy, there could be instances where prosecution decides to proceed with the matter on the basis of sloppy investigation and in the process of which drag the innocent party through a lengthy trial process at a great cost because he has to spend a great amount of money to defend his good name. In such a situation, would it be fair to say, therefore, that the onus is on the Government to then compensate?

Sir, the questions I have been answering so far have to deal with the issues of "innocent" in law and "innocent" in fact. That is the question that I am answering and making clear absolutely the Government's commitment to the presumption of innocence and at the same time explaining why the Attorney-General said what he said and why that is consistent with the Government's position.

When we deal with the issue of compensation and whether the accused who gets acquitted should be compensated, we deal with entirely separate issues which is really not the subject of my question. But as I answered earlier, it raises a number of difficult, complex, public policy issues because each time you talk about compensation, it is really the State, the Public Prosecutor, making careful decisions whether to proceed with a case or not to charge someone in Court. And he does it on behalf of all of us as the State against an individual, after what we believe are thorough and careful investigations, both on the part of the Police and then with the second layer, on the part of the Attorney-General's Chambers, and it has to be proven in Court. Do we want to add a further layer of checks on his decision-making by imposing on the Public Prosecutor the possibility that if the case does not succeed, which is taken not on behalf of himself as in a civil case, but on behalf of the entire public, as it were, in the protection of public interests? Do we want to impose a further layer of caution by telling him that if he gets his decision wrong, he has got to pay costs? Until now, and the answers have been given in this House, the public policy perspective has been not to impose that burden on the Attorney-General. It will be too high a burden. That is the view that has been taken.

Mr Sin, last question from you.

Sir, a clarification. My position is not one of strict liability. My position is essentially one of assurance to the public that if a decision is taken to prosecute, the parties have looked at it with duty of care and the duty has been discharged, and that this is not a decision taken lightly. What the parties certainly do not want is a flippant prosecution which will result in great cost to the defendant to have to defend his good name.

I think whatever our prosecution in Singapore is accused of, it is usually not accused of flippant prosecution. The Member probably knows that there is already a provision in our law which provides for compensation should there be malicious prosecution. One has got to be very careful about frivolous, vexatious and malicious prosecutions, and that certainly is not the approach the prosecution takes.

Last question, Mr de Souza.

On the issue of cost and on the arguments on cost, should not the real question be whether the prosecution should have been commenced in the first place and not whether a man who has been acquitted is factually guilty? I think there is a distinction in that and I would like the Minister's response. Should not the question be, at the cost hearing, whether the prosecution should have been commenced in the first place, ie, it was not frivolous, and not whether a man who has been acquitted is factually guilty?

I am not sure I understand the precise nature of the question, but let me try and understand and answer it to the best of my ability. I think there are two separate questions, which is something that I have been saying as well. In the context of the hon. Member's and Mr Yeo's questions, the issue is what are the legal consequences

One, anyone who gets acquitted should get compensation. I do not think the public in Singapore would support that for the reason that there are many who may in fact have gotten away on a technicality. And if you tell the man in the street that all of them are going to get paid, I think people would not support it. I do not see Members in this House supporting it. I do not see the public supporting it. And I know of no jurisdiction where that is enforced as a matter of principle.

A second possibility could be compensation or some kind of costs are paid upon the accused not only proving that he got acquitted but going further to prove his innocence. There are jurisdictions where that is allowed. What we provide for is, if you can show that the prosecution was malicious and in some ways, what Mr de Souza said, that the prosecution should never have been started in the first place, then there are possibilities, if you can show that it was malicious or vexatious, for you to get some compensation. That is where we have set the bar, and we are not looking at changing that.

and what is the precise nature of an acquittal. That is a philosophical issue, as it were, that we have been debating and dealing with. It is an entirely separate question as to whether either costs or compensation ought to be paid upon an acquittal and a couple of Members asked that question. I have tried to deal with it as best as I can, and I will repeat that answer, which is that when you get acquitted, there can be a number of policy perspectives.

7. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and

Sports (a) whether his Ministry is monitoring how the lower income Singaporeans are being affected by inflation and stagnation of wages; (b) whether the available assistance is lessening their difficulties; and (c) whether there will be other measures to ensure that no one falls through the crack.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the hon. Member, Dr Lily Neo, for her concern. The Government closely monitors the impact of inflation on low-income families.

Improving productivity and employability is the most effective way to deal with this challenge. Consequently, the Government has implemented programmes aimed at increasing the productivity of our industries and helping lower-skilled workers upgrade so that they can take on jobs in new growth sectors, like Minister Lim Hng Kiang has explained just now. We also invest in redesigning jobs for enhanced productivity and better wages for workers. At the same time, we work at enhancing the employability of our mature workers and encouraging homemakers back to work.

The Government has instituted the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme as part of our social security system. Some 300,000 low-income workers have benefited from $300 million worth of WIS payments for work done in 2007.

To further cushion the impact of rising costs, $3 billion will be given to Singaporeans this year, with low-income households receiving more. On top of the GST Credits, Senior Citizens' Bonus and Growth Dividends, they will also receive

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are fully aware of the situation. There will be those who need more help. The ComCare Work Support Programme was launched in 2006 to provide short-term help to needy families. The workfare-based programme seeks to help workers upgrade their skills and find a job. In the interim, they also receive financial assistance, rental, utilities and service and conservancy charges vouchers, childcare and student care subsidies, and medical and educational assistance. Currently, about 4,000 households benefit from the Work Support Programme.

Needy families can also tap on extensive community support. For example, the Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) can tap on the CCC ComCare Fund to provide urgent help to needy residents. From January to May 2008, the CCCs disbursed about $850,000. As announced in March 2008, we will be topping up the CCC ComCare Fund by $5 million over the next four years. With this boost, there will be $6.25 million per year available in the CCC ComCare Fund.

There are adequate resources and many helping hands to ensure that no one falls through the cracks. Those who need help can approach their Community Development Council (CDC), Family Service Centre or RC grassroots leaders for help. They can also call the ComCare Call service at 1800-222 0000.

U-Save, Service and Conservancy Charges and rental rebates as well as top-ups to their Medisave accounts and their children's post secondary education accounts. On top of this original $3 billion package, the Government will be distributing an additional support package amounting to $256 million as announced recently at the National Day Rally by the Prime Minister. The enhancements comprise a 50% increase in the remaining instalment of Growth Dividends (GD) and a 50% increase in the total amount of Utilities-Save (U-Save) rebates to be given out in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008. Taking all this help together, a low-income family of three living in a 3-room HDB flat could receive benefits of about $5,400, which would help to offset the recent increase in their cost of living.

May I ask the Minister of State on the group of Singaporeans who are in need of assistance despite our presently available assistance schemes. They are lowly paid Singaporeans with many mouths to feed and who are perpetually trying to make ends meet. Is it true that, according to one survey, there are about 100,000 households of such families? May I ask the Minister of State whether there is any better long-term solution to get them out of the poverty trap and whether their children can be given a better chance to climb the social strata?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure the Member knows that before 2005, before the establishment of the ComCare Fund, the public assistance cases were about 3,000 and today, after the establishment of the ComCare Fund, the Government policy is to take care of the 20% low-income group in Singapore. We take $1,500 as the family income and for those below $1,500, we are trying to develop various schemes to help them. And despite this cap at $1,500, we have certain schemes to cover those who earn even $1,800 to help the students, such as KiFAS, CFAC. If you do a calculation, we cover slightly more than the bottom 20% of Singaporeans. Our Ministry's concern is: how far do you want to cover? Do you want to cover up to the bottom 30%, 40% or 50%? So far, the cut-off point is about $1,500 or the bottom 20% of our population.

Like I said just now, after the last Budget debate, we have implemented a few new schemes. For instance, for public assistance, in the old days, it was only for old people without family support, without children and unemployable. After the last Budget debate, we have relaxed this criterion. We even cover old people who have children but the children have difficulty taking care of their own family and as long as the children earn below $1,000 and have school-going children, these old people can also apply for public assistance. By doing so, we expect another 600 such public assistance cases which will benefit.

Another area we have made changes is the ComCare Transitions. So, in some of the families, even though they have children but they are temporarily unemployable, maybe because of accident or some chronic sickness, we are prepared to help them for about a year. We will review the case year by year. This is monitored by the CDCs. So we call it the ComCare Transitions. It is quite close to the public assistance cases, but we do not give them long-term help. We hope that they can go back to work again.

The other area we have relaxed is the cap for KiFAS, CFAC and the other benefits for the children. Previously, for the children, we capped it at $1,500. But after the last Budget debate, we increased it to $1,800. For those families whose income is about $1,800, their children can apply for KiFAS, CFAC and also the student care services. On top of all this help plus the GST Offset, U-Save, and so on, I think the range is that even for public assistance cases, one adult PA can get about $2,000 for this year. And for a family who has two adults and two children, it will get benefits of about $3,600 from the Government. This amount can offset the inflation cost. Of course, the Government will monitor all this very carefully, and this is only the

MCYS' effort. What about the efforts of the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health and also the many-helping-hands? As a society, we do our best to help. But I totally agree with Minister Lim Hng Kiang's argument just now that, in the long run, the most important thing is that Singapore needs to develop and improve productivity and we add value to the investors and make sure that our workers can have better return.

Dr Lam Pin Min.

I am sorry, Mr Speaker. Can I be allowed to come in here, because I was asked a question? Therefore, I should be given a chance to reply.

Your question was not answered?

No, Sir. One, my question was not answered and, two, I was asked a question.

Yes.

Mr Speaker, I like to object to the fact that I was asked a question on what I wanted. Was assistance for 20% or 30% enough? No, that was not what I was asking for. I was asking for 100,000 households which are only 3% of the population. I could not be asked a question. We have already given 20% of ComCare, and may I just qualify that ComCare was temporary assistance, and that was really out of the question.

To cut it short, your question was not answered then?

Sir, the questions I asked were:

Was it correct to say that there were 100,000 households that require long-term assistance, whereas the assistance schemes we have at the moment are all temporary?

Can they be helped with long-term solutions to get them out of the poverty trap; and

Can their children be given a better chance?

But I have definitely never asked for assistance for 30% or 40% of Singaporeans, and I object to being asked that kind of question.

Mrs Yu-Foo, would you like to answer that question?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not say that Dr Lily Neo asked for 30%. I just said that, generally, we have one million households. If we say 100,000, it is about 10% of the households. After we have the ComCare scheme, actually the Government covers the bottom 20% of households in Singapore. My question to Singaporeans is whether we want to cover beyond the bottom 20%. I am not saying that Dr Lily Neo asked for more than the bottom 20%. I just want to clarify that.

Another point is that, for the very, very poor, it is about 3,600 persons who are under Public Assistance. Some are under the interim ComCare scheme while others are under the Workfare Scheme. Together, if we add the 4,000 or 5,000, those are the really poor cases. But those with income beyond $1,500 who can manage but have difficulty when their children go to school –

Mrs Yu-Foo, you are actually repeating your replies –

So, beyond MCYS, the Ministry of Education also has bursaries, scholarships and a lot of other schemes to help school-going children, such as the School Pocket Money Fund, and so on. If they are sick, they can go for Medifund and MediShield. MOH also

tries its best to help. As a total package, we try our best to help them to manage. But my suggestion is that, in the long run, as a country, we should improve our productivity and make sure that our retraining is effective and our workers are employable and hope that they can have an increase in their salaries. At this moment, the Government gives GST offsets, Growth Dividends, and so on. Each family gets a few thousand dollars that can cover the cost of inflation. But in the long run, I do understand, agree and sympathise with the difficulty that the lower-income group has had to manage. But, as a country, we need to grow. Without growth and productivity, how much can we help? That is a big question. At this moment, if you ask me, it is manageable.

8. Dr Lam Pin Min asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports whether the quantum of the Public Assistance allowance will be reviewed in view of the soaring inflation over the past six months.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Assistance (PA) rates are calibrated to provide for the basic living needs of PA recipients. The PA scheme and rates are reviewed regularly. We recognise that the cost of living has risen more rapidly than usual in the last year, and MCYS has been closely monitoring the impact of increasing costs on our PA recipients. We have recently revised the PA rates to help PA recipients cope with the rising cost of living. From May 2008, PA recipients received an increase of between $40 and $165 a month in their allowance, depending on the size of their households.

The PA allowance is just one part of the overall safety net for those who are unable to work. They also hold a Public Assistance card which makes them eligible for free medical treatment and heavily subsidised rental housing. On top of these, PA recipients also receive extensive community support, such as befriending programmes, daily activities at Senior Activity Centres, food rations, free meals, ang pows and cash allowances. PA recipients will also be receiving disproportionately more of the $3 billion worth of benefits which will be given out to Singaporeans this year. On top of the GST credits, Senior Citizen Bonus as well as Growth Dividends, PA recipients will also receive U-Save, service and conservancy charges and rental rebates. On top of this original $3 billion package, the Government will be distributing an additional support package amounting to $256 million, as announced recently at the National Day Rally by PM. The enhancements comprise a 50% increase in the remaining instruments of Growth Dividends and a 50% increase in the total amount of U-Save rebates to be given out in Fiscal Year 2008.

Taking all these together, a single elderly PA recipient living in a one-room rental flat will receive about $1,250 in additional cash handouts by the end of this year. When we include Medisave top-ups and U-Save, S&CC and rental rebates, the total amount of benefits a single elderly PA recipient living in a one-room rental flat could receive by the end of this

An elderly Public Assistance recipient living alone has seen a 14% increase from $290 a month to $330 a month. A family with two adults and two children has seen their assistance increased by 19% from $855 to $1,020 a month. Furthermore, for families with school-going children, their children's school and miscellaneous fees are fully covered under the Ministry of Education's Financial Assistance Scheme. year is almost $2,000. A PA family with two adults and two children living in a two-room rental flat could receive about $1,600 in cash benefits, an additional $2,000 in Medisave and Post-Secondary Education Account top-ups, U-Save, S&CC and rental rebates. In total, such a family could receive benefits amounting to more than $3,600 this year. So we will continue to help PA recipients cope with the increase in the cost of living.

I would like to thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive answer. While I understand that the PA recipients receive a lot of assistance in kind, my question is actually about the PA allowance alone. I would like to ask if the Ministry could have a system whereby the PA allowance quantum be automatically reviewed on a regular basis, taking into consideration any appropriate indices deemed necessary for a fair and timely computation of the amount to address the basic needs of the PA recipients.

We will have to disappoint the hon. Member because we do not believe that the PA allowance should automatically be tied to the CPI. We will monitor the cost of living and every item. In the last one year, we have already increased about 14% to 20%, based on the number of people in the household. In 2007, it was about $260. Then, we increased it to $290. This year, we have increased it to $330. For families with children, they get about $1,000-plus in public assistance. We should also bear in mind that we should not overdo it, otherwise we will undermine work ethics in Singapore. Just now, hon. Members talked about the low-income group. For the low-income group, we peg it at $1,500. Now the PA for a family with two or three children is about $1,000-plus. And that is only cash. Including other subsidies, eg, rental, medical fees, free education, and the budget handouts, they will easily get about $2,000 to

What is most important is that, together with MOE and others, we try to help the children to make sure that they go to school, have pocket money, proper meals and break out of the poverty cycle.

$3,000. We do sympathise with such cases. We will monitor the cases carefully. I should say that Public Assistance is only manageable. I do agree that it is not very comfortable, but it is manageable.

9. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) if he will give an update on the hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) situation in view of the recent death of a three-year-old suspected of dying from the disease; and (b) whether there are sufficient measures in place to protect children from contracting HFMD, especially the more deadly EV71 strain of the disease.

Sir, Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD) is a common childhood infection. The infections are usually mild. Nevertheless, when the virus involved is the EV71 strain, it can affect the brain or even result in death, although such a complication, fortunately, is rare.

This year, we experienced a surge of HFMD cases involving EV71 as the predominant circulating strain from late March to early July. The total number of HFMD cases this year has already exceeded 18,000 cases. The number of cases peaked in April, with more than 1,400 cases a week, and thereafter it declined steadily to around 500 cases a week now. But, then, there is usually a second though much smaller peak outbreak in September, which is just around the corner. So we have to be careful.

During the April outbreak period, a total of 35 preschools and childcare centres were ordered to close while 95 were advised to close so that the premises could be cleaned thoroughly and the chain of transmission within these centres broken.

The way to reduce the transmission of HFMD, including EV71, is to continuously maintain a very high standard of personal and environmental hygiene and also to seek medical treatment early when the child is unwell. Parents should also ensure that their children with HFMD have adequate rest and, very important, to remain at home for the duration of the illness as advised by the doctors. We have worked closely with MCYS and MOE in educating all childcare, kindergarten and preschool operators on hygiene measures. My Ministry has also alerted doctors to be vigilant for complications from HFMD as the predominant strain this year is the EV71 strain.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister:

What is the official epidemic level for the disease and have we reached it in Singapore? and

Have we done an analysis as to why we have a sudden spike of this disease, particularly the EV71 strain, and what measures are we taking to deal with it?

Sir, the epidemic level and where it is pegged is a technical exercise. We would look at past records, and this is done by the experts. We exceeded that level in April, during the recent outbreak. Currently, we are close to that level. So, let us be careful.

The solution to it, which is in reply to the second question, remains the same.

When I first had to deal with this public health issue years ago, I was naively ambitious. I thought in modern Singapore we should be able to eliminate this. We know the Japanese are legendary in their personal hygiene standard – how to wash hands, and they teach their kids from young. So I told my colleagues in the Ministry of Health, "You go and check. I am sure in Japan they do not have Hand, Foot and Mouth disease, given their high standard of personal hygiene." I was personally quite disappointed when I found that even Japan has HFMD outbreaks, not throughout the year, but during the hot season. Unfortunately, we have hot seasons throughout the year, so we have a problem.

Until a vaccine is found, we have to rely on basic grandmother advice, which is frequent hand washing, thorough handwashing with soap, and maintain high personal and environmental hygiene standard. The solution is well-known, easy to explain, but execution is a problem.

10. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current strength of qualified registered nurses and the shortfall against actual demand; (b) what is the current turnover of nurses in the Government sector; (c) what is being done to ensure a sufficient supply of trained nurses to cope with the advent of new hospitals in the next 10 years; (d) what is being done to further enhance the image of nurses to attract more to the profession; and (e) why are nurses not given a day off on or in lieu of Nurses’ Day.

Sir, there are currently 18,400 nurses actively practising in Singapore, comprising 13,500

registered nurses and 4,900 enrolled nurses and midwives. This gives a nurse to population ratio of one to 249, a significant improvement as compared to, say, 2001, when our ratio was one to 306. But we aim to further improve on it and are working towards a ratio of one to 220 by 2015.

And this would mean an increase in the nurses' population by 40%.

The bulk of these nurses, 67%, work in the public sector. The turnover of public sector nurses has improved over the years from 14% in 2001, to 9% last year. But we want to reduce it further.

To meet the projected demand for nurses, we are working on several fronts. First, we have progressively stepped up the local training of nurses. Our current local training capacity is 1,875 intake per year, which is more than double the intake of 728 in 2001. We are raising it to 2,000 per year and will consider further increases in due course.

Second, we will continue to recruit foreign nurses to supplement our local supply. Currently, foreign nurses make up 15% of our total nurses population. Not too long ago, we have foreign nurses accounting for almost 25%, so we have been able to reduce it to 15% because of increased interest among Singaporean boys and girls. But 15% is low compared to our peak of 25%, so there is scope to raise this proportion further, if necessary, and I think it is necessary.

Third, we will continue to enhance the image and the value of nursing as a desirable profession. This requires the employers to provide challenging career opportunities and favourable working conditions to attract and retain the talented to join the profession. Increasing the nurse to population ratio is part of this strategy to enhance the working condition for our nurses so that they have more

In this regard, we are grateful to the President for honouring nurses by hosting an annual reception at the Istana every year on Nurses' Day which is 1st August. As employers, healthcare institutions will make the effort to show their appreciation for their nurses on this day. Their gestures take many forms, ranging from awards to celebrations. Whether it should also include a day off on or in lieu of Nurses' Day is something for the employers to decide.

time to look after their patients and also enjoy better worklife balance as well. Our efforts have seen result, both in terms of increased student interest in nursing and the reduced attrition of nurses from the healthcare sector. But we must not relent in our effort to compete for our fair share of talent.

Thank you, Minister, for the comprehensive answer. Yes, as an employer, I do give my nurses a day off for Nurses' Day. It may not be taken on 1st August but it can be taken as off in lieu of another day. I hope that the Ministry can consider granting nurses one day off in lieu and that they can take it at any time of the year. I think that would be a good gesture since teachers have a day off and nurses are as equally important to our society as teachers.

I applaud Dr Lim Wee Kiak as an enlightened employer and I will pass the message down to the employers of nurses. But, as I said in my reply, it is really something for the employers to decide and it is up to them how they want to show it. My preference is to show gesture throughout the year and not just for that one day, which means showing respect, treating your nurses with dignity and recognising that theirs is a worthy profession – recognising nurses who are doing their best to treat their patients and serve them well. In fact,

going forward, with ageing, the role played by nurses and highly-skilled nurses will become even more important because we will always be short of specialists and doctors. I have just had a discussion with the Ministry of Health colleagues on how to ramp up trained oncologists, orthopaedic surgeons, and so on. And the conclusion is that the world is so short of such specialists. While we will still try to ramp up the numbers, it can never be enough and, increasingly, we have to look at alternative allied health professionals, of which nurses are a big part, to try to help out. If you train them well, they can take on many of the routine stuff from the specialists. Collectively, as a team, they can then serve our patients much better.

11. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport (a) what measures are being considered to encourage drivers to switch to public transport and reduce usage of their private vehicles; (b) what is the current usage of the Park and Ride Scheme and whether there are plans to enhance the Scheme; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider setting up platforms to encourage car pooling.

12. Mrs Josephine Teo asked the Minister for Transport if there are plans to improve (i) the Park and Ride Scheme to enable more vehicle owners to use public transport as an alternative mode of transport into the Central Business District; and (ii) the feeder bus services as these contribute significantly to the overall travel times of commuters.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take

Question Nos. 11 and 12 together as they are related?

Yes, please.

The crux of Mrs Josephine Teo's and Dr Lim Wee Kiak's questions is how we can encourage more people, especially the drivers, to use public transport. Sir, we are tackling this on two fronts: (a) firstly, enhancing our public transport services to improve the areas that matter most to commuters such as the travelling and waiting time; and (b) secondly, enabling motorists to switch to public transport more easily if they wish to do so.

Mrs Josephine Teo and Dr Lim Wee Kiak both highlighted the Park and Ride Scheme as an area to look into. I agree. We should do more to encourage car owners to Park and Ride because it provides motorists with an additional option to use public transport for their daily commute. LTA is currently undertaking a review of the existing scheme with Transitlink which administers the scheme.

Some motorists have found the Park and Ride Scheme attractive, where they pay $70 for a Park and Ride Set which includes a Season Parking Ticket for the month and a $40 Park and Ride ez-link card. Overall, the current utilisation rate is 31.3% of available car parking lots. However, the take-up rate has not been uniform. LTA found that some of the carpark sites under the scheme are fully utilised because of their proximity to the MRT stations while some have hardly any takers. For the popular carparks, there is also a need to look into how the balance should be struck between the car parking needs of the HDB residents and that of visitors which include the Park and Ride users. Then there is also the issue of misuse, where some people with offices in the suburbs use the Park and Ride Scheme as a cheap alternative office

As for car pooling, there is really nothing stopping motorists from car pooling today if their savings on the costs of driving, such as parking, petrol and ERP, made it sensible to do so. Sir, this is a personal choice, and we will leave it to individuals and informal groups to work out their own arrangements.

On the public transport front, Mrs Teo asked about plans to enhance the connectivity of feeder bus services. We will need to look into both the feeder bus routes as well as the frequency of the services. Sir, the House will recall that LTA will take over the centralised planning of bus routes by 2009; this will ensure that there are more direct feeder services so that commuters can get to MRT stations and bus interchanges in less time.

As for the frequency of feeder bus services, more than 80% of our feeder bus services currently operate at frequencies of 15 minutes or less during the peak hours. However, this can be improved. As part of the Quality of Service Standards (QoS) for basic bus services, the operators will be required to run at least 85% of feeder bus services at headways of not more than 10 minutes during the weekday peak hours by August 2008 or this month. The PTC will raise this standard progressively from 85% to 90% by August next year, to allow time for the bus operators to phase in their procurement of new buses as well as to recruit more bus drivers.

Some other measures to improve our public transport system include the introduction of competition by the LTA to the bus industry through competitive tendering from 2010 as well as

carpark. In its review, LTA will need to work with the various agencies to study these issues carefully and how to enhance the Park and Ride Scheme to better facilitate inter-modal transfers for motorists.introducing more Premium Bus Services and competitive bus services along mature MRT lines so as to relieve the train loads. To encourage more people to take public transport, the measures I have mentioned have to work together on both fronts.

Sir, I thank Mrs Lim Hwee Hwa for answering the Question. I think as far as car pooling is concerned, I tend to disagree that it should best be left to individual groups to arrange. In the first place, I think we need all measures to solve our congestion problems. Most of us have seen parents sending kids to school with only one child inside the car and there is a long queue going to the school. I am just wondering whether there can be some platform set up, eg, at the Ministry of Education's school level to encourage parents to car pool, especially within the same area, they can send their kids together to school. Likewise for working places or even those residing in the same town, the CDC or the grassroots organisations may encourage such schemes.

Sir, as Dr Lim Wee Kiak has very well elaborated, car pooling tends to work better in a localised and customised fashion. Therefore, unless the Government can add value by having national platforms, it will still be far better to allow the informal arrangements to take place.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry would consider giving priority to the housing estates which are affected by the new ERP gantry as a result of the outer-cordoned concept for their feeder-bus services to be improved at a faster rate because they are truly the ones who are being affected most.

Sir, I think the ERP system covers most, if not all, parts of

Singapore. And it will be difficult to assign a certain priority to certain areas. But, certainly, when LTA does its centralised planning, it will see how best to optimise the feeder service network with the different modes of transport.

13. Mrs Josephine Teo asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what are the reasons for the decline in labour productivity as reported in the Report on Wages in Singapore 2007; (b) to what extent is this contributed by the increased presence of low-skilled and low-wage foreign workers in the workforce; and (c) whether the decline implies that efforts in skills upgrading and job redesign have been ineffective.

Sir, productivity tends to fluctuate from year to year. It is therefore best to assess productivity over a longer horizon, instead of drawing conclusions on the basis of a few quarters' or a single year's data. Over the past five years from 2002 to 2007, productivity growth averaged 3.0% per annum, higher than the real wage growth of 2.8% per annum. This is a respectable rate of productivity growth for a mature economy like Singapore. In developed countries like Australia, Germany, the UK and the US, average productivity growth is typically around 2.0% or below. The decline in productivity in 2007 is partly due to the record employment growth of 234,900 jobs (9.4% growth), which was far higher than the average of 116,500 jobs created per year over the last five years. During periods of strong employment growth, productivity growth typically tends to be lower as output growth will take time to catch up with the increase in manpower. We saw this happening during the economic boom

It will be simplistic to conclude that the weaker productivity performance was due to the increased presence of foreign workers. In fact, our flexible and responsive foreign manpower policies enable companies to capitalise quickly on growth opportunities in Singapore and expand to create even more jobs, including jobs for locals. This is why employment has grown strongly over the last few years.

Nevertheless, we should redouble our efforts to ensure that productivity continues to grow over the long run so that we remain competitive. Our strategy to achieve this is three-fold. Firstly, by investing in the training of our workers. Secondly, by helping companies to take advantage of the higher skills of its workers through job redesign. Thirdly, by bringing in new investments and encouraging existing companies to upgrade through technology and innovation.

The Government will continue to invest in our workers to enable them to upgrade their skills and take on better jobs, through the CET Masterplan. Companies can also benefit from a more adaptable and productive workforce.

On job redesign, we are working closely with companies to redesign jobs to enhance productivity and value. Spearheaded by NTUC, the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) is a key driver for Job Re-creation and Industry Re-development efforts.

Finally, we support companies to upgrade their capabilities to undertake higher value-add activities and encouraging companies to invest in technology

Workers and employers must work together to retrain and retool to improve our productivity and ensure our labour force remains competitive.

3.00 pm

between 1996 and 1997, preceding the Asian financial crisis, when employment grew strongly (6.2% per annum on average) and productivity growth was low (1.8% per annum on average).and innovation for greater productivity. SPRING has been helping Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) through its Technology Innovation Programme (TIP) to accelerate technology adaptation.

Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 18, 22-23, 34, 36, 39-40, 42-43, 46 and 52-54 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Questions Nos. 14-17, 19-21, 24-33, 35, 37-38, 41, 44-45, 47-51 and 55-56 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 26th August 2008. ]

*Cols. 3099-3120.

"to amend the Environmental Public Health Act (Chapter 95 of the 2002 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Co-operative Societies Act (Chapter 62 of the 1985 Revised Edition), and to make consequential amendments to the Banking Act (Chapter 19 of the 2008 Revised Edition) and the Finance Companies Act (Chapter 108 of the 2000 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports

(Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to give effect to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001 and to make provisions generally for matters connected therewith, and to make related amendments to the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act (Chapter 243 of the 1999 Revised Edition) and the Merchant Shipping (Civil Liability and Compensation for Oil Pollution) Act (Chapter 180 of the 1999 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Transport (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat); 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 Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Gan Kim Yong); 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.

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

Sir, over the years, the Government has reviewed the conduct of every General Election (GE) and made the process simpler to both candidates and voters without compromising the integrity of the electoral process. After the 2001

Overseas voting

The 2006 GE was the first time when overseas Singaporeans could vote. 1,017 overseas Singaporeans registered to vote. 335 of the 553 overseas electors from the 16 contested constituencies eventually voted at the eight overseas polling stations. Now that we have experience in conducting overseas voting, we are prepared to take bolder steps to facilitate the participation of more overseas Singaporeans in our national elections.

The constituency of overseas Singaporeans is growing as more Singaporeans go abroad to work and study. It is estimated that more than 150,000 Singaporeans are working or studying overseas today. This number will grow. It is important that they remain engaged in our domestic affairs and not lose the connection with their homeland.

The Bill before the House proposes a number of amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act to that end. The amendments can be grouped into three broad areas. First, we will relax the qualifying criteria for overseas Singaporeans to vote. Second, we will simplify

Relaxing the qualifying criteria for overseas voting Residency requirement

Overseas Singaporeans have to meet a basic residency requirement before they are eligible to register to vote overseas. We will continue to retain a residency requirement. Many countries have minimum residency requirements for their overseas voters.

Currently, all overseas Singaporeans who wish to vote must fulfil the requirement of having resided in Singapore for a cumulative period of two years within the period of five years before the cut-off date for the registers of electors. In addition, they must maintain a local contact address with the ICA, so that their names can be entered or retained in a constituency’s register of electors.

Clause 3 of the Bill will shorten the residency requirement to a cumulative 30 days out of the last three years before the cut-off date for the registration of electors. This will allow more overseas Singaporeans to vote. All an overseas Singaporean needs to do is to come home for 10 days a year to visit his family and friends. This is a far more liberal residency requirement compared to the present one. The Bill also does away with the current special treatment for Government officials and scholars or employees of approved international organisations who are employed or studying abroad, and their family members.

Foreign electoral registers

Next, certain voter disqualifications were reviewed after the 2006 GE in view

In 2006, we learnt that the UK authorities require all households to submit the particulars of household members annually. This is compulsory and applies to foreign residents from Commonwealth countries, which include Singapore. The information is then entered into the UK electoral registers. Some Singaporeans who were living in UK had their names entered into the UK electoral registers and were thus unable to register for overseas voting in the 2006 GE.

We should distinguish between Singaporeans who choose to participate in the political process of a foreign State and those who are included in foreign electoral registers and do nothing more. The former will continue to be disqualified whereas the latter should be given an opportunity to vote. Clause 4 of the Bill will amend section 6(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act to delete the current disqualification for overseas Singaporeans on account of their names being entered in the electoral registers of another country or territory. Instead, the disqualification criteria will be aligned to the circumstances under which a person may be deprived of Singapore citizenship, as spelt out in Article 135(2) of the Constitution. This covers the scenarios where Singapore citizens who acquire or apply to acquire foreign citizenship or where they exercise any rights which are accorded exclusively to the citizens or nationals of that country. For example, casting a vote in any foreign national election or the mayoral elections

Simplifying the registration process of overseas voters

Now, let me move on to the second group of amendments, which is in the area of registration procedures, especially for overseas voters. Today, all voters, including overseas voters, who wish to register, must submit a completed and signed application form with supporting documents, either by hand or registered post, to any local or overseas registration centre or to the Elections Department. Overseas voters have just 21 days to register themselves for overseas voting after the registers of electors are revised and open for inspection.

The present registration period of 21 days is tight and may be too far removed in time from the actual issue of the Writ of election. The last GE saw Singaporeans who were newly-resident overseas travelling long distances to the nearest Singapore Embassy only to be disappointed that they could not cast their vote, because they had not registered during the 21-day window.

We will now allow overseas voters to register themselves at any time before the Writ of election is issued. Once the Writ is issued, registration will cease. Once the election is over, an overseas Singaporean can apply to register as an overseas voter for the next General Election. Clause 8 of the Bill does away with the 21-day window period stipulated in section 13A. Overseas voters will also be allowed to de-register or to change their assigned overseas polling station at any time before the Writ of election is issued. This will address the inconvenience arising whenever a registered overseas voter returns to Singapore or relocates to another city which is designated for overseas voting.

We will also simplify the registration procedures in a number of ways. We will create an online facility to allow all Singaporeans to register as electors. The Bill does not deal with this explicitly. Regulations will be made under the Parliamentary Elections Act later.

Clause 6 of the Bill amends section 11 of the Parliamentary Elections Act to remove the current requirement for every objection to be submitted in duplicate. With online processes, overseas Singaporeans will find this useful, especially if they are non-voters, and want to apply to restore their names to the registers of electors, or if they need to file claims to names omitted or objections to names found in the revised registers of electors during the 14-day period when the revised registers are open for inspection.

Clause 7 of the Bill also amends section 13 of the Parliamentary Elections Act to allow the Registration Officer to update the list of overseas voters in the registers of electors whenever necessary. The Registration Officer will be empowered to remove from the register the names of overseas voters whose contact addresses have ceased to exist or are outdated. The Officer can also enter the name onto the appropriate register once the person whose name is removed has notified the Commissioner of National Registration of his new contact address.

Other miscellaneous amendments Extra-territorial application of the Parliamentary Elections Act

Like most of other laws, the Parliamentary Elections Act currently applies only to acts and omissions occurring within the territory of Singapore and there are no means to enforce its provisions against citizens outside Singapore. An overseas voter who

While making it easier for overseas Singaporeans to vote, we must have avenues to deal with those who undermine the integrity of the electoral process by committing an election offence or making false declarations. The Bill therefore provides for extra-territorial application of the Parliamentary Elections Act to ensure that the integrity of the election process is not undermined. For example, the making of any false declaration when applying to register as an overseas voter or to change the allotted overseas polling station will be an offence, even if made outside Singapore. The person, if convicted, faces a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or both. Clause 9 of the Bill amends section 21 of the Parliamentary Elections Act for this purpose. Clause 12 of the Bill similarly gives extra-territorial effect to the regulations governing overseas voting. The legal proceedings for these offences will take place only in Singapore.

Improving access to overseas stations

Sir, we have designated nine cities where overseas polling stations may be set up. Currently, only diplomatic Missions may serve as overseas polling stations. This is because they enjoy diplomatic immunity and any activity conducted in it remains under Singapore’s control. To deal with situations where a particular Mission is not available to cope with the number of voters, we will expand the class of premises that can be used as overseas polling stations, to include the official residences of our senior diplomats. These premises similarly have diplomatic immunity. Clause 10 of the Bill makes this

By clause 12 of the Bill, we will also lift the existing cap on voting hours at overseas polling stations in section 39A, overseas polling stations. This means that an overseas polling station may operate beyond the current limit of 12 hours when necessary. However, an overseas poll must close not later than the close of the polls on polling day in Singapore. This is unchanged.

Amendments to the Presidential Elections Act

Clause 13 of the Bill makes related amendments to sections 2 and 22A of the Presidential Elections Act in the same manner as the amendments in clauses 2, 11 and 12 of the Bill.

Sir, as more Singaporeans venture abroad to work or study, we will strive to ensure that they remain connected to Singapore. This Bill seeks to make it easier for overseas Singaporeans to register and vote while at the same time preserving the integrity of the election process.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

General Elections, Elections Department implemented a number of improvements for the 2006 General Election. The Parliamentary Elections Act was amended in 2005 to simplify the nomination process, and streamline the post-election reporting of political donations and election expenditure, among other issues. During the Committee of Supply debate this year, I informed the House that Elections Department has also reviewed the 2006 GE and will implement more improvements for the next GE. A key review area concerned overseas voting, which is the subject of the Bill before the House.the registration procedures for overseas voters. The third area comprises a number of miscellaneous amendments to support the first two groups of amendments. I will now elaborate on each of these areas.of feedback from overseas voters. The current Parliamentary Elections Act disqualifies overseas Singaporeans from voting if their names are entered in the electoral registers of other countries. The rationale was to exclude any citizen who could be a participant in the political process of a foreign State.of metropolitan areas like London will be disqualifying acts. commits an election offence while he is in an overseas polling station therefore cannot be charged in our courts here. Similarly, false claims or declarations made by overseas Singaporeans to gain registration also fall outside the Parliamentary Elections Act’s application.change. This is connected with the amendment to the definition of “overseas polling stations” in clause 2.

3.16 pm

Sir, the proposed relaxations to increase the catchment of overseas voters are a step in the right direction, in particular, section 5 eases the residency requirement from two years out of five to 30 days out of three years which should enable more to qualify. However, I would like to seek two clarifications from the Deputy Prime Minister about the amendments. First of all, the definition of "overseas polling station" has now been

Secondly, Sir, there is also the provision, section 39A, which remains unchanged that the polls overseas should not close later than the poll in Singapore which, I think, is a very right step. Is the Government considering closing the overseas polls early enough so that the overseas votes can be sent back to Singapore in time for counting to be combined with the local votes? As I previously said, this is important for voter anonymity, especially in smaller constituencies where the number of overseas voters may be very small.

Lastly, Sir, I was also intending to raise issues concerning by-elections in the Group Representation Constituencies which are covered under the Parliamentary Elections Act. However, as there has been a motion filed by the Nominated Member, I will be raising my comments at that time.

expanded to cover the official residence of our diplomats. And based on his Second Reading speech earlier, are we to assume that the increase in polling stations is still confined, for example, to the political capitals of the countries in question? Second, is there any plan in the near future to explore other countries which are not currently listed? I understand that there are a fair number of Singaporeans, for example, in other countries such as New Zealand and India. Would those countries be considered in the medium term?

3.18 pm

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

This Bill seeks to refine the Act by implementing changes that the Deputy Prime Minister had announced in the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year. These refinements are positive and much welcome. Having said that, I have

Sir, of all the amendments, the relaxation of the eligibility criteria for an overseas voter is the most significant. A Singapore citizen must now spend an aggregate of 30 days in the past three years in Singapore to qualify for overseas voting. It removes the previous eligibility criteria which had been heavily criticised. This will have the effect of enabling many more overseas Singaporeans to vote. It also means that at the next general elections, overseas polling stations are likely to receive many more overseas voters than in the 2006 elections. Section 39 of the Act specifies that the Presiding Officer of a polling station, which includes an overseas polling station, shall exclude from the polling station all persons except voters allotted to that polling station, the candidates, the polling agents of each candidate and other persons involved in the functioning of the polling station. My question is whether the Government will make special provision to enable polling agents of candidates to be present in overseas polling stations.

While the Act, as it now stands, permits parties to send their polling agents to overseas polling stations, the reality is that travel costs would be so high as to make this prohibitive and unrealistic. That being the case, I propose that the Government should fund the travel of one polling agent from each political party involved in the elections to each overseas polling station where overseas voters in respect of constituencies contested by that party are registered to vote so that all parties would be able to appropriately monitor the various overseas polling stations. This would ensure that the same degree of transparency and accountability applies to both local and overseas polling

My second point relates to early voting for overseas voters. Ms Sylvia Lim had raised this issue in last year's COS and I think she has mentioned this slightly earlier. Sir, at COS this year, the Deputy Prime Minister had answered that there are many implications to early voting which make it unfeasible, including the fact that overseas Singaporeans would then only witness four to five days of campaigning from overseas before voting which may not be enough for them to form a conclusion on whom to vote for. I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to reconsider this and to permit early voting for overseas voters. The concern raised by Ms Lim is certainly true that there is a valid concern about anonymity in some wards, in particular single member constituencies. It seems to me that there is little qualitative difference between five days of campaigning and nine days of campaigning. I believe that the benefits of permitting early voting for overseas voters far outweigh the potential problems. And, certainly, if the Government was keen to give Singaporeans more time to come to an informed conclusion, then it should provide for much longer campaign period than the statutory minimum of nine days which has been the practice in past elections.

Also, in this year's COS, Mr Matthias Yao had raised the question of contingency plans to deal with possible disruptions to the smooth conduct of elections, such as severe weather on Nomination Day and Polling Day. The Deputy Prime Minister's response then was that the Elections Department was looking into this and legislative amendments would be introduced to address such situations. The Bill currently before this House does not appear to address this issue. I therefore hope that the Deputy Prime Minister can update this House on the status of the Elections Department's work on contingency

Sir, the Amendment Bill before this House is a well-balanced piece of legislation that preserves the principles of democracy by enabling many more overseas Singaporeans to vote than is presently the case. This keeps our general elections relevant in today's globalised world. I believe that the refinements I have suggested would improve the Act even more.

With that, I support the Bill.

three points for the Deputy Prime Minister's consideration. stations and preclude any allegation of vote rigging, foul play or other unfairness.planning and the proposed legislative amendments that he had referred to in this year's COS.

3.22 pm

Sir, I thank the Members for supporting the amendments in this Bill. I will answer the questions raised by both Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Siew Kum Hong.

Ms Lim asked whether we could expand the number of overseas polling stations or not. Right now, we have nine. There are certain basic criteria we have to consider before we decide to open an overseas polling station. Firstly, we must have a Mission in that particular country. Secondly, we must have enough Singaporeans living in that country. And, thirdly, if the election is to be held in a particular city, we also must have enough mass in that particular city. What are the numbers we look at? If we have 10,000 Singaporeans living in a country, say, China, definitely, we will have a polling station in China. If there are more than 1,000 Singaporeans in cities like Beijing and Shanghai, we will have an overseas polling station in these two cities. Short of that, it is hard to justify opening an overseas polling station because it does require a lot of planning and resources to deal on the actual day of polling. So from the studies we have made, I think the expansion to the current list of nine cities is enough. If there is a need to do more,

On advancing the end of poll for overseas polling stations, I have explained before that it will shorten the time for overseas voters to make an informed decision. I have just heard Mr Siew saying that five days of campaigning is the same as nine days of campaigning, so why not close four days earlier. I am not sure if the Opposition will agree with that. I think we all want to have as much time as possible to put our views across. The timing right now to close the poll for overseas station no later than we close the poll for the Singapore station is a correct one. We will see how else we can deal with the situation of too few voters in a particular constituency. But as more Singaporeans go overseas to work and register themselves to vote, then the chances are that many of them will come from a particular constituency, and therefore the question of secrecy or anonymity of the vote will no longer arise. In fact, even if there are five overseas Singaporeans who voted for a particular constituency, nobody can tell really how the five individual members actually voted other than to know that maybe X number for one party and Y number for another party. Beyond that, who voted for who is anybody's guess. I think the Opposition Member, Mr Low Thia Khiang himself, also once agreed with me that the vote is secret and we cannot really tell.

On the eligibility criteria, I have explained that. Mr Siew is quite happy with the change. His suggestion about Government funding the polling agent to go to a polling station overseas is something that we will not need to do, because there is no law compelling any party to send any polling agent to the polling station. It is not compulsory. They do not have to do it. In fact, there are some parties that could not even have enough polling agents for the Singapore

On the last question of contingency plans, these are still being worked out. This particular Bill only deals with overseas voting and registration for overseas voting.

we will look at them and see what more can be done to open up more polling stations.elections. So we do not see the need to spend public money to send the Opposition or PAP polling agent to an overseas station. We should trust the integrity of the election process and, so far, there has been no complaint. People know that our election is fair and transparent and it is not an issue at all not to have polling agents to oversee it. If the party wants to do so, I think they are free to spend whatever they need or even to appoint somebody overseas as their polling agent. But, again, that must be subject to the availability of space in a particular overseas polling station because, as we know, Singapore is quite frugal. We do not have large Missions like some countries and, therefore, we may not be able to find enough space to accommodate all the parties that want to send their polling agents to those countries.

Sir, can I get a clarification, please?

Yes, please.

There is a sum of $80 million budgeted in 2006 to be used for upgrading of flats at Potong Pasir. But that sum, although budgeted, was not released. I am asking whether part of that sum can be used to fund observers to overseas elections?

Sir, the Government, as you know, is very frugal, very prudent, very fiscal minded and, of course, whenever there is a need to spend money, we will spend the money. But, in this instance, we do not think we need to

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

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

spend public money to fund the sending of polling agents to overseas stations.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.30 pm

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

The Bill seeks to amend the Estate Duty Act so that deaths occurring on and after 15th February 2008 will no longer be subject to Estate Duty. This change was earlier announced in the 2008 Budget Statement. Deaths occurring before 15th February 2008 will continue to be liable for Estate Duty.

We decided to abolish Estate Duty to send a clear signal of encouragement for individuals to take risks, invest and grow their wealth in Singapore. This wealth creation will benefit our whole economy and society, not just the individuals concerned. The revenues lost each year from collection of estate duties should be more than offset by the economic benefits over the long term.

Key provisions

Sir, clauses 2 to 4 state that the provisions of the Estate Duty Act will only apply to deaths occurring before 15th February 2008.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Lim Hwee Hua].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

3.33 pm

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

Sir, during the Budget Speech in 2007, then-Second Minister for Finance announced the intent for cess to be used in the future in more targeted ways to fund specific tourism projects.

In line with this, my Ministry of Trade and Industry is proposing to amend the Singapore Tourism (Cess Collection) Act to allow the imposition of cess to fund strategic tourism events. The staging of strategic tourism events in Singapore enhances Singapore's global branding and brings significant economic benefits to the country. However, such events typically entail high staging costs. The Government can provide financial support commensurate with benefits to the broader economy to help defray some of the costs. But it is not sustainable for Government to be the sole source of support for such events. We need the key beneficiaries of such events to also play a part in defraying these costs as they

In particular, the tourism and hospitality sectors stand to benefit from the higher foreign visitorship to Singapore arising from these events. This will translate into higher hotel occupancy and room rates, increased patronage of entertainment and retail establishments, and greater tourist spending. It is hence reasonable for such benefiting establishments to provide an equitable contribution in the form of cess to defray part of the high costs of staging strategic tourism events.

Sir, let me now go through the major amendments proposed in the Bill.

Imposing cess to fund specific tourism events

Currently, sections 5 and 6 of the Singapore Tourism (Cess Collection) Act stipulate that tourist establishments are liable for cess on the specified sales made or charges collected at a specified rate. To allow cess to be used in a more targeted way, clause 3 of the Bill empowers the Minister to declare a tourism event where cess will be applied and the period for which cess shall be levied. The clause would also allow the Minister to specify the descriptions of sales or charges for which cess shall be paid, the tourist establishments upon which cess shall be levied and the rates at which cess shall be paid.

Changing incidence of cess on to tourist establishments

In addition, my Ministry proposes to repeal section 7 in clause 4 of the Bill to remove the provisions for the recovery of cess from consumers. Currently, tourist establishments may recover cess from their customers and, in doing so, show the amount of cess paid on the sales receipts. With the amendment, the

Allowing the Singapore Tourism Board to obtain information

Sir, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) is currently empowered to obtain information under the Singapore Tourism (Cess Collection) Act for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of cess to be paid. Under the proposed approach of imposing cess for specific tourism events, the STB would need to advise my Ministry on the tourist establishments on which cess is applicable and the amount of cess to be paid by any person under the Act. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill will allow the STB to obtain the information required to carry out this responsibility.

Improvement to the penalty structure

Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill will strengthen the penalty framework in the Singapore Tourism (Cess Collection) Act to allow the STB to deal more effectively with non-compliance. The penalty for late or non-payment will increase the longer a person delays cess payment. Beyond the initial 5% penalty, any additional penalty is subject to a maximum of 50% of the amount of cess outstanding.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments to the Singapore Tourism (Cess Collection) Act will enhance our ability to anchor strategic tourism events in Singapore, many of which come at a high staging cost. These tourism events

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr S Iswaran].

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

derive significant economic benefits from these events. Singapore Tourism (Cess Collection) Act will reposition the incidence of cess on the specified tourist establishments, rather than on their customers. Tourist establishments can then price their products and services in accordance with prevailing market conditions. This is in line with the Government's intent for the key beneficiaries of tourism events to make a contribution towards the cost of these events.will not only benefit the tourism sector and the economy at large, but will also enhance the profile of Singapore internationally and contribute to ongoing efforts to transform Singapore into a distinctive and vibrant global city. While Government can provide support commensurate with the benefits to the economy, it is essential for the success and sustainability of these tourism events that the key beneficiaries also play their part and help defray the high staging costs of such events.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.40 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, the Bill seeks to amend the Public Transport Council Act (PTC Act) to enable

Our public transport system is based on a hub-and-spoke model. This is a much more efficient model than having many direct services. How this works is that we have more frequent and faster services bringing commuters to a transport hub and then onwards to their destination, with the same amount of resources.

This will deliver better outcomes for commuters because more frequent feeder services will mean shorter waiting times for commuters. Making transfers can also reduce overall travel time, especially for longer journeys. This is the correct model for a compact city state like Singapore.

Going forward, we will enhance our hub-and-spoke public transport system to address waiting time, travel time and crowding levels, which Members often raise in this House, as key areas of concern to commuters.

Transfers are part and parcel of a hub-and-spoke system. However, our fare structure today is not fully integrated and does not support transfers. In fact, a commuter pays more to make a transfer journey compared to a direct journey, even if he travels on a comparable route over the same distance. Although he receives a rebate of 25 cents whenever he makes a transfer between bus and rapid transit, or between buses, this does not fully cover the additional cost of the transfer. Commuters who make transfers today therefore bear a financial 'penalty' for making a transfer. In effect, revenues from transfer journeys cross-subsidise direct journeys.

A better, more integrated fare structure would be distance-based through fares: charging commuters based

More importantly, distance-based through fares would make our public transport system more seamless. As transfers are part and parcel of a hub-and-spoke network, we should have a fare structure that removes the current impediments to making transfers. In addition, providing commuters with more choices and greater convenience will increase the attractiveness of public transport as a whole.

As the PTC already oversees matters related to public transport fares, it is the most appropriate agency to lead the integration of public transport fares. To that end, a new function has to be enacted in the PTC Act.

Sir, the PTC Act will be amended for the PTC to take on a new function: to drive fare integration by introducing distance-based through fares.

Clause 2 of the Bill expands the PTC's current functions under section 4 of the PTC Act, to include promoting and facilitating the integration of bus and Rapid Transit System (RTS) fares to ensure the provision of efficient public transport services and facilities. This will give the PTC the necessary mandate to integrate fares by introducing distance-based through fares.

The key amendments arising from this new function are:

The PTC to initiate and impose changes to the public transport fare structure and the apportionment of fare revenue among the public transport operators; and

The widening of its range of enforcement powers on its decisions on fares.

Let me elaborate and highlight the key provisions in the Bill.

First, the PTC will be able to initiate a review of the bus and RTS fares and make changes to the fares and apportionment of fare revenues, for the purposes of integrating public transport fares. This will be in addition to the PTC's current mandate in the annual fare revision exercise.

To do this, clause 5 proposes inserting two new sections to the PTC Act.

Section 24AA empowers the PTC to make structural changes to any fare by varying them, or imposing such changes as conditions to its approval of fares.

The PTC would also need to have powers to determine the rules for revenue-sharing among the public transport operators. This is meant to ensure the continued financial viability of the operators and the overall system, even as fares are being changed to a more integrated form. Section 24AA will, therefore, also provide the PTC with the power to impose conditions on operators with regard to the apportionment of fare revenues. Such conditions could also require the operators to publish the integrated fares for the benefit of commuters.

These structural changes will affect many parties, especially the public transport operators who provide the services. To ensure due process in making these changes, we propose to insert a new section 24AB, which requires the PTC to give notice to and consult the relevant parties.

Once the PTC decides on the revisions in fares, it would need powers to enforce its decisions, to ensure the public transport operators comply with its decisions.

Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 24 of the Act to enable the PTC to take a wider range of enforcement measures if the operator does not comply with its decision. Depending on the gravity of the non-compliance, the PTC can decide to revoke its approval of the operators' fares, suspend its approval for a period not exceeding six months, impose a financial penalty not exceeding $100,000 or publicly censure the operator.

The PTC will be required to give notice to the operators concerned, and allow the operators to show cause as to why the PTC should not take action before carrying out the enforcement.

To align the current enforcement provisions with the changes, clause 3 of the Bill amends section 23 of the Act to make it clear that any public transport fares suspended by the PTC will be deemed not to be an approved fare. Clause 3 also clarifies section 23 to make it an offence to charge fares that are not approved by the PTC under the amended provisions of the Act.

The introduction of distance-based through fares will mean structural changes to our bus and RTS fares. This is necessary to better integrate our hub-and-spoke public transport system, and will benefit commuters by giving them more choices. By giving the PTC the necessary

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

the PTC to support the development of a more integrated public transport system, by introducing distance-based through fares.on the distance travelled, regardless of the number of transfers made. This would be more equitable for all commuters as it will eliminate any cross-subsidy between transfers and direct journeys. It would also benefit all commuters, whether they make transfers or not, in that all commuters would be given more choices over the routes for their journeys. They would not be penalised for choosing to make transfers if doing so were faster, more direct or provided a better travel experience, compared to having to wait for a direct service in order to avoid paying the "transfer penalty".powers to integrate our fare structure and introduce distance-based through fares, it would help to realise our vision of a more people-centred land transport system.

4.07 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Public Transport Council (Amendment) Bill introduced by the Minister for Transport.

Currently, commuters who make a transfer between buses, or bus and MRT, or the LRT and the MRT, face a transfer penalty, as the Minister pointed out. This arises because the current transfer rebate, a misnomer, of 25 cents, does not fully offset the boarding charge of 60 cents for the subsequent leg of a transfer journey. These commuters are effectively cross-subsidising direct journeys.

It has been reported that four in 10 commuters today make at least one transfer journey each day and they are not a happy lot. The need to make a transfer is inevitable in a hub-and-spoke system, as the Minister also pointed out. The alternative to hub-and-spoke system is to have direct services but the cost will be too prohibitive for a small city like Singapore. The proposed introduction of distance-based through fares and the removal of transfer penalties is therefore long overdue and represents a sensible and positive move.

Commuters who need to make transfers are already inconvenienced as their total journey time would be longer and yet, these commuters are being penalised for having to make a transfer. This should be stopped if we are to attract more to take public transport. Such commuters should be enjoying a full

In the shipping or the airline business, if you ship something from Perth to Los Angeles and the container has to be transhipped in Singapore, you cannot charge the customer more. In fact, you might have to charge lower because of the time delay in transhipment.

If the PTOs want to rationalise the public transport system to reduce overall network cost, it should, at the same time, pass such savings on to those who are affected by such rationalisation. The proposed amendment is, therefore, an equitable and efficient way forward as part of MOT's strategic thrust of making public transport the choice mode. Moreover, Sir, I think there are other potential benefits beyond what we see, based on today's travel patterns. The benefit of distance-based through fares does not stop here. There are many other commuters who are currently not making transfers because they do not wish to pay the transfer penalty. With the removal of the transfer penalty, more commuters will take to the hub-and-spoke network which will further enhance its efficiency and make it work better. Also, hopefully, concession fares (monthly concession season fares and so forth) can be rationalised and offered seamlessly for commuters of both bus and rail.

Sir, while I support the Bill, I would like to ask the Minister a few questions regarding the Bill.

Firstly, could he highlight the number of commuters who could potentially benefit from the distance-based through fares?

Secondly, would the majority of six in 10 commuters that make direct journeys today be made to bear the burden of removal of the transfer penalty? And if so, does MOT have any plans to ease such a burden?

Thirdly, for commuters to reap the benefits of a distance-based through fare system, the hub-and-spoke system needs to work better. On the Government's part, what is being done to improve our hub-and-spoke system further, especially the capacity of our bus and MRT terminals which act as transfer hubs today because we can envisage that these terminals would be handling much more traffic than they are currently handling?

Also, the Bill seeks to enable the PTC to take various enforcement measures, including imposing a financial penalty of up to $100,000. The Minister did mention there are other measures that the PTC can take, like revoking the licences of the PTOs. But such measures are draconian in nature and have public interest implications. Can I ask the Minister whether the $100,000 penalty is sufficient to ensure compliance of PTOs without resorting to more draconian measures?

Sir, in conclusion, I strongly support the Bill because the new framework will pave a more equitable way forward as part of MOT's strategic thrust of making public transport a choice mode. At the same time, the hub-and-spoke system has to be further improved in tandem and the new framework should not come at the expense of commuters who make direct journeys.

Sir, I support the Bill.

rebate of the boarding charge for any subsequent leg of their journey.

4.13 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, with firm conviction that the integration of bus and rail fares will mark an important milestone in the continuing improvement of our public transport system. I rise in support of the proposed amendments.

Economic and population growth are two compelling reasons to raise the bar on our public transport system. As we plan for a global city that 6.5 million people can proudly call home, we also have to plan for a transportation system that will take them anywhere within the city as easily as possible. More immediately, rising fuel costs, coupled with plans to lower the vehicle population growth rate to 1.5% per annum as room for road expansion becomes more limited, mean that the cost of private car ownership and usage will increase over time and become less practical for many. Public transport must be improved so that people are able to move and travel conveniently and comfortably on buses and trains without overstraining their budget.

It is timely that we embark on a major revamp of our public transport system to bring about a people-centred system as set out in the Land Transport Masterplan. To succeed, this major revamp requires fares to be integrated and bus services to be realigned and coordinated. With these amendments to the Public Transport Council Act, the PTC will have the powers to initiate and change the fares, including the fare structures, to be charged by the public transport operators. From 2009, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will take over centralised planning of the bus network and services with the PTC retaining oversight. On both fronts, the PTC plays a very crucial role in the implementation of these changes as both of them are extremely sensitive and emotive exercises.

As can be seen from the recent fury of protests in the forum pages of newspapers and in the various blogs and podcasts such as the mrbrown show podcast which puts forward a humorous but biting take on transfers, and I quote, "fare game", those who end up inconvenienced will naturally be dis

Sir, there is a need to redress this imbalance in the feedback that we receive. I understand it can be very difficult to speak out. When we attend a dinner, for example, and everyone around the table is complaining about how adversely affected they are, I am sure you will feel quite shy to say out loud that you are happy because you are benefiting. Somehow, it is popular to criticise and complain. Somehow, we do not want to be seen to take pleasure in the unhappiness of others or we simply do not want to attract undue sarcastic comments from those who are unhappy around us.

gruntled but those who end up better served will not thank anyone for it.

Some inconveniences and unhappiness would inevitably arise in some quarters when a change is implemented. Nevertheless, I would strongly encourage those who support or benefit from fare integration to come out and be more vocal about their views for the change. More importantly, I urge all commuters to look at the bigger and longer term picture.

The vision of the Land Transport Ministry is to ensure a quality urban living environment as the economy and population grow and to achieve this goal, the commuter is put squarely in the centre. The interest of the commuter is right at the heart of the Land Transport Masterplan. In other words, the intention of the present fare integration exercise is to give a better commuter experience as a whole. Ultimately, it is critical for the Government to have the political will to carry out measures which may not enjoy popular support in the short term but will result in the long-term benefit for commuters as a whole. In other words, short-term pain for some, long-term gain for the majority.

Currently, the public transport operators, SBS Transit and SMRT, operate

I sense that the operators were reluctant to offer season tickets as this was seen as less revenue compared to standard tickets for one-time travel. I, therefore, welcome the amendments to the PTC Act which give the PTC powers to initiate and change the fares, including the fare structure. I look forward to PTC introducing more types of travel passes and season tickets for unlimited travel on bus and rail. For example, in London, although the cash single-fare is prohibitively high, very few people actually pay that fare because there is an array of "oyster" fare, one and three-day passes, off-peak travel cards and season tickets to choose from. Not only does this give the commuter a capped-cost to better manage his budget for transport expenses, it will encourage him to take public transport more, because he has already paid for the season ticket. Such unlimited travel passes will revolutionalise the travel patterns of our population. Perhaps, in addition to the basic transport needs of getting to and from work, people will be able to go out more, to socialise more, to shop more and to dine more.

In line with our pro-family initiatives, I would also like to suggest to the PTC that family fares be introduced, allowing a family travelling together to pay less than the sum total of the individual standard fares. Families can enjoy more outings

Sir, having said the above, I do not think we can start celebrating that the PTC will now favour commuters without regard to the interests of the operators, because the PTC still has the challenging mission of balancing commuters' interest with the long-term viability of the transport operators. I would like to ask the Minister to clarify how this will work in practice. For example, if the PTC thinks that a certain type of season pass should be introduced, will the PTC then have to consult with the transport operators to take into consideration how much revenue operators will lose when commuters use this new season pass and try to compensate the operators with extra fare revenue by allowing an increase in fares from somewhere else?

One recent change which illustrates PTC's challenge is distance-based fare structure and the removal of transfer penalty. As transfers lubricate the wheel that comprises the hub-and-spoke transport system, it makes sense that for the hub-and-spoke model to function optimally, transfers should be the order of the day and not to be penalised. The distance-based fare structure will allow commuters to choose the preferred route to take to reach their destination. The revelation that the distance-based system will help cut transport costs for four in 10 commuters was welcomed. But the news that this loss of revenue will be passed on to direct fares thus would result in higher fares for the remaining six commuters who make direct trips has provoked public outcry.

I was perturbed that the public transport operators are allowed to recoup the loss of transfer penalty by raising fares on direct trips. I think we should

Sir, in theory, the hub-and-spoke system is an ideal model on which to base transport planning. It is cost-efficient, energy-efficient and has the capability to match and maybe surpass the journey-time offered by direct services, the only drawback being that commuters have to make more transfers. However, I am not convinced of the effectiveness of the hub-and-spoke system in our HDB estates where there is a heavy dependence on feeder services. In my constituency, Tampines, residents have complained to me that their children have been posted by MOE to schools in the neighbouring housing estate of Bedok. As the crow flies, Bedok may be the nearest town from Tampines. However, to get from their home in Tampines to their school in Bedok, the students have to take a feeder bus to the hub in Tampines, transfer to a

The Minister for Transport has indicated that when LTA takes on the role of central bus planner, it will seek to make feeder services more direct and frequent. I hope LTA will conduct a fundamental review of the feeder bus system to improve the connectivity in our HDB estates. I am still not convinced why feeder bus services should ply in a loop around the hub. We speak of the hub-and-spoke system. The spokes of a wheel radiate from the hub. Therefore, is a two-directional bus service linking two hubs not better than a feeder service going one full circle in a loop? It will give commuters a choice of taking the service one way or the other way, to either one of the hubs. Such a service linking two hubs can collect and feed people living along the route to either hub.

Sir, with that, I support the Amendment Bill.

4.23 pm

within a fare structure that has been agreed and approved by the PTC. Any application for increase or change has to be submitted to the PTC for approval. But the PTC has no authority to proactively force an operator to change the fare that he charges and could only react when an application is submitted by the operator. Hence, it is only recently, after many years of persuasion and petitioning by the MPs and the public, that SBS Transit introduced the season pass that allows unlimited rides within a given period of time.together, especially during off-peak weekends, knowing that their transport expenditure is capped.first observe and monitor the impact on the collections of the PTOs following the introduction of the distance-based through fares and allow some time for the system to settle down before considering making any fare adjustments for direct trips. This will be more favourably received by commuters than imposing an immediate increase in fares for direct trips. With respect, the premise that the fares for direct trips be immediately increased to meet the costs of restructuring is untenable. This is because the exercise to integrate fares by introducing distance-based through fares is not a simple one. We are not talking about a straightforward equation of compensating for the loss of revenue in one area by increasing revenue by charging more money somewhere else. As the PTC is well aware, pricing of fares involves many factors and variables and it is not clear whether at the end of the day, the PTOs will lose any revenue or what the quantum of any loss of revenue would be. It may be well that the overall revenue may increase due to a rise in ridership as more travel options open for commuters with the introduction of distance-based through fares.trunk service or the MRT to Bedok hub before hopping on another feeder to go to school. On the other hand, if their home and their school are served by a couple of trunk services each, their choice of services and connections is multiplied as these services criss-cross each other along their routes.

Sir, I support the proposed Amendment Bill to confer a new function on PTC to drive integration of bus and RTS fares by means of introducing distance-based through fares.

Currently, our fare structure is not equitable and not consistent with our hub-and-spoke model as it is not fully integrated and does not support transfer. In fact, a commuter pays more to make a transfer journey with less travelling time compared to a direct journey that requires more travelling time.

Take, for example, a commuter that travels from Yishun to Singapore Expo by MRT. He will incur a fare of $1.75 by ez-link card and the journey time is 58 minutes. However, if he wants to cut down travelling time to 50 minutes and makes a transfer by taking a bus and then a train, he will have to incur a higher fare of $2.30, even after transfer rebates.

In order for commuters to enjoy more efficient, more frequent services and shorter journey times, transfer penalty will have to be removed. Indirectly, this also means that transfer rebates will have to be increased.

Currently, the transfer rebate is 25 cents and is paid by the second leg operator. So, if a bus brings commuters to a train, the train will bear the transfer rebate, and vice versa.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister on the following three issues:

Transfer rebates. How will PTC ensure that the rules of transfer rebates and revenue sharing are equitably introduced so as to balance the interests of commuters, operators and workers in the transport industry? If transfer rebate is high, commuters that make transfer journey will understandably be happy. However, it may not be so for operators as it may affect their financial viability. For workers in the transport industry, they could be worried too as the operators’ revenue may be affected. Like any other ordinary Singaporean workers, they too look forward to annual wage and bonus increases. On the other hand, will commuters on direct journey be made to pay a higher fare as a result of this structural change?

Fares for Distance. Currently, PTC has a formula to determine the appropriate annual fare increase after submission by the operators. As the

Transfer and Direct Journey. Does MOT have the information on the number of commuters who make transfers and what were their patterns? Is it bus-bus between the same operator, or bus-train between different operators or bus-train-bus? This will be useful in determining how the structural change in the fare system will affect the commuters and their travelling patterns.

4.27 pm

current fares are set by the operators based on fare stages, which is also distance-based, what will be the roles of the operators and PTC in determining and setting the fare for a particular distance with the empowerment to PTC to introduce distance-based through fares? As the Minister mentioned just now, with the amendment, PTC is required to consult the relevant parties. Who are the relevant parties that PTC needs to consult?

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

The amendments contained in the Bill will put in place the necessary framework to allow the Public Transport Council to implement distance-based through fares, which is, in my view, a fair basis for determining public transport fares. So I only have two points to make in relation to the Bill.

Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 23 of the Act, in particular clause 3(b) amends section 23(2) such that PTC may, in certain circumstances, prohibit persons from charging fares lower than those approved by the PTC. This is a change from the current situation where persons are freely permitted to charge fares lower than those approved by the PTC. This seems counter-intuitive. After all, if an operator is able and willing to reduce its

Secondly, Sir, the new section 24AB creates a mechanism for the PTC to consult with licensed bus service operators and licensed Rapid Transit System operators. But this excludes the public. I hope the Minister can clarify why only the operators and not the public who, after all, are the persons who will be paying these fares, will be consulted. Indeed, a recurring complaint from the public is that the PTC does not pay sufficient heed to the concerns of the commuters themselves, considering that it is the commuters who will be using the system and paying the fares. I think there is room for the Act to be amended to allow for greater public consultation.

Sir, with that, I support the Bill.

4.29 pm

fares, why should the PTC stop it from doing so? I would think that lower transport fares are a good thing, especially in these times of high inflation. I therefore hope that the Minister can clarify the situation in which the PTC will proscribe persons from charging lower fares than what have been approved and what measures will be put in place to ensure that the PTC will do so only in these situations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Public Transport Council (Amendment) Bill, as it is indeed very timely with the increasing call of the public to switch to public transport.

With the population projected to increase in the years ahead, we must be conscious in our approach in urban planning and ensure that what we implement must be far-sighted so that we do not leave our future generation with problems that are insurmountable. Central to our style of urban living is the public transportation system.

Our economy, our

With the proposed amendments, I hope we can have before long a more equitable fare system so that commuters would not be penalised by the fare structure for the many criss-crossing they have to make daily from one transport service to another. I have a few concerns and suggestions to make on the integration of fares and the PTC.

Firstly, I would like to urge the Ministry to hasten the integration of fares. Do not take another six months of review like the issue on safety belts. If necessary, implement in phases and roll out the new plans so that the benefits could expeditiously benefit the commuters without further delay as they are long overdue. As with motoring, speed of travel is the equation to efficiency. I am glad that the Ministry has recognised time as the key measure for transport efficiency. Hence, the distance-based fares to allow the commuters to switch from one mode of transport to another depending on the availability of services, and the key is the availability of bus and rail services and the timeliness of these services is critical for an integrated public transport system.

With an integrated public transport system, then only can the PTC ensure that there is maximum value for the commuters through distance-based fares. So the PTC should not only look at the distance-based fares but also look at the availability of the rail and bus services at

However, for single long distance-based commuters, I hope the Ministry would consider lowering the fixed cost fare for the first journey since the other component, the distance-based fare, would take into account most of the cost of travelling.

With PTC taking on the additional responsibilities to initiate and impose changes on the transport fare structure and the apportionment of fare revenue, I would like to call on the PTC to review the fare structures for our senior citizens and students of tertiary institutions in view of the gloomy economic situation ahead. I make this call against the backdrop of the call for our senior citizens to work beyond 62 and to lead active lifestyles. In addition, with many young adults aspiring to have a tertiary education and the latest statistics show that 59% of our annual batch of students are pursuing tertiary education, we should look into how to help this group of students as they need to travel more frequently and are active.

To summarise, the Ministry, together with the PTC, should look closely at the route planning and distance-based fare structure to ensure that our commuters, especially the senior citizens and tertiary students, with their limited income, can enjoy the maximum value for the fare that they pay travelling on public transport. This is something that is long overdue as the present benefits extended are limited, in terms of time of travel and the number of trips.

The introduction of the Through Card for all public transport mode is very much overdue as well. With MOT taking over the role of central route planning and the

With limited land and physical capacity, to ensure that we continue to have an efficient public transport system is to employ technology in route planning and fare structure. With advancement in computer technology, I am sure we can tap on the ability of computer programming to chart an efficient distance-based network for commuters. If motorists can use GPS to plan their routes, I am sure the public transport operators too should do better to ride on technology to deliver their services with greater efficiency to their customers. We should also look at how other countries apply technology to the best advantage. And I urge PTC to look into setting up a Research and Development function so that we can build up our own technology as we move towards the future. The employment of technology should not only be in the functions of PTC but also in the communication with commuters in real time. Let me give you an example. I understand that one department in the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) is developing a software by taking into account the existing public transport route information to direct a commuter from one place to another. They are able to recommend the lowest cost route or the fastest route based on cost and times as parameters which include the buses and rail. Such R&D would benefit the public.

Although the impetus of tapping on technological advancement is critical, we must always adopt an open system and not allow any system to be the monopoly. These criteria should be a system that allows and promotes integration and wider usage. Use the ez-link card as an example. I look forward to the day when

Currently, PTC comprises a panel of members who are mostly professionals. This is good because, by their training and understanding of how to manage issues and find solutions, they are well-equipped to handle their responsibilities. However, I would like to suggest that the Minister consider enlarging the Council or set up more and specific ad hoc committees, comprising more of the ordinary man-in-the-street, the working class or the "broad masses", if I may borrow the phrase. For example, if the central bus route planning and fare structure are for the area, say, Aljunied GRC, then more residents of Aljunied GRC could be called upon to assist and contribute. This ad hoc committee will serve as a reference to give feedback on the day-to-day goings-on at the bus stops, the train stations and the taxi stands. They will also be able to share with the PTC on the impact of fares on their expenses and how they have been coping. With all due respect to the members of the PTC, many of whom may be car owners, the frequency and the time they spend on public transport will not be sufficient to give them an appreciation of the headaches, the heartaches and the frustrations confronting the commuters who day in and day out have to muscle and jostle with everyone, not just once a week, but every day, five days a week.

Moreover, the members of this committee can serve as "ambassadors" for PTC, giving it more transparency and support for the public.

The criteria for members to qualify for appointment to this ad hoc committee should be based on their income level and non-car ownership. Also, members of this ad hoc committee will serve for only one term so that we can give as many people

I know PTC members do get feedback but, in getting public feedback, often it is those who are vocal that will speak out and we may not get the true picture of others who have a different viewpoint to share.

In addition, the timeliness of service of our buses is still far from ideal. Presently, PTC only measures the timeliness of the buses at the starting time of the service. However, with the extension of dedicated bus routes, PTC should look into the promptness of this service at the midpoint of each bus service journey. This would ensure that the waiting time for our buses could be reduced and hence overcrowding during peak periods.

At the end of the day, I am confident that, with PTC's guiding hand, the quality of our public transportation system might one day parallel or even surpass that of its counterparts in Tokyo, Japan. We are already on track to build our own comprehensive transport system, what with our current 109 km of MRT lines, more than 3,000 buses and the upcoming Circle and Downturn Lines that are still in development.

I have no doubt that the PTC will build on these achievements and continue to advance the standard of our public transportation system beyond our most optimistic expectations for the benefit of all our citizens. Approving these amendments will give it a leg up, but it is only the beginning.

entire society, revolves around it – a fact highlighted by the more than five million trips that are made on it every day. Yet this is overlooked, sometimes taken for granted even. Demands from its users for its absolute perfection, in terms of cost and efficiency, are continually heard. Such expectations are healthy, as it stimulates constant improvement – an element which is very necessary when we look at the demands on our transport system.the same time and also the timeliness of the arrival of these services. So this key change is welcome as it would mean lower costs for commuters and a shorter travelling time.PTC tasked to initiate the fare structure, it is timely to introduce the Through Card for all public transport modes. This would enhance the maximum value, offer convenience for our frequent travellers.we can do away with the current system of having to pay $1 deposit for the ez-link card and to get a refund when you return the card.as possible an opportunity to serve on the committee.

4.40 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Amendment Bill. I rise in support of the Bill.

Earlier this year, LTA released its Master Plan where the Government stated

As the Minister has stated, our transport system is based on a hub-and-spoke model. This means that there are less direct services for the commuters. Instead, the commuter has to usually take a bus from his original starting point to the hub where he then changes to a train or to another bus to go to work or to another location. And as the hon. Member for Tampines GRC, Mr Ong Kian Min, has said, sometimes, they have to change from bus to a train to another train and then to another bus, and this is only one way. It will be the same for the reverse way where they have to change to a bus, to a train, to a train and back to a bus.

Sir, if you ask many residents, they would prefer to have a direct transport service from their home to their workplace as this would save them waiting time and also save them on transport costs.

However, I accept that the hub-and-spoke model is more efficient as it is very difficult to be able to have direct transport services from your home to the market, or to your office or to the Orchard Road shopping area. However, the hub-and-spoke model inconveniences the commuters as they have to spend additional time waiting for their bus and then for their next train or for another bus. In addition, under the current fare system, even though a fare rebate is given, the commuter still has to bear the cost of the inconvenience as he has to pay more than one base fare, as he changes his bus or train to bring him to the next destination. Sir, this is unfair to the commuter as he spends more time on

As such, I support the PTC (Amendment) Bill as it seeks to allow the Public Transport Council to initiate and change the fares and fare structure and to allow the PTC not only to set the fares but also to re-allocate the revenue amongst the transport operators. The Government's aim of amending the fare structure such that the commuter is not penalised by having to pay more than one base fare is, to me, a step in the right direction.

Currently, there is some concern that after the Act is amended and a distance-based fare is implemented, the commuters would have to share the loss in revenue with the public transport operators (PTOs). It has been estimated that six in 10 commuters may end up having to pay more. Sir, I would urge the Public Transport Council to ensure that this loss of revenue is not passed on to the commuters but instead absorbed by the transport operators. The current public sentiment is that the public transport operators have made sufficient profit from their transport operations. As such, they should consider their public and moral obligation to their customers to maintain fares at an affordable rate and to provide value to their customers. Further, the Public Transport Council Act only requires the Council to consider the need for the public transport operators to remain financially viable and not to continue making a profit.

Sir, there are a few queries on the Bill which I wish to seek clarification from the Minister:

Under what circumstances would the Public Transport Council consider suspending approval for fares which had

In respect of section 24(8), would it be more relevant for the Public Transport Council to consider an applicant's conviction for an offence "under the Act" rather than for any "criminal offence"?

When the Public Transport Council carries out a review under section 24AA, would the Public Transport Council have to consider only the consideration stated in section 24AA(2) which is that "the decision is in the interest of the public and would to any extent promote or facilitate the objectives referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b) or both", or would the PTC have to consider the first limb of section 24(2) which is to consider the financial viability of the applicant who is the public transport operator?

that one of its objectives is to make public transport the choice mode, and this will in turn lead to making Singapore a liveable city. Sir, I support the LTA Masterplan as well as the plans to make public transport a choice mode in view of the fact that there are increasing demands on our roads.commuting as well as waiting and then he has to pay more whenever he changes the mode of transport.been previously approved? In such a situation where the fares had been suspended, what would happen to the services which had been approved? Is it the intention of the Public Transport Council that the fares are suspended but the services continue to operate, ie, the commuter travels for free? Otherwise, if the fares are suspended and the transport services are correspondingly suspended, then the powers of suspension are really not effective at all.

Sir, is there any provision for any public transport operator to make an appeal against the decision of the Public Transport Council if they are not satisfied with the decision made under section 24AA(2) even after they have been consulted? Would there be a corresponding amendment to section 22I of the Public Transport Council Act to allow an appeal to the Minister whose decision would then be final?

Sir, the Minister's clarification would assist the Public Transport Council greatly in making their decision as the Council is an independent body, with council members who are not part of the

Finally, Sir, I wish to urge the Government to make more efforts to explain why is there a need to ensure that public transport operators remain financially viable. Many people simply do not understand the rationale for the Government to have a law to protect the profitability of listed commercial companies.

Sir, with that, I support the Bill.

Government and who are mostly volunteers.

4.46 pm

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

Sir, I note that this Bill is about empowering the PTC and indeed it is a very good idea to protect our public transport users against unjustifiable fare increases. However, I am concerned about the avenues through which the transport operators could seek redress should they feel that their proposals for fare increases have not been considered thoroughly.

The proposed clause 4 empowers the PTC to enforce compliance with certain conditions. My concern is that there seems to be no avenue for the public transport operators to appeal if they should feel that approval for fare changes was withheld unfairly or revoked unfairly. Currently, an appeal to the Minister is available under section 22(1), but only for certain decisions made by the PTC as listed in section 22(1).

Could the Minister clarify if the decision to limit appeals to the Minister is deliberate? If so, what can public transport operators do if they are dissatisfied with a decision handed down by the PTC? It should not be that operators have to take the PTC to court over such decisions because the cost of

The above scenarios would not benefit commuters in the long term. Also, the proposed section 24(7) seems slanted in favour of the PTC because the PTC is empowered to decide if sufficient cost is shown by the operator threatened with a sanction when in the first place the PTC was the body intending to issue the sanction. While it seems to me that this section was aimed at giving the operators a chance to explain their apparently errant behaviour before the PTC imposes a sanction and to do so efficiently, I wonder if there could be a slightly fairer way of doing so, for instance, by asking a third-party to decide if sufficient cause is shown.

Clause 5 of the Bill empowers the PTC to initiate reviews and fair changes to the fare structures. It is good that the PTC can take the lead in ensuring fares are fair for all parties. However, it sounds rather draconian to allow the PTC to impose new conditions, especially those suggested in the Explanatory Statement that public transport operators may be required to enter into agreements with each other on terms specified by the PTC regarding the re-allocation of revenue on public transport operators before fare changes are approved. This is especially so in light of the proposed section 24AB where the PTC only has to consult and give notice to affected public transport operators before they impose decisions made under the new power to initiate fare reviews. While I have every belief that the PTC will arrive at its decision fairly, there is no requirement that the PTC has to accept the views of the public transport operators. Therefore, if the public transport operators feel aggrieved by the decision, what recourse will they have?

This Amendment Bill is timely, especially in light of public sentiments that fares have only been going up and never down, despite temporary declines in oil prices. Perhaps, more transparency in the review process and public disclosures of review reports would help the public better understand how fares are decided upon.

Sir, on this note, I support the Bill.

doing so could result in unnecessary expenditures for both the PTC and the operators. Alternatively, if costs are passed on, law suits could result in increased cost for commuters.

4.50 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their comments and strong support for the Bill.

Let me just take the House through some of the key issues that Members have raised in the course of this debate.

Mr Cedric Foo brought up an important point. He said that, right now, four in 10 commuters benefit because they make transfers daily. But he argued that the potential benefit should be wider. And he is right, it is much wider. The four in 10 ratio understates the benefits to the commuters because it is looking at whether or not the commuter takes the transfer daily. But the commuter might not take it every day. He might take it two or three times a week. So Mr Foo is right and it is an important point to stress that the benefits of this distance-based through fare that we are putting through today are much wider than four in 10 commuters.

In fact, in terms of potential benefit, it is even wider. Travel patterns change. If we take a commuter today who does not make any transfer at all, he might change his place of work and his home, and that might involve transfer journeys in the future. Even if he does not change his place of work or his home, he now has the option of choosing what is the optimal

The other item that has been brought up is this issue that as we move towards distance-based through fares, how do we allocate the adjustment costs? As a matter of principle, both the public transport operators (PTOs) and the commuters benefit and therefore they should each bear some of the adjustment costs. The commuters benefit because they now have a fairer fare structure and greater choices. The PTOs benefit, as Mr Ong Kian Min correctly pointed out, as they should see higher ridership in the long term. Both benefit, so as a matter of principle, both should bear some of the costs. What the PTC will be doing is to look into the details of this and see how these adjustment costs should be borne between the public transport operators and the commuters.

It is worth emphasising what PTC Chairman, Mr Gerald Ee, said that for this year's fare revision and fare restructuring exercises which are both taking place at the same time, even though the maximum fare cap this year is 3%, his Council will endeavour to ensure that the net fare adjustment will be below 1%. This is actually lower than last year's fare cap, which was 1.8%. He further said that he would also, when looking at the details of this fare revision and fare restructuring, ensure that the majority of commuters benefit, that they will pay less than 3%. This will turn on the transfer rebate the Council will give, how this will be allocated between the PTOs and the commuters, what sort of fare increase and how is that spread across the fare stages. I would like to assure the House that he understands the current difficult economic conditions and that his Council will endeavour to make sure that the majority of commuters benefit.

Mr Cedric Foo also pointed out that under the current system, what is happening is that commuters who are taking direct trips are effectively being cross-subsidised by those taking transfer journeys, and he is right. I think Mr Ong Kian Min alluded to it in his speech when he said that we are actually trying to correct an existing inequity in the system. He said quite rightly that it is the majority of people who will benefit and that those who benefit should actually speak up. I fully support him in this.

Another issue that was brought up by Members is enhancing the existing hub-and-spoke system. To put matters in perspective, we have a good public transport system. We conduct surveys every year. In the last two years, 2006 and 2007, eight in 10 commuters who took public transport said that, overall, they were satisfied with it. Yes, certainly, there are areas for improvement. Members have mentioned, for example, waiting time and travel time. All these can be improved, and both the LTA and the PTC are looking into these pain points in our system.

Mr Foo asked what else are we doing to enhance the hub-and-spoke system. As Members would know, we are doubling the rail network within a span of 12 years. We will spend close to $40 billion. Every other year, there will either be a new rail extension or stage of rail line opening. For example, next year, we are going to have the Circle Line opening up in the north-east sector.

We are also having more integrated public transport facilities. We have also introduced integrated public transport travel information, a point which Mdm Cynthia Phua brought up, that is we are using technology to provide travel information to commuters. We will see what more we can do.

And, of course, we are looking into central bus planning, which a few Members mentioned. LTA will be the central public transport planner. They are already doing that now for the rail system. They will take on board from 2009 onwards the bus side, so that they can look at the system as a whole, how best to optimise the network from the commuters' viewpoint.

Mr Siew Kum Hong made two points. First, he asked whether under the amendments to the Act we are changing the current position, which is that a public transport operator can charge a lower fare. The answer is no. It is up to the public transport operators. They can offer discounts, whatever package they want, and to offer a lower fare than that which is approved by the PTC.

What are the principal circumstances in which they are not allowed to do that? It is in the premium bus sector. In the premium bus sector, there is a price floor. This is to ensure that the premium bus operators do not cannibalise the basic bus services because they run only during the peak hours. So, if we allow them to price-compete with the basic bus operators, the basic bus operators would be under stress. The basic bus operators, when they run a service, they have to run it for at least 18 hours a day, whereas in the case of the premium bus operator, they only run it during the peak periods. For the premium bus services, they are not allowed to price-compete, they compete on quality.

Mr Siew also brought up, in terms of representation to the PTC, that there should be commuter input. This is actually part and parcel of the PTC as embodied in the composition of its members. Community leaders are members of the PTC. It takes in people from all walks of life. We wanted to ensure that it is representative. So I would like to assure

On the matter of community engagement which Mdm Cynthia Phua brought up, as Members know, right now, we have set up a division called the Land Transport Community Partnership Division precisely for the reasons that the Member has said, ie, it is important that our land transport planners and decision makers have a feel of the issues on the ground. So, every constituency now has a Land Transport Authority officer sitting in their Citizens' Consultative Committee taking in the feedback. If there is more that can be done, whether small groups should be formed like Mdm Cynthia Phua suggested, this is something that we can study. But the principle is there, that we want to engage and hear what the difficulties are on the ground and see how best some of these difficulties can be resolved.

There are also some clarifications which Members – Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mdm Ho Geok Choo – sought on amendments to certain specific clauses. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about the suspension of the approved fares.

service combination to get to his destination. As Members have said, this might be a shorter waiting time and a faster journey, without having to pay a transfer penalty.Mr Siew that that has actually been taken into account and is part and parcel of PTC as an institution.

The whole idea, when we amended the Act, was to give the PTC a range of sanctions that they can use. So it can be a censure, it can be a fine, it can be a suspension which is really a temporary revocation for not longer than six months, or it can revoke the approved fares completely. And when it does that, like Mr Cedric Foo mentioned, it is a draconian measure.

So when will we use this? It has to be very grave and repeated breaches, because if you revoke the approved fares, there are serious financial consequences on the public transport operators as they will still be running the service. It does not mean that when you revoke the fares,

So the idea was to give the PTC a range of sanctions and they can then calibrate how best to meet particular circumstances, including the $100,000 fine that Mr Cedric Foo brought up. It is a part of the range of measures. Next, Mr Lim Biow Chuan pointed out that section 24(8), which refers to any criminal offence, should really be for an offence under the Act. He is right because if you read section 24(8), it refers back to section 24(4) and that makes it clear that the offence in question is an offence under the Act.

Mr Lim also brought up the point about section 24AA on the review of fares and whether or not financial viability would be one of the considerations when the PTC deliberates on this matter. The answer is yes. Section 24AA says that the PTC must take into account the interest of the public, and the interest of the public is wide enough to cover the financial viability of the public transport operators.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo and Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about the recourse if PTOs are unhappy with the PTC's decision. The PTC plays many roles. But in the case of the fare review, it is really taking on the position of an arbiter and so it is not really a case of the relation between the PTC and the public transport operators. The Council is trying to balance the interest of the public transport operators and the interest of the commuters. We deliberated and decided that we should have an independent body, comprising people from all walks of life, that looks into this matter and that was why the PTC was set up in 1987. They will be the final decision maker when it comes to matters relating to fares. That is the reason why the PTOs cannot appeal beyond the PTC to the Minister.

In terms of consultation, the process is therefore built into the system. Before the Council makes deliberations, whether it be on distance-based through fares or on the annual fare review, it invites submissions, it hears out the PTOs, and then makes a decision. So there is due process.

Some Members mentioned about season passes. The LTA is working on it. It is also working on central bus planning, such as more direct routes. These are matters which PTC and LTA will look into, but what is important is that when it looks into this, one of the key things that they have to take note of is to ensure that whatever that has been developed, proposed and launched is commercially viable. I think Mr Ong Kian Min made that point. He said that the challenge is to ensure that when we do all these things to try to benefit the commuters, it is also important, at the same time, to ensure that, if you are launching a travel pass, or you are working out a particular bus route, at the end of the day, you do not compromise the financial viability of the system as a whole. In fact, this goes to Mr Lim Biow Chuan's last point where he said that some people are confused and they think we set up the PTC to protect the PTOs, which is not the case. As I have said, the PTC was set up to find a balance between the commuters' interest – to ensure that they have an affordable high quality public transport system – and the financial viability of the PTOs. The financial viability of the PTOs is important because if the PTOs are financially not viable, your public transport service will deteriorate over time and that is against the commuters' interest, and that is why the PTC has to do this balancing act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have answered most of the key issues that were raised.

they stop running the service, which is the point Mr Lim Biow Chuan brought up.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to seek some clarification from the Minister. I fully understand and support the Minister's view that public transport operators must be financially viable. Otherwise, they will not invest in replacement capital and our quality of transport will deteriorate. Can I ask and clarify with the Minister what does he think is the right level of financial return for public transport operators in Singapore?

The PTC deliberates on this matter and it looks at the PTOs' ROTA (Return on Total Assets). This matter actually has been debated in Parliament and the Government has accepted that we will use ROTA as an indicator on the financial health of the PTOs. In deciding what is the right ROTA figure, there is no magic number, because it changes over time and circumstances might be different, so we normally look at the benchmark – what are comparable PTOs and industries, whether in Singapore or overseas, how they are doing – before making a decision on this.

Sir, I would like to urge the Ministry, when considering how to apportion the drop in revenue as a result of removing the transfer penalty, not just to look at the marginal change but to look at the overall net effect on the financial return of the public transport operators. As our parliamentary colleague, Mr Ong Kian Min mentioned, it is a dynamic situation and, as we remove the transfer penalty, there would be a resultant increase in ridership and so forth that would also benefit the transport operators. So it is not a static situation and it is also not just a case of apportionment based on marginal change but what is the overall net effect on the transport operators' returns. I think that would be a more relevant point to look at.

5.09 pm

This is exactly what the PTC would have to do in this year's exercise. That is why I said they have to look into two things. One is the fact that, with distance-based through fares, commuters will benefit, and the other is that the PTOs would also benefit. I think one point that is worth emphasising is that, however we cut it, the immediate impact on the PTOs is a loss of revenue. So when you cut it and say that this is the amount that the PTOs will have to take, it is forgone revenue for the PTOs as they are effectively transferring this to the commuters who would not pay this amount anymore.

In the case of commuters, if they were to take some of the adjustments, they are not taking on an extra burden, it is really a redistribution exercise. This is the amount being paid out in transfer rebate and we are spreading it between those who take direct trips and those who take transfer trips. So as long as the PTOs take part of the burden of adjustment, overall at the net level, commuters are ahead. But what should that number be, that is his question. Should it be more or less? Should it be 50-50? Should it be more than 50-50? This is something that the PTC will have to deliberate and make a decision for this year's fare review.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not answered my two clarifications on the transfer rebate. I said that if a transfer rebate is too high, it will jeopardise the viability of the PTOs and that will affect the welfare of the public transport workers. How do we ensure that?

Secondly, does MOT have the pattern of the transfers made: (a) bus-bus between the same company; (b) bus-train

between different companies; and (c) bus-train-bus between different companies. That will really be useful in determining how the fare structure change will affect the commuters, the travelling public and also the public transport workers.

My apologies to Mr Seng. The second question first. As I mentioned just now, the PTC is looking into this data right now - all these transfers that are taking place - and seeing how best to do this year's exercise where the majority of the commuters will benefit. So that is being done. What we know is that four out of 10 commuters take transfers every day but, as I said earlier, this understates the benefit because a person might take a transfer every other day and it is not captured in the four in 10 data.

The other point about transfer rebate, that is exactly what the PTC has to do. They have to see what level to raise the transfer rebate this year because it does have an impact on the PTOs' finances, and they have to make sure that they do it in such a way that the PTOs continue to be viable in the long term. As Mr Cedric Foo mentioned, the PTOs need these earnings to come in because companies need to invest, renew their fleet and upgrade. So this is a challenge, like Mr Ong Kian Min said, that the PTC will have to do, and they have to balance these two things.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, although the Minister has mentioned that the viability of the transport operators is important, I would like the Minister to comment and to consider again the concession fares for our senior citizens and tertiary students as well.

The Minister does not consider these things. The Public Transport Council considers these things and the Public Transport

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

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

Council looks into these matters every year. The Member is talking about student/child concession, which has actually not been changed for many years, and also the concession for senior citizens, polytechnic and tertiary students. But one thing that the Council will always have to bear in mind when they review these is that, every time they lower fares for one group of commuters, another group of commuters will have to take a higher burden. This is something that they will have to consider.

Order for Second Reading read.

5.14 pm

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

The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, or CPFTA, is a major pillar of our consumer protection framework. It provides consumers with legal safeguards against unfair practices, and enables them to have recourse to civil remedies before the Courts. The Act also allows specified bodies to enter voluntary compliance agreements with, or apply for injunction orders against errant traders. Suppliers are required to provide a cooling-off period for direct sales and timeshare contracts.

Since the implementation of CPFTA in March 2004, the number of cases arising from the Act has been increasing steadily. In 2007, consumers lodged nearly 750 CPFTA-related complaints with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE). CASE also entered into eight Voluntary Compliance Agreements (VCAs) and obtained three injunctions against businesses. This shows that the CPFTA has been effective.

In July 2006, MTI and CASE jointly established a taskforce to review the CPFTA to take into account the new trends and patterns of consumer disputes. The taskforce's recommendations, which were accepted by my Ministry, became the basis for wider public consultations with consumer and industry bodies from October last year. We thank the many who contributed generously their suggestions to the improvement of the Amendment Bill.

Key amendments

Sir, the Bill before us is the outcome of the work mentioned above. Let me now outline the main amendments.

Inclusion of financial products and services

Clause 8 of the Bill extends the application of the CPFTA to financial products and financial services which are currently excluded. With the removal of the exclusion, the CPFTA would be applied to the financial products and services regulated under certain legislation administered by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and under the Commodity Trading Act with the commencement of this Bill. This will be followed by the financial products and services that are regulated under the Moneylenders Act and the Pawnbrokers Act in 2009 and 2010 respectively, when the Ministry of Law completes its review of these legislation.

By extending the CPFTA to financial products and services, two consequential amendments have become necessary:

First, clause 4 requires the Court to consider whether a consumer had sought to resolve a dispute through a specified dispute resolution scheme where available. My Ministry intends to designate the existing Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre Limited, or FIDReC in short, as the relevant scheme for disputes relating to financial products and services supplied by FIDReC subscribers. In this way, consumers will be encouraged to resolve their disputes with financial institutions via FIDReC first before going to Courts.

Second, clause 7 clarifies how the prescribed claim limit should apply when a consumer commences multiple actions involving the same unfair practice. My Ministry intends to provide that in such cases involving financial institutions, the claim amount for each of the actions should be aggregated for the purpose of applying the prescribed claim limit.

Sir, I will now move on to the other main amendments.

Regulation of timeshare products

Sir, timeshare-related disputes have been an increasing source of complaints. These involve businesses that claim to help customers or consumers re-sell or dispose of their rights under timeshare contracts, a business model that has emerged in recent years. To address this, clause 2 inserts a definition of timeshare-related contract. My Ministry intends to extend the cooling-off period that currently covers timeshare contracts to these businesses as well.

Prescribed claim limit

To reflect the increasing claim values of consumer transactions, clause 3 increases the prescribed claim limit from $20,000 to $30,000. With this increase, we believe 99% of CPFTA-related complaints CASE received would be covered.

Jurisdiction of Small Claims Tribunal

Sir, the Small Claims Tribunals have been an integral part of the dispute resolution mechanism under the consumer protection framework. The Tribunals are designed to handle small and straightforward consumer disputes, and are therefore able to provide consumers with speedy and inexpensive resolutions. We are glad that the Tribunals are able to expand their jurisdiction to cover new areas of consumer disputes.

Clause 4 of this will extend jurisdiction to cases related to, firstly, the cancellation of timeshare and timeshare-related contracts during the cooling-off period and, secondly, a deposit paid in motor vehicle sale contract.

Clause 9 further extends jurisdiction to claims relating to a dispute arising from a contract to buy or sell foreign currency notes made with a licensed money-changer.

Limitation periods

Specified bodies currently have to commence an action against errant traders within a year of the last material event on which it is based. Experience has shown that this is insufficient time for specified bodies to build their cases and explore alternatives to litigation such as Voluntary Compliance Agreements with traders.

Clause 5 therefore extends the limitation period from one to two years for the specified bodies.

Clause 5 also extends the limitation period for consumers from one to two years. In addition, clause 3 allows the Court to stay the proceedings for consumer's action when there is another action by a specified body relating to the same unfair practice. These amendments allow consumers to better rely on the efforts of specified bodies.

Burden of proof

Sir, traders are often in a better position than consumers to keep proper records of their actions. Clause 6 gives the Minister the power to make regulations to place on suppliers the burden of proving that they have complied with certain requirements of the CPFTA or its regulations. My Ministry intends to apply this in two specific cases. First, timeshare industry and direct selling suppliers must prove that they have given the consumers information notice to inform consumers of their rights in relation to the cooling-off period. Second, motor vehicle dealers must prove that they have informed consumers in writing of their deposit refund policies, and applied for a loan in terms agreed by the consumer.

Regulations

To operationalise the proposed amendments, my Ministry is finalising the supporting regulations as well as implementing other recommendations made by the review taskforce. We will issue them shortly.

In conclusion, Sir, the principle of "caveat emptor" remains fundamental in our overall approach to the regulation of consumer transactions. To that end, the amendments to the Act aim to inform both businesses and consumers of the desired standards of fair dealing across a broader spectrum of products and services. In the long term, an increase in consumer sophistication remains the first-line and best defence of their interests.

The proposed amendments in this Bill also reflect a concerted effort by all the stakeholders to make the existing consumer protection framework even more robust. In drafting this Bill, we have taken great care to ensure that it is both pro-consumer and business-friendly. We believe that a sustainable consumer protection framework is also a win-win framework embraced by both consumers and businesses.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Continual consumer education is therefore critical in ensuring that consumers are informed to make smart choices.

5.24pm

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

I would like to comment on clause 2 of this Bill which extends the protection for consumers under this Act to include certain financial products and services. This is timely because of the high pressure and sometimes misleading sales tactics used in the financial services and beauty industries. While we must remember the principle of "caveat emptor", at the same time we must try to protect the most vulnerable to unfair sales tactics. Currently, the financial services sector is to a certain extent regulated by the Financial Advisers' Act but there are still financial services which do not fall under the stringent regulation of the Financial Advisers' Act, such as moneylenders. For instance, consumers aggrieved by a particular moneylender would have no civil remedy against the moneylender. The changes to the CPFTA will strengthen the remedies that consumers have against errant merchants and send out a strong deterrent message to would-be crooks.

Clause 3 of this Bill increases the cap on the amount that can be claimed via an action brought under this Act from $20,000 to $30,000. I see this as a welcome change. While this Act was initially introduced for the benefit of small-time consumers, there is no reason that we should not protect big-time consumers as well. If allowing a claim through the Small Claims Tribunal under this Act would save much of the Courts' time, why not extend this to larger spenders? Also, with inflation and increased consumers spending, it is good that the cap be raised so that the remedies under this Act can be made used of by more consumers.

Sir, clause 6 is an interesting clause because it places the onus of proving compliance with the statutory regulations on the supplier where there is a dispute. If I understand it correctly, the current position is that in a lawsuit, the party alleging the fact has to prove it. With the implementation of this clause, the consumer can allege unfair practices on the part of the merchant without having to prove it while the merchant will have to scramble to prove that he has in fact complied with the CPFTA. This seems to place an onerous burden on the supplier and may not be the best balance between protecting consumers' rights and not impeding businesses or business practices through over-regulation.

Suppliers may feel threatened by this clause and thus take more precautions in their business dealings which may lead to increased cost of compliance. Such cost could either reduce the competitiveness of a business or end up in higher cost for the consumers if the costs of compliance are passed on. But, Sir, there is one bright spot in this clause, which is that the Minister retains the discretion to specify the regulations to which this reversal of the burden of proof will apply. Ideally, it

In the light of the foregoing, Sir, I support this Bill.

should only apply to those where the customers will find it difficult to prove lack of compliance while it is easier for the suppliers to prove compliance in order to ensure that this clause is fair to both sides of a consumer transaction.

5.28 pm

Sir, the introduction of the CPFTA is a major step for consumerism in Singapore. The Act helped consumers to seek redress when vendors had engaged in unfair practices. For instance, last year, under this Act, CASE had managed to help consumers to recover S$4 million in kind and in cash. We strongly welcome the amendments to the CPFTA to widen its scope and appreciate that several suggestions from CASE have been taken into consideration in the current amendments to the CPFTA. These include increasing the prescribed claim limit from $20,000 to $30,000. We strongly believe that the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) (Amendment) Bill will further benefit and provide better protection to consumers.

As the President of CASE, I am happy to note that the cooling-off period would also be extended to the resale timeshare industry. In year 2007 alone, 300 consumers had filed their disputes against resale timeshare operators with CASE. The extension of the cooling-off period to the resale timeshare industry would no doubt offer consumers some level of protection. However, it would also be better if MTI could consider the proposal that the suppliers or vendors are not allowed to collect huge sums of deposit during the cooling-off period, as such restriction would pre-empt the need to recover the money from the vendors subsequently. CASE is also disappointed that the cooling-off period is not extended to include contracts

entered in the beauty

Sir, let me now speak in Mandarin.

industry, which has also caused a lot of complaints for the consumers recently. I hope MTI could review these suggestions favourably too.

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] This Bill is very timely. Let me give Members a real life case. Earlier this year, a 56-year old lady just collected her CPF money and she went to a local bank to deposit the $30,000 into a fixed deposit account. Before he could proceed with the transaction, she was approached by a financial consultant who advised her to invest the money into a new financial plan which would yield a higher interest and return. However, this financial consultant did not highlight to her the financial risks involved. A few months later, she went to the bank to inquire about her bank balance and discovered that there was only $25,000 left in the account. She was very worried because she wanted to save the money for her son's university education. Therefore, I believe that the amendment to the Act to include the sale of financial products and services is a step in the right direction. It is appropriate and timely. After the amendment, the Act would protect people like this 56-year old lady. Meanwhile, CASE has acted upon this matter and negotiated with the bank on her behalf, but we have yet to receive a response from the bank.

*Cols. 3133-3134.

(In English): We hope MTI could consider another new feedback we receive from consumers on unfair practices in the telecommunication sector which are the auto-renewal clauses in the contracts. This is prevalent in the telco contracts such as Internet access, subscription plans for handphones and television services. I am of the view that auto-renewal clauses are unfair to consumers. Consumers should be given the option to source for new providers

CASE also noted instances where suppliers deter consumers from seeking third party assistance by stating in the contract that once a third party intervenes, the contract will become null and void. Consumers are also told that the contract is private and confidential and should not be disclosed to third party, including CASE. We find such practices unfair. Consumers should not be prevented from seeking third party assistance for any contract dispute. Consumers are usually in a less knowledgeable position than the suppliers and, hence, are greatly disadvantaged and vulnerable, and need more help.

We hope MTI would consider including such third party exclusion clause in the contract as unfair practices under the Second Schedule of the CPFTA.

In response to concerns raised by Mdm Ho Geok Choo about the business community, with the new amendments, Sir, I think the business associations should play a more important and active role in educating their members and working with them to ensure that their practices do not breach the law and have a better understanding of the scope of CPFTA. CASE hopes to see more self-regulation and prepare to work with all the business associations closely to achieve this. I would like to know whether the Ministry has any plan to make the implementation of this legislation more effective. What role would the relevant Government agencies like MAS, SPRING Singapore and the Singapore Tourism Board play? And would MTI coordinate better efforts by these agencies? What support would they provide to the retail

upon the expiry of their contracts. Providers could and should remind their customers about a month before the expiry date of the contracts and encourage them to renew their contracts with them, instead of making it automatic.and service sectors to educate the traders and facilitate the effective implementation of this CPFTA?

5.34 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to declare my interest when speaking on this topic as the Vice-President of the Consumers' Association of Singapore.

Early this year, during the Budget debate, I had asked MTI for an update on the progress regarding the revision to the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. As most people would know, the CPFTA is one of the principal legislation which promotes a fairer and more equitable marketplace and affords better protection for consumers in Singapore. It has been more than four years since the Act came into force. Over these four years, due to changing trade practices, certain aspects of the Act would need to be updated or fine-tuned to ensure that the legislation remains relevant. I am indeed grateful that the Government has tabled this Bill to amend the CPFTA in response to repeated requests from consumers all over Singapore.

Sir, I believe the amendment to the Act to include the sale of financial products and services is a step in the right direction. Over the past years, complaints regarding the sale of financial products remain high. Most of these complaints relate to the aggressive pushing of financial products to elderly or illiterate consumers who may not appreciate fully the nature of such products and the nature of the risks involved. Even educated persons may not appreciate the complicating financial products that are being sold. For example, I have seen some of the capital guaranteed product does not necessarily mean that your capital is guaranteed. It will be subject to

Sir, many of the consumers are only told of how much better returns can be attained with the investment in the financial products and the potential risks of losing your investment is glossed over. In such circumstances, the financiers should have recourse under the Consumer Protection (Fair trading) Act as the sale was made to them under undue pressure or undue influence. I also applaud the Government's move to extend the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunal to hear and determine claims made under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. For many, consumers, who have disputes with businesses, face financial limitations when trying to engage lawyers if their disputes with the businesses cannot be resolved amicably. Once their claim exceeds $20,000, they not only have to incur hefty legal costs to seek legal redress, they also have to worry that the businesses which have legal pockets would bully them by endless litigation. The increase in the prescribed limit from $20,000 to $30,000 would certainly allow more consumers to be able to seek redress through the Small Claims Tribunal without having to incur expensive legal costs.

Sir, the extension of the limitation period to commence the claim from the current one year to two years is also welcome, and this would allow consumers more time to seek advice or mediation with the businesses through the CASE mediation services.

Sir, there are just three areas in which I wish to seek clarifications from the Government. In the explanatory note to the Bill, it was stated that the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre Limited, or FIDReC, would be prescribed as a specified dispute resolution scheme for disputes relating to certain financial products and services regulated by MAS.

Sir, I also previously asked that the onus and cost of prosecution of errant traders under section 9 of the Act be transferred to the Attorney-General's Chambers once CASE has made a successful application to the injunction proposal review panel. This is because CASE is a non-Government body and has limited funds to carry out such prosecution to obtain a mandatory injunction. Each time, CASE takes action to apply for such a mandatory injunction under the Act, the legal cost involved is very, very high. Would the Minister consider the request? I also understand from the consultation exercise held in September last year that the Ministry intended to introduce a Consumer Protection (Fair Training) Opt Out Practices Regulations. This is an area in which CASE has been advocating for a while. May I ask the Minister when would the regulations be implemented?