Hansard, 2010-05-18

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 (2010) To (2010) Mr Khaw Boon Wan 03 May 13 Jun Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 05 May 08 May 12 May 14 May Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 06 May 06 May 19 May 19 May Mr Baey Yam Keng 07 May 09 May Dr Lim Wee Kiak 07 May 09 May 27 May 30 May Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman 07 May 13 May Mr Lim Hng Kiang 10 May 12 May Mr Chan Soo Sen 11 May 20 May Dr Teo Ho Pin 11 May 15 May Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 11 May 14 May Mr Sin Boon Ann 12 May 13 May Mr Alvin Yeo 13 May 14 May 27 May 30 May 12 Jun 19 Jun Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong 13 May 17 May Mr Wee Siew Kim 14 May 15 May 25 May 25 May 26 May 28 May 03 Jun 04 Jun Column: 323 07 Jun 07 Jun 14 Jun 19 Jun 22 Jun 23 Jun 29 Jun 30 Jun Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 15 May 15 May 25 May 28 May Mr Lim Boon Heng 15 May 22 May Mr Inderjit Singh 16 May 21 May 24 May 26 May 30 May 04 Jun Dr Ng Eng Hen 18 May 21 May Mr Ong Kian Min 18 May 26 May Mr Teo Ser Luck 18 May 21 May Mdm Halimah Yacob 19 May 21 May 31 May 14 Jun Er Lee Bee Wah 19 May 19 May 23 May 29 May 13 Jun 16 Jun 10 Jul 14 Jul 31 Jul 01 Aug Mr Yeo Cheow Tong 19 May 19 May Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon 19 May 23 May Mdm Cynthia Phua 20 May 23 May Mr Low Thia Khiang 21 May 30 May Mr Michael Palmer 21 May 23 May Mr Gan Kim Yong 23 May 25 May Mr Seng Han Thong 23 May 28 May Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 25 May 28 May 07 Jun 07 Jun 13 Jun 17 Jun Mr Mah Bow Tan 25 May 02 Jun Mr Wong Kan Seng 26 May 03 Jun 17 Jun 23 Jun Ms Ellen Lee 27 May 31 May Dr Lee Boon Yang 27 May 01 Jun Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 28 May 01 Jun 02 Jun 05 Jun 11 Jun 13 Jun Mr Lee Yi Shyan 31 May 03 Jun 06 Jun 13 Jun Mr Ang Mong Seng 08 Jun 11 Jun Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan 12 Jun 20 Jun 24 Jun 27 Jun Column: 324 Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 12 Jun 23 Jun Mr Heng Chee How 14 Jun 20 Jun

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

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

9th May,2010 (1) Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill (2) Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill (3) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order. On behalf of the House, I would like to place on record the demise of Dr Goh Keng Swee, former Deputy Prime Minister, on 14th May 2010.

Dr Goh Keng Swee was elected as a Member of the First Legislative Assembly for Kreta Ayer on 30th May 1959 and retained his seat over five successive

General Elections, until his retirement on 3rd December 1984.

Soon after being elected to the First Legislative Assembly, Dr Goh was appointed as Singapore's first Minister for Finance. Over a parliamentary career spanning 25 years, Dr Goh had served the nation in various capacities, holding appointments as Minister for Finance, Minister for Interior and Defence, Minister for Defence, and Minister for Education. He also held the post of Deputy Prime Minister, from 1st March 1973 until his retirement from politics in 1984.

Dr Goh will be especially remembered for his economic contributions to Singapore and in laying the foundations for Singapore's financial system and defence, soon after our independence. As a Member of Parliament, Dr Goh had made significant impact on parliamentary debates through his intellect, wit and style. His wise counsel and unselfish advice to all who came to his acquaintance will also be well remembered.

On behalf of this House, I express with great sadness and a deep sense of loss on the passing of Dr Goh Keng Swee. I wish all Members will join me in expressing our deep sympathy and condolence to the family of the late Dr Goh Keng Swee.

As a mark of respect to the late Dr Goh, I propose that the House observe a one-minute silence. Will Members please rise?

[The House rose and observed a one-minute silence.]

1. Mr Michael Palmer asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in light of the

lack of progress in the prosecution of the former Romanian diplomat Dr Silviu Ionescu, whether the Ministry will consider severing diplomatic ties with Romania.

2. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) if stern measures, including a review of bilateral ties, can be taken against Romania to register Singapore's strong protest against Romania's handling of the case involving its former diplomat Silviu Ionescu; and (b) given that Romania is a member of the European Union (EU), whether EU can also be involved in holding Romania to its international obligations.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 1 and 2 together?

Yes.

Singapore's consistent position has been that the Romanian government should persuade Dr Ionescu to return to Singapore to stand trial here. But if this is not possible, the Romanian government should expeditiously investigate and prosecute Dr Ionescu under Romanian law.

In other words, the key point is that, whether in Singapore or in Romania, Dr Ionescu must be held accountable for his actions. He should not be allowed to evade justice. The Romanian government has consistently maintained that while it shares our desire to see justice served, it cannot compel Dr Ionescu to return to Singapore as there is no Extradition Treaty between Singapore and Romania. It is a fact that there is no Extradition Treaty. Since in the absence of such a Treaty, it is not possible for the Romanian government to compel Dr Ionescu to stand trial in Singapore, and since Dr

Ionescu has himself made clear in his comments to the Romanian media that he has no intention of voluntarily returning to Singapore, the responsibility now rests with the Romanian government to carry out investigations expeditiously and to prosecute Dr Ionescu under Romanian law.

As I have told Members, the Romanian government has asked for our cooperation in their investigations, and we will extend the fullest cooperation permissible under our law to the Romanian government. To this end we have appointed our Ambassador in Brussels as our Special Envoy to underscore the gravity with which the Singapore Government views this case, and to provide whatever assistance the Romanian government may require and is able to accept under Romanian law. Our Special Envoy and officials from our Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) will visit Bucharest this week. The Romanian Foreign Minister has welcomed the visit and stated that Romania is ready to extend full support to this mission. We have also engaged Romanian counsel to advise us on the workings of the Romanian legal system and to look after our interests.

In February this year, the Romanian authorities started criminal investigations against Dr Ionescu on the charges of homicide by negligence, leaving the scene of an accident and making false statements. He was also suspended from the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On 7th May 2010, the Romanian Prosecutor's Office announced that they have initiated the next phase in the criminal proceedings against Dr Ionescu. We understand that this phase, known in Romanian law as "criminal action", means that the Prosecutor has sufficient basis to link Dr Ionescu to the offences being investigated. Dr Ionescu has been formally

identified as a defendant. In addition, the Prosecutor has placed Dr Ionescu under arrest and has obtained a Court order to have Dr Ionescu remanded for an initial period of 29 days. Dr Ionescu's appeal against this was dismissed and the 29-day detention remains in force. We understand that it is possible for the Prosecutor to seek an extension of the detention when the 29 days are up.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it would thus be wrong to conclude that there has been no progress in bringing Dr Ionescu to justice. The Romanian legal process has moved into a new phase. The Romanian government knows that the country's reputation is at stake and has acted properly. The Romanian Foreign Minister himself has personally assured me that they want to see justice served.

From what we have read on the Internet, many Romanian citizens also feel that Dr Ionescu has disgraced their country and are deeply ashamed of him. They want their own government to see that justice is served. But it is likely that it will take the Romanian authorities some time to conclude their own legal processes. We are not familiar with the Romanian system and do not know how long their processes will take. Another reason our Special Envoy and AGC officials are visiting Bucharest is to understand the Romanian system better.

I understand the frustrations of Singaporeans at the pace at which the wheels of law appear to be grinding. But we must respect Romania's legal processes, which are different from our legal processes, and allow the law to take its course in Romania under their own system. But be assured that the wheels of justice are grinding forward. I should stress to Members, as we have stressed to the Romanian government, that the appointment of Singapore's Special Envoy and his visit to Bucharest are not a substitute for an early visit to Singapore

by the Romanian team for the Joint Technical Working Group that the Romanians had proposed and which we had agreed to. We are ready to receive them as soon as they are ready to visit Singapore.

Ms Irene Ng mentioned the EU. The case of Dr Ionescu is, strictly speaking, a bilateral matter between Singapore and Romania. However, as Romania is a member state of the EU, MFA has also been periodically updating the EU Ambassador to Singapore, the Spanish Ambassador to Singapore in his capacity as the current EU Presidency, and European Commission officials in Brussels, on developments in this case. They, no less than the Romanian authorities, are well aware of the outrage that all Singaporeans feel.

It is not a coincidence that our Special Envoy on this case is also our Ambassador to the EU. The EU considers itself a "Union of Values" that, among other things, places great store by the rule of law. The EU requires that all its member states subscribe to and uphold the high standards that the EU espouses when they join the EU. The EU Ambassadors and European Commission officials that we have talked to all understand that not only Romania's credibility and reputation are at stake. Last week, I was invited to lunch by the Spanish Ambassador at his residence to meet the EU Heads of Mission. This is part of a regular series that has gone on for some years and we invite each other alternately. This time, it was the EU's turn to invite me. At the cocktail, I could sense palpably the embarrassment and the awkwardness felt by the European Union diplomats. As you know, they have a rule in all their foreign missions that the national flags fly side-by-side with the EU flag. So even though this is, strictly speaking, a bilateral matter, there is no doubt that the EU diplomats and the EU governments feel that they have an

interest in seeing this case satisfactorily resolved and justice properly served.

As I had said before, although we are all impatient to see justice done, now that the Romanian authorities have initiated criminal action against Dr Ionescu, we must allow them reasonable time to go through their own legal processes. At this stage, it would be inappropriate for us to prejudge the outcome or speculate on what we will do if the outcome is not what we would consider satisfactory. I would, however, like to assure Members that the Romanian government is fully aware that if justice is not done and seen to be done, bilateral relations are bound to be affected. We have the usual range of diplomatic options at our disposal but it would not be appropriate at this stage for me to discuss them in detail.

Mr Michael Palmer (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. May I ask if the Minister would be able to tell us the possible charges that Dr Ionescu could face in Romania and the penalties he might incur if convicted of those charges?

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me be accurate. In February this year, the Romanian authorities started criminal investigations against Dr Ionescu on the charges of homicide by negligence, leaving the scene of an accident and making false statements. I am not familiar with the stage at which judicial processes is taking place, neither am I familiar with the possible sentences should he be found guilty on those charges.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. May I ask the Minister if he agrees that, on the part of Singaporeans, it is not so much an impatience but a need for clarity as well as a need for a clear commitment from Romania that indeed

the wheels of justice are grinding forward, and not sideways or in a circular motion, which does not see any clear result at the end of the day? Sir, our concern is really whether Romania takes seriously the need that Dr Ionescu faces the charges he deserves to face, that he will be brought to justice, and that whatever Romania's justice system may be like, there must surely be some clear landmarks along the way where Romanian authorities can inform us about. This is so that we know that the wheels of justice are indeed grinding forward.

Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot, on the basis of what they have done so far and their responses to our requests and applications, come to any conclusion that they are not committed to seeing this case through and in ensuring that justice is done. I mentioned to the House before that, quite by coincidence, I met the Romanian Foreign Minister at the Vatican in the Papal presence and had a pull-aside with him, which he readily agreed to when the request was put to him. He assured me that this matter was receiving the highest attention. When I came back to Singapore, I wrote him a letter to thank him for the meeting and to restate our concerns and our hope that they, on their side, will ensure that the processes are properly adhered to. And he replied to me positively. Subsequently, I asked for his permission to release both letters to the media. They took awhile to consider the matter but finally said "yes, release both letters to the media". This was done just a few days ago. So I have no reason to doubt the commitment of the Romanian government to seeing that justice is done in this case.

Mr Speaker: Yes, Ms Irene Ng. Last question. Be brief, please.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Since the Romanian authorities have not sent their

legal experts to review the evidence against Dr Ionescu in Singapore, can this be read as either a lack of urgency or do they not see the necessity for this?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we were told that before they could send their officials to Singapore for the Joint Technical Committee meeting, they needed to obtain certain clearances on their side and there were processes to follow. But this week, our people will be there in Bucharest and they will have meetings. Whether that would, in fact, constitute the first meeting of the Joint Technical Committee remains to be seen. But they have been very helpful in facilitating this visit.

3. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Education with the recent announcement on the possible revision of the weightage for Chinese language in the PSLE examination (a) how will the reduced weightage encourage and reward students who are good in English and Chinese languages; and (b) whether this revision is a contradiction to the Government's policy of encouraging Singaporeans to learn and be competent in the Chinese language.

4. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan asked the Minister for Education (a) if he will give an update on the proposal to reduce the weightage for mother tongue in the PSLE; (b) what are the main objections to the proposal and whether there is merit to these concerns; (c) what is the feedback from those involved in the Malay and Tamil languages; and (d) whether the Ministry has interviewed students for their perspective on this important issue.

5. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the current weightage of mother tongue in

relation to other subjects in the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE); and (b) how is the total aggregated mark of each student sitting for the PSLE computed.

6. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Education what is the rationale for assigning weightage to subjects for the PSLE examination results.

7. Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the spread of PSLE results from the top to the bottom grades for all three mother tongues in the last 10 years; (b) what is the proportion of students in these three groups who have achieved B grades and above in the other three subjects over the last 10 years; and (c) whether the reasons to adjust the weightage are similar for students taking Chinese, Malay and Tamil as their second languages.

8. Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Minister for Education (a) what concrete action is the Ministry taking to reiterate the international competitive advantage and cultural importance of learning Chinese language as a mother tongue to young Chinese Singaporeans and their parents, especially those from English-speaking home environments; and (b) whether the Ministry has carefully considered and sought public opinion on the social, cultural and educational impact of any attempt to reduce the examination weightage or importance of mother tongue in our current bilingual education policy.

Mr Speaker, can I have your permission to take Question Nos. 3 to 8 together?

Yes.

There has been a number of questions from Members on the weighting of the Mother Tongue

language (MTL) at PSLE. The Prime Minister and I had clarified on 11th May at a press conference that the Ministry of Education (MOE) is not reducing the weighting of MTL in PSLE. We stated that the MTLs remain a vital part and a cornerstone of our education system. MOE also agrees with Mr Teo Siong Seng that our bilingual policy provides our students with a competitive advantage and is useful to transmit important cultural values.

To maintain our bilingual policy, MOE has appointed a MTL Review Committee headed by the Director-General of Education. This is to respond to a wider spread of language abilities and exposure among students, as the proportion of pupils predominantly using English at home is expected to rise further among all ethnic groups. We are starting the review now as it will take many years to implement the Committee's recommendations. We spelt out the broad directions of the Committee's work which are for more differentiated teaching of MTL and a focus on proficiency. We provided some details at the press conference as much as we can because the Committee is still doing its preliminary work, and I need not elaborate on that today. I want to assure Members that the Committee will consult appropriate stakeholders in their deliberations. What is clear is that teaching students of different abilities at the appropriate level to produce proficient users of MTL will require more resources. We will have to recruit more MTL teachers, re-train in-service teachers, revise the curriculum to be more directly relevant to the students' daily use of the language and, more importantly, align our assessment and examination formats with this revised curriculum.

Mr Baey Yam Keng asked about MTL performance at the PSLE. Let me provide

some statistics. Performance of our students for all three MTLs has remained relatively stable in the past 10 years with strong support from parents, the efforts put in by our students and teachers as well as the improvements in the curriculum and teaching methods. Some of the curriculum and teaching methods had changed from previous reviews in 1999, 2004 and 2005. Last year, for MTL, 98% of candidates scored 'A-star' to 'C'. Let me give a breakdown of the various grades: 13% of the cohort scored 'A-star's, 69% scored 'A's, 11% scored 'B's and 5% scored 'C's. Among the students who scored in the top 30% for English, Mathematics and Science, around one in 10 were in the bottom 30% for MTL. Mr Baey has asked for some of these figures, and this is the reply. MOE's goal is to help every child to be proficient in MTL and to encourage those with the ability to go as far as possible.

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked how the PSLE score is computed. Four subjects are examined at the PSLE (English, Mathematics, Science and Mother Tongue). For each subject, the marks obtained are converted into a corresponding t-score (transformed score), which provides a common scale across subjects and Mother Tongue Languages, because there are different Mother Tongue Languages. The PSLE score of each student is the aggregate of the t-scores of the four subjects.

In responding to our press statements, Mr Low has asked publicly if Government will commit to maintaining the importance of MTL. The Prime Minister and I have said so plainly. Our statements are clear and direct and there is no need for Mr Low to interpret them further. In fact, this can be counter-productive and may actually educationally work against our students. I will just cite one example. Mr Low has asked whether we will commit to

keeping time spent on Mother Tongue language as it is. That may be a little bit too prescriptive for our students because my advice to my teachers in the school is to focus on the child. If a class needs more time in Science, English or Mathematics – because they are strong in Mother Tongue – you have to do what is professional. It could be vice versa. In some schools where the students are indeed weak in Mother Tongue, they do organise extra classes outside curriculum hours or even within curriculum hours. For these professional aspects, it is best to leave it to the school to decide. The teachers and the system as a whole and the public would have understood what we have said in our statements about the importance of our bilingual policy and our Mother Tongue language and that weighting will not be cut. But beyond that, how you actually teach, what curriculum you use, how you set the examination formats and the standards that you should articulate, it is best to leave it to the professionals because you and I are not trained teachers and it is not our job to look over the shoulders of the Director-General of Education and the teachers. So, it is best to leave it to them.

Despite our statements and the reactions, whether we succeed in helping each new generation use and love their Mother Tongue language and appreciate their cultural heritage will not depend on mere political statements or affirmations. MOE does not under-estimate the challenge ahead of us because we know that the language environment is changing. After this, all interested parties must now put in more effort to support our bilingual policy. MOE, on our part, is putting in more resources for the teaching of Mother Tongue language in schools, not less. As I said, we have to recruit more teachers, change the curriculum and look at other systems. We will work with groups within the community as well as parents to create a more conducive environment for our students to use and

learn their Mother Tongue language. The outpouring of support for the Mother Tongue language is a positive aspect that we can tap on and there are a number of groups. We share the same goal – how to create a conducive environment. There are new ambassadors that MOE can tap and we still use them to try and create a better environment for the learning of Mother Tongue language.

We should now leave it to the Director-General of Education's Committee and the professionals to set the roadmap to enhance Mother Tongue language learning for the next 10 to 15 years.

Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for the explanation. I have three supplementary questions:

I would like to ask the Minister whether he has any blueprint for the education of Mother Tongue;

In the process of reviewing the teaching and examination of Mother Tongue, does he foresee that there will be further decline in the standard of Mother Tongue, especially the Chinese language; and

With the continuous changes in the teaching of the Mother Tongue languages and the impending changes in the teaching methods, are our teachers overworked? How does the Ministry ensure that there is work-life balance and that they are motivated?

Let me thank the Member for her questions. I will try to take each one at a time.

Is there a blueprint for the Mother Tongue language? Indeed, that is the task for the Director-General and her Committee. The reason we appointed that Committee was because our language environment is changing rapidly. For

context, there have been a number of Mother Tongue language reviews – in 1992, 1999 (chaired by then Deputy Prime Minister Lee), and recently in 2004 where MInister Mentor had been personally involved. As I visit the schools, our students are doing well in their Mother Tongue, and there may be a perception that they are doing well because the system has not changed. But, indeed, it is evolving all the time. One of the problems is, if I asked Members what the recommendations for 1999 or 2004 were, people would have forgotten because it actually takes a long time to implement. Some of the changes, for example, in the 2004 review, are only being implemented now. Because, if you want to change something, you have to change the curriculum and then the assessments. Even for this Committee, if they start work now, it will take many years. They have to start at Primary 1 or lower primary and change the format, which will take many years. So, it is like a picture of a swan – you think it is flowing gracefully but beneath the water, it is paddling furiously.

We have to appoint the Committee because within the last 20 years, the home speaking environment has changed. If you take Chinese families – we did a survey – the proportion of households that is speaking English predominantly at home is 60%. It was 30% 20 years ago; it has doubled. It is the same for Indian families – 60%; for Malays, it is 35%. During my visits to schools, I asked the teachers: "What do you think it would be in 10 to 20 years' time?" Nobody believes that it will be reduced because the children are spending more time on the Internet using English. Exposure to the Mother Tongue languages is very much reduced. Last week, I visited a school and the Mother Tongue language, an Indian teacher, said the way she did it was she refused to answer her child if he or she did not speak in Tamil to her. The child is in Primary 6, so I say, "Can you keep it up

when he is in secondary school?" She said, "I don't think so, but I will try." So, parents are resorting to various efforts to try to create the environment – because the language has to be used to be learned.

The Director-General's Committee is to create that roadmap and the blueprint for the next 10 to 15 years. There is a concern that every time we review that, standards will drop. But I think when we aim for proficiency, we have guidelines to use. If Members had followed some of the press reports, we gave an example of Hanyu shuiping kaoshi where they give explicitly what language or the standard is. So, at certain level, you are supposed to be able to read the newspapers, carry on a conversation with natives – that is quite explicit. Indeed, the move towards proficiency is exactly that. You state upfront what the standards are, and standards are transparent. I think there will be consultation with community groups. Some obviously will feel that the standard ought to be higher, some may feel it ought to be lower but, educationally, standards are not set arbitrarily. In other words, you can make an examination so difficult that everybody fails. But you have to set realistic standards. And I think that I have confidence that our professionals are not out to dilute the standards. They are out to set realistic standards. They take reference from various systems across the world. We should leave it to them. They will give examples of the curriculum, the text as well as the examination formats to give us comfort that there is a certain rigour in the system.

Are my teachers overworked? They work very hard. There are continuous changes. But I think they are up to the challenge. I have been impressed that despite the confusion in some instances and the reactions to this, the teachers are

not discouraged. They said that this is the right thing to do.

I met the Singapore Chinese Teachers Union with Mrs Josephine Teo. I met the President of the Indian and Malay Teachers Union or the equivalent, and they are very keen on these changes because they said that they want to make the language engaging and interesting. Most times, when the children reach Primary 4 or Primary 5, the parents say, "Can you just drill and practise because there are examinations coming up." And they sometimes disconnect between what we examine and what parents want so that the whole issue of making them "like the language" becomes secondary. This is the aim for our Director-General's Committee.

Thank you, Sir, I have three questions. I support the Minister in the need to review the teaching assessment of MTL due to the changing profile of student population. I would like the Minister to clarify if the objective of this review is to enable better learning of the Mother Tongue with the necessary relevance to the changing environment, and not to pander to the declining interest and willingness of certain segments of the student population to put in the effort to master respective Mother Tongue languages. The second point is I note the Minister's explanation that the review will take many years to implement. I would like the Minister to share when he expects the review to be completed and whether the plan would be made public. My last question, Sir. We note that the past two reviews were done in 1999 and 2004. Assuming that the changes of those reviews were implemented in those years, the students who had just completed the full primary and "O" level education affected by the first review and then under the second review, they would have just undergone may be six years of primary school education. So could the

Minister share the achievements made under those reviews and whether our student proficiency in the Mother Tongue language has improved as a result of those reviews?

Let me thank the Member for pointing out that important aspect, ie, the purpose of the review is not pander to a declining interest. It is not and we would not waste an effort like this – we would have to hire more teachers, change textbooks, re-examine the formats.

The Director-General's Committee is looking at various systems to glean important lessons. If it were just to make it less important, it just does not make any sense to spend all the effort. Let me give that assurance. It is to respond decisively to the changing language environment. When you look at our children, when you talk to the teachers, when you actually calculate the time that they are actually exposed to the Mother Tongue language, it is very clear that the hours that they spend on English is certainly more. So how do you teach a Mother Tongue in that new environment, especially so when it is progressive? I was quite glad when I met with the language group – this is the small group that was petitioning at Hong Lim Park. I met them on Saturday when they were going there and on Sunday. They were very clear and they volunteered their services. They said, "It is not only MOE's job, but it is also the job of the parents and the community. We have to help you to maintain that speaking environment." So we ended on a very positive note. They all volunteered to be ambassadors to go to my schools – one is a former DJ, the other is drama teacher, another lady has a job in the advertising industry, so they have skills that we can use.

So I think the challenge is how do you align what they study in schools, get tested and use it. One clear learning point from all the systems that the Director-

General's Committee has visited in Hanban or advanced placement system in America is that language – this is quite intuitive – if you want to teach it, you have to use it, you have to teach them to use it. It cannot be just an examination subject. They looked at alternate assessment modes – fairly interesting. These are ideas and I do not want to prescribe it to them. I want the Committee to go through these. The examples that they have shown to us and Members of the Cabinet is, for example, in an advanced placement module, you enter a module and it is the computer speaking to you, as you were in social context, and then there is a tape recorder and then you reply. Then based on the reply, you are graded, or you will be asked to do an oral presentation on different cultural festivals, for example, and you are graded on a project basis. It is quite, what we call, enriching – even pop songs or even current movies, so that the students feel that it is relevant today. I am not only studying because I might be working in China or India 15 years later, I am building the foundation, but I can use it, I can email, I can SMS, I can browse the web, I can even create my own website and I will be given points for it. So I think the professionals are excited that this opens up a different box to engage them.

Timelines – this is a large project because it means that you have to start from curriculum and then teach the teachers how to teach this in different ways and then make sure that you align with the testing. I think the Committee will not finish its work soon and more likely it will roll out in stages. One definite timeline is probably towards the end of the year where they will come up with preliminary recommendations for the curriculum for the lower primary where they will show examples of what the curriculum would look like, perhaps the types of texts, and examination formats. It is quite a long way off from PSLE. So I

think that would be the first stage. And then you have to field-test it. In other words, it may be a great idea but can the teachers teach it? Can you roll it out to 500,000 students within your system? You have to field-test it. I think we should allow them to do it. I will assure Members that when it is done, it will be open so that we can discuss it with Members of the Parliament as well as with various groups who have expressed interest – various groups have written to me and I have replied to them.

Past lessons from past reviews – it is interesting that Mr Baey asked that question. I will give Members some examples. He asked, has it made a difference? The short answer is, yes. When I met the Singapore Chinese Teachers Union, they were very much involved in the 2004 review. They said that they are quite happy that the review now changed textbooks because the primary school students are finding it more engaging and they find the textbooks more lively. But it is only being rolled out now. I think Members would not have remembered what 2004 review recommended. So let me remind Members. The 2004 review recommended a modular CL curriculum, providing differentiated programmes to students of varying CL abilities. So we are just doing more of the same and from the 2004 review, they recommended the bridging module for students without CL background, and it was fully implemented in schools from Primary 1 to Primary 5 last year. And the new PSLE MTL format was implemented from 2010, the interim format was in 2006. There was a greater emphasis – another recommendation from the 2004 review – on oral communication and reading for a majority of students. The new PSLE format from 2010 was that there would be greater emphasis on listening and speaking skills and the interim change in 2006 was the 5%

increase from weighting from 30% to 35% at PSLE. As Members can tell, once you recommend it, it does take a while for it to come to fruition. The 2004 review also recommended that we allowed greater use of IT in schools which, as a result, in 2007, hand-held electronic dictionaries were allowed in the composition component of national examination from 2007. And we also set up the Committee to promote Chinese Language learning.

Mr Baey also asked if language proficiency has increased. To be honest, I think if you ask different groups, we might have different responses. And it is hard, if you just look at examination grades, for example, you will see it is stable. But that is one measure. If you ask whether students are using the language, you might get a different answer. So it is quite wide. I would say that what we want for MOE is to see the engagement level of students, whether they are interested in MTL lessons. Some revisions for the MTL, for example, the CLB syllabus have made great strides so much so that students who are exempted from MTL, from Chinese, as the Prime Minister mentioned in the press conference, are asking to join the classes and that is, for the teachers, a great feedback, a positive one, when people are asking for once to join their class. We have to watch that and see that the textbooks are engaging as well and, finally, whether they are using it, and that is a more difficult challenge. If you take a survey, when I visited schools, there are different profiles, but some are using it and struggling with their English, some are using it less and struggling with MTL. So I think it would be different across the system. But if you look at examination grades, they are the same. I think the level of engagement has gone up.

I will take the last three supplementaries – Assoc. Prof. Tay, Assoc. Prof. Dr Faishal and Mrs Teo.

Thank you, Sir. I wish to place on record my sincere appreciation to the Minister for highlighting the difficulties that our children are going through. I have four supplementary questions concerning the review that is ongoing at MOE. The first concerns feedback from the students directly. I have heard, following the debate in the newspapers, concerns from all different segments or interest groups of society, but we have not heard from the students themselves – the children who are going through the PSLE and who are suffering from post-PSLE outcomes. Has MOE spoken to these students and, if not, what is MOE's plan to incorporate the students' concerns? My second supplementary question has to deal with the quality of teachers. There are success stories in the teaching of Mother Tongue definitely. I have two sons, one has completed Higher Mother Tongue with Merit and the other is struggling. He has just failed his Chinese test recently. But the beauty of this is that he loves Chinese. Why? Because God has blessed him with this wonderful Chinese teacher and he looks forward to every Chinese lesson. He thinks the world of her, he comes to mimic her in a positive way. So will the Ministry consider convening a working group of –

Assoc. Prof. Tay, make your question short.

– effective Chinese teachers. This is from the students' perspective. Teachers who can reach out to students who are struggling. My final question concerns the testing boundaries. When we shifted from trying to achieve proficiency in Chinese Language, I think the boundary had expanded tremendously. Would the Ministry consider placing restrictions on these boundaries for testing purposes so that the students who are struggling can

see a meaningful end to their strive towards learning Chinese?

Let me thank the Member for her heartfelt sharing and words of encouragement. Do we ask students how they feel? Yes, we do. Prior to starting this Committee, we did a survey with parents, teachers and students, both on their time spent and their reaction to it. It is an interesting anecdote. I hear that when some of the students got the wrong impression that we are thinking of cutting the MTL, they cheered. But they would cheer when any subject is being cut because they are under examination stress. That is not quite the right question to ask. As you read, students went to the petitioner as well as to sign the petition. The public across all ages do want to retain this ability, to be able to speak the Mother Tongue language. I do not think that is the problem. The motivation is there. We all want it. But we are all struggling with the fact that when we impose greater requirements on our students in other subjects. The research is done as we do more project work, critical thinking, it is done in English. Except for certain schools, even the Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools. Even if you ask what the speaking environment for students in SAP schools – I will leave it to Members to ask and get the response. So there is a difficulty that we have to address.

Quality of teachers – good teachers make a big difference and my teachers know it. They are on the forefront, wanting to change and they are, indeed, exactly as the NMP says, to make the teaching

more aligned with the assessments so that they can continue to make it interesting. They are pushing for the use of more drama but they say, "will you give marks if my children act out a script in Mother Tongue language?" And I say, "why not?". If the Committee can look into it, why do you not give marks for projects so that it is seen as that?

Ultimately, we do not want a system where the message is that you do not have to work hard for Mother Tongue or any other languages. That has never been our message. Indeed, those with higher proficiency deserve to get higher marks and you do have to work hard in mastering anything and that includes the Mother Tongue, and that is the message. But we have to face reality that as the home environment changes, especially at Primary 1 and 2, there will be a wider spread of ability and we have to deal with that in a very constructive and enlightened way that helps everybody understand the challenge so that we can maintain our Mother Tongue policy.

Sir, I had the opportunity to attend two events organised by the Indian and the Malay Activity Executive Committees of my grassroot organisation over the weekend. I find that the residents from both races are very passionate about it. They found that the review is very timely as they do not want the standard of the Malay and Tamil languages to deteriorate further. What they have suggested was that we should enhance, as what the Minister has said – the use of Mother Tongue at home. Personally, I find it very rewarding. I applied it together with my wife on my children conscientiously and they are able to speak Malay better over the months. I would like to know what the Ministry is doing currently in engaging parents, in trying to help the learning of Mother Tongue. And in the years to come, what approach are we taking to further enhance this?

Let me thank the Member for his feedback. Parents play an important and vital role. The home environment makes a big difference. I have sampled, as I visited schools every one or two weeks or so, talking to Mother

Tongue language teachers. They try different things. Some have grandparents and they insist that you have to speak to your grandparents in the Mother Tongue and that helps. We had a Superintendent who told his children, "I do not really mind how you do in your exams (I do not know whether it is true or not), but when it comes to your grandparents, you must be able to converse to them" and that is the way he encourages his children. Educationally, experts would say the younger you start, the easier it is, so parents would have to do their calculations if they want to speak to their child in the Mother Tongue language when they are very young and hope as I gave the example of the Indian Mother Tongue language teacher where she spoke to her child in only Tamil, and is still doing it, and he is in Primary 5 or 6 now. She refuses to answer him if he speaks to her in English. He can speak to anybody else in English, but for her it is that way.

I think the Member has a point. If you want to learn the Mother Tongue, you have to create the speaking environment. I visited a school recently and I asked, "should we have one day designated in the school where all of you just speak Mother Tongue? Just one or two days, so that you create that atmosphere". And I think it is a big challenge. As I have told various representatives, we want to work them, whether it is Business China or SCCCI, to bring them into our schools, excite the students about what China is, or India, the value of a second language and interest groups that will help them realise that the language is hip. The students need something beyond just an examination grade for utility. I do not want to underplay this challenge. Members have asked, "can you get the teachers?". It is difficult. I posed this question, too. We are sourcing. Our preference is to get Singapore teachers, but that means that you must be willing to do MTL at higher levels in junior

colleges and universities. We are willing to fund that, put up even more scholarships. So we have to get a pipeline for more MTL teachers, but I think the curriculum and the testing will have to follow, so I welcome any new ideas. As I said as when the ideas are more cooked, we will share them in Parliament and we will have debate and more good ideas.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, some parents whose children have greater difficulty learning Mother Tongue had come to believe that reducing the weightage for MTL at PSLE would have been helpful to them. And they have since expressed some disappointment that the MTL weightage is going to remain unchanged. I would like to ask the Minister whether the needs of this group of students – who are weaker in the learning of Mother Tongue – have their needs been fully taken into account and how will the review be helpful to this group of students?

We want to create an education system where you play up the strengths and help those who are weak level up. That, very simply stated, is our aspiration. But there is a group that is struggling with MTL and I think this is the purpose of that review as well. My professionals believe that, take an average student, if you make the language alive, if you show him the ability, if you put him in China for a long time, will he pick up the language? The answer is probably yes, because he uses it and he knows that it is useful and that is the thinking then. So how do you transport the environment to him without him spending a long time in that environment? The way to do it is to use modules that engage him and he can see the relevance as well as change the way you approach him. If he has never had any exposure to Mother Tongue language, which will be a growing number at Primary 1, you might have to use English initially. We leave it to the professionals to decide on the best

method and the clear aspect from other systems is that you have to focus first on aural and recognition before writing. And I think that is sensible to get them to have confidence in the language, but we do not want to prescribe to say that just because you come from any environment, where your highest point is. We do have many examples of those who come from predominantly English-speaking backgrounds and we want to encourage that.

So, our basic philosophy is to recognise the spread of ability but to help each one go as far as they can. Where you go, depends on your effort and how much time you spend on it. It is not our purpose to try to order the system so that one group benefits over the other because everyone will have to put in the effort and you have to strive for all the subjects. Our purpose is to make sure that the Mother Tongue is retained that when you gain proficiency you can continue to keep the language alive, to pass on the cultural heritage and the language to the next generation. Each generation will pose new, and I would say increasing challenges, as our language environment changes. If I take a show of hands, how many Members speak predominantly Chinese at home with your kids? The environment changes and we have to recognise that.

I would just end off by saying that we are working very hard on this and we cannot do this alone, so we would indeed need to consult various groups as well as Members of Parliament for their efforts and ideas.

Thank you, Sir. I welcome the Minister's positive response to my statement made in the press, except one point on the time allocated to teaching MTL. The Minister replied to say that probably some students will require more time so there will be some flexibility, but I suppose he was referring to remedial lessons. What I

was asking was whether or not the time allocated to teaching Mother Tongue in the school timetable would be cut in the future. Sir, the Minister, in his answer, also said that we have to set realistic standards, probably pegged to the changing language environment and also students' exposure to Mother Tongue. Would he not agree that the language environment for Mother Tongue, especially Chinese, is going to be weaker? Generation after generation will be adverse to the learning of the language. So if the standard is pegged to that, would we, one day, realise that the realistic standard is only to require the students to be able to write their own names in Chinese?

Sir, I wanted to pointedly address the point on time to illustrate that we should not conscribe our professionals with limits. It is sensible just to state what we want and allow them to do it. So, let us take curriculum time which Mr Low has brought up. I may very well have a school where within curriculum time, the teacher assesses that the children are weaker in other subjects, whether it is Mother Tongue, English, Science or Mathematics, and spend more time on these. Let us suppose the teacher or the principal decides that for this class, they are doing well and so they are going to take some curriculum time from some subjects and use it for drama. I am willing to back my principals and teachers up. The message to them is, "you focus on the child, do what you think is educationally right for the child and the Minister will back you up". Should we then worry about standards? If the realistic standard is just to be able to write your name, then we would not have this issue. That is obviously not the aim of the exercise, neither do we have to convene a high-powered Committee, high level involvement of Government to look at this issue, if the whole aim of the

exercise is to lower standards. How can it be and why would we want to put in resources? Over 20% of curriculum time is spent on Mother Tongue language now so we expand resources to maintain that. But that is quite different from saying, let us just prescribe a standard and never mind how students reach it. Make the examinations very hard so that the penalty is so great that the lashing of the examination is so punitive, that will push you to that – it is not only for Mother Tongue, it could be for Mathematics, Science or English. Professionally, the standards should be set by the professionals because they know what is worth, how it is necessary. Obviously for Mother Tongue, we said that it is useful to teach the language. It also teaches who we are and we are an Asian society and that has to be factored in.

The aim of the Committee to create proficient users is clear. The standard of proficiency states upfront, and as I had said, we can compare with other systems. Internally we feel that some of our brightest and most capable students should be as good as native speakers in China or Taiwan. My professionals want that, I said, "well, you do it; push them". There are some who are struggling at the other end and we say, "well, let us help them to like the language, to use it, and after 10 years when they leave school, they have the ability to use the language and when they use it in social settings, it adds value to them. But what we are recognising in the middle band – there will be a broader spread – will be less homogeneous. We have to change the way we teach them so that they will, by themselves, gain the proficiency. The incentives will stay because those with high proficiency will get higher marks but I am not keen on the system that ignores the changing landscape, ignores what the students have to go through and just administratively set a standard and get everyone to try to jump at it, because I do not think that our professionals want to

weaken the standards. They have been very realistic and they have professional boundaries in which they discuss with people elsewhere from Taiwan, China and other places that teach foreign languages and our second language Mother Tongue as well, that set appropriate standards. I entrust it to them and the Committee will know whether our standards are acceptable.

(In Mandarin)::: Just now the Minister mentioned this Committee is going to set a standard. They will consult professionals. I would like to ask the Minister who are the professionals? I remember in 2004, when Minister Mentor was leading the review, his professionals included writers and teachers. These are very important people. So I hope this Review Committee will include these professionals. Just now the Minister mentioned the standards. I remember Minister Mentor mentioned in the press conference, you should set a certain standard but do not set the top, so how do we maintain this bottom line? So what is this bottom line? And for the best ones, they should achieve the best they can.

Members of this House are important and appropriate stakeholders. But there are various groups. As we have engaged the teachers' unions in 2004, we have engaged them now, for all Mother Tongues. There were post-2004 reviews, and we have also set up three groups which promote the Mother Tongue language – for Chinese, Malay and Tamil. We engaged them all. As Mr Seng Han Thong had said, they comprise members who are writers and those who are in the media. So they would know what is appropriate. But the recent episode has also thrown up new stakeholders, which is quite interesting and quite useful. They are very passionate about it because they have struggled with it. I have made an offer to them to come and advise us. They said "Yes", in principle, they are

willing to do so. So, we will engage them as well.

The issue of standard is one that will concern us all. I want to give an assurance that the professionals will look into this that the ideal is to maintain standards while we move towards proficiency because that is a better environment to keep the language alive. In reality, there will be a spread of abilities. The ones that have gone very far can even go further. We are trying to push the rest up. It is a difficult task, but one that we feel that given the resources and change in approach, we can achieve. This is our aim, we are able to say in 10 or 15 years' time whether we can achieve it. We can only achieve it if all the stakeholders put in efforts to create the conducive environment for our children to use and learn the Mother Tongue language.

Sir, the Minister mentioned that by end of the year, the Committee will produce the new syllabus. I would like to ask the Minister whether there will be any consultation from now till end of the year so that there would not be any abortive work.

Yes, the consultative process will be worked into the timeline. Not so much of the syllabus, but a sample of what the curriculum will be like in Primary 1 or lower primary. The problem is when principles are discussed in abstract like I have done, you know, people will say, "Well, I do not know what he is discussing." We need to come up with something tangible – what a sample of the textbook will be like, what the test paper would be like, and people can discuss and say "Well, I agree with this or I do not agree with this. Can you add this? Can you not add this?" Let me assure the Member that we will work in the consultation but it will be something that people can get their minds round, rather than just principles.

Sir, the Minister is talking about the spread of language proficiency and ability. And Member Seng Han Thong was not talking about "bao di, bu feng ding ". The question is what is the bottom line? What is the bottom in proficiency that we are looking at? Not so much on whether we can keep that bottom line, but what is the bottom line we are talking about? What is the minimum proficiency level?

One is what we hope for, and one is the reality which we face. It is no different from saying,"What do we hope for our students in Mathematics?" I, as a Minister, and you, as Members of Parliament, certainly want all our students to be good at Mathematics. But what is reality? Reality is the spread of performance, in terms of examinations. But the bottom line for this Committee is to try to make proficient users of all our students. That is a very sensible bottom line. Can we teach them to use the language? If you want them to use the language, they would be concerned about the examinations and they would want to do well in examinations. I do not think that will change. I am not sure what Mr Low is pushing for but, educationally, what will change is we want to make proficient users, we want the language to be interesting, and the assessments to reflect what we teach and the cirrcumlum to reflect our desires to make the language alive.

9. Ms Ellen Lee asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the better than expected economic results in the first quarter of 2010, whether his Ministry will be re-examining and adjusting the foreign worker dependency ratios which were tweaked in view of the recession last year.

10. Ms Ellen Lee asked the Minister for Manpower whether the reduction and rejection of 'S' pass and work permit applications have adversely affected those industries that are dependent on foreign manpower.

Sir, with your permission, I will take Question Nos 9 and 10 together.

Okay.

Our strategy in dealing with the recession was to help businesses stay afloat and retain the capabilities as well as to help workers keep their jobs and upgrade their skills. We did this by leveraging on the strong support from our Tripartite Partners and through the Resilience Package as well as SPUR. The strategy has proven to be effective. We have kept unemployment low and helped the economy to rebound strongly. This year, we expect the economy to grow between 7% and 9%.

However, going forward, we need to make a decisive shift towards innovation and productivity rather than to rely on labour force growth to drive economic growth. For this reason, we will raise the foreign worker levy to moderate companies’ dependence and reliance on foreign manpower and encourage them to invest in productivity. To give companies time to adjust, these increases will be implemented in gradual steps starting from 1st July this year. We have not adjusted the overall dependency ratios. The current dependency ratios are carefully calibrated to strike a balance between moderating demand for foreign workers and allowing growth companies room to expand. There is, therefore, no need to tweak the overall dependency ratios for now.

As part of our efforts to improve productivity, we need to raise the skills

criteria of our foreign workforce. For example, we recalibrated the S Pass criteria last year so that only the more experienced and qualified applicants would be eligible. During my Ministry’s COS debate earlier this year, I announced that there will be greater differentiation in levy rates between skilled and unskilled work permit holders to encourage companies to hire the better skilled ones. The criteria for skilled work permit holders have also been refined. In addition, MOM has stepped up enforcement to prevent circumvention of our foreign manpower regulatory framework.

Now that the economy is recovering strongly, we can expect the labour market to tighten. I urge companies, especially those which are highly dependent on foreign workers, to act now to improve productivity rather than continue to rely on low-cost, low-skilled labour inputs. Many initiatives were announced in Budget 2010 to help companies streamline their business processes, improve their products and services, explore new markets, and upgrade the skills of their workforce. Companies should take full advantage of these initiatives to invest early in productivity-enhancing measures and develop a competitive advantage to achieve sustainable growth in the long term.

Sir, I thank the Minister for the replies. But, even though Minister said that there was no tweaking of the dependency ratios, at the weekly MPS sessions, we are seeing more people coming forward to say that they have increasingly much more difficulty hiring foreign workers and that renewals were not permitted at first application and even after appeals. So I would like to know from the Minister, whether there are any interim measures that would be introduced to help these industries, especially those in the service industry, cope with the sudden loss of manpower,

especially when we say that theoretically we are going to rely on innovation and productivity to improve the work processes. These things take time and effort, because you must first have a group of people who are willing to go through the training and retraining before you could even talk about innovation and productivity.

The effort to drive productivity is an urgent one. We have seen productivity decline over the last few years. In fact, during the recession in 2009, productivity took a further dive. So it is important for us to send the right message to our companies, to take advantage of the various schemes we have put in place to invest in productivity. From the Ministry of Manpower's point of view, we will provide the necessary training as well as consultancy services to our various schemes, through SPRING and so on, to help companies adjust. There will be companies which face manpower pressure, partly because they might have lost Singaporean or local workers, and as a result, their available quota might have been reduced, because they have fewer local workers now.

There may be companies who are applying for foreign workers, but their candidates do not satisfy our criteria because, as I have said, we have improved and stepped up the skills criteria for foreign workers. It is important for these employers to look for better quality candidates when they apply for work permits or S passes. For specific cases, Members can refer them to me and I will look into them to see whether there are reasons that they were rejected. I would use my best endeavour to explain what the reasons are and see whether we can help companies adjust to this new paradigm of driving economic growth through productivity and innovation, rather than through labour force expansion.

The following Question stood in the name of Mdm Ho Geok Choo –

11. To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry what lessons can be drawn from the teething problems at the Integrated Resorts so as to safeguard Singapore's reputation as a top hub for Meetings, Incentives, Conventions and Exhibitions (MICE).

12. Mr Calvin Cheng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Integrated Resorts (IRs) are merely keeping to the letter rather than the spirit of the requirement for the IRs to have a significant area of non-gaming facilities, when presently the casinos are fully functional but a significant proportion of their hotel rooms and entertainment facilities are not fully ready.

Question No. 11, Sir.

Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 11 and 12 together?

Yes.

The recent opening of the Marina Bay Sands (MBS) Integrated Resort has added 69,000 square metres of exhibition and meeting space to the MICE industry in Singapore. When the phased opening of MBS is completed, about 100,000 square metres will be added to the total amount. And this will effectively increase the amount of purpose-built exhibition and meeting space in Singapore by more than half.

It is not uncommon for projects of this size to encounter, as the Member has

mentioned, "teething problems", especially when they commence operations. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that delegates at a recent conference found their experience at Marina Bay Sands to be unsatisfactory. I understand that MBS has taken the feedback of its clients into consideration and is already taking steps to address these issues.

Singapore's reputation as a top city for MICE events is important to the Government. But our reputation is not determined by a single conference. Rather, it is built over time, as a result of many factors that underpin our organisation as a city to provide the best value proposition to MICE organisers and delegates. This includes the accessibility to target markets for buyers and delegates, the presence of a pro-business environment and the overall appeal of the city to delegates and visitors.

Over the years, Singapore has developed sound fundamentals as a business destination and established a strong track record for successfully hosting many business events. Last year, the Union of International Associations (UIA) accorded Singapore the title of the world’s Top International Meeting City for the second consecutive year. Singapore has also been ranked as Asia’s top country and city for meetings for the last 25 years.

To put it in perspective, Singapore plays host to 6,000 business events annually, and accounted for more than 25% of the meetings held in Asia in 2008. Notable MICE events we have hosted in the past include the IMF-World Bank meetings in 2006, the APEC Summit in 2009, as well as business events such as the World Dental Federation Congress of 2009.

As the lead Government agency supporting the MICE industry, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB)works

with local industry partners including associations and organisers to bid for international exhibitions and conventions.

Collectively, Government agencies and the industry in Singapore have secured a robust pipeline of international business events for the next few years, and will continue to strive to maintain our standing as a global business events destination of choice.

If I may turn to Mr Calvin Cheng's point, international tourism projects such as the CityCentre Resort in Las Vegas, Wynn Resort in Macau and Universal Studios in Florida were all opened in phases. Locally, ION Orchard and Singapore Airport Terminal 3 are two examples of large local developments that also had phased openings. The phased opening of Singapore’s Integrated Resorts (IRs) is thus quite typical for projects of this scale and complexity.

From an operational perspective, phased openings are necessary to allow the IRs to work through operational issues and to allow employees to familiarise themselves with their new roles and gain confidence for the ramp-up in activities. Although the IRs were opened in phases, the casino licence was granted only when the Government authorities had established that at least 50% of the Gross Floor Area (GFA) was completed and at least 50% of the Development Investment (DI) had been expended. This was to ensure that the casino would be allowed to operate only when a significant amount of non-gaming facilities were opened and the integrity of the Integrated Resort concept upheld. When the IRs are fully opened, gaming areas would take up less than 3% of the GFA for Marina Bay Sands (MBS) and less than 5% of the GFA for Resorts World Sentosa (RWS).

Both IRs have, in fact, opened significant non-gaming facilities. RWS soft-opened with Universal Studios

Singapore, its theatre, part of the Festive Walk and four hotels. The next phase of its development will include the addition of new attractions in Universal Studios, the premier of a locally created circus theatre show, a Marine Life and Water Theme Park, and a Maritime experiential Museum. MBS’ preview opening included a significant amount of non-gaming areas such as 963 hotel rooms, retail outlets, restaurants, bars and MICE facilities. MBS expects to open its remaining facilities such as the Skypark, Theatres and Museum by the end of this year.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive reply and I do take his point regarding teething problems. But I would like to point out that we see the Integrated Resorts having teething problems with their hotel rooms, conference facilities, roller coasters but, funnily enough, not their casinos. I was wondering whatever the Ministry would consider taking a stronger stand in ensuring that the IRs keep to the spirit of the law rather than just the letter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for his question. First of all, if media reports are anything to go by, then I think even the casinos were affected by some of the teething problems. Secondly, I want to make it quite clear that, as far as Government agencies are concerned, there is absolutely no compromise on the fact that the concept of the IR must be upheld. That was the logic when we started this endeavour and Government agencies are committed to see it through. However, we must recognise that these are multi-billion dollar, multi-decade projects. When you are looking at projects of that kind of scale and complexity, first, phased openings are not uncommon at all when you look at international best practice and, secondly, we should not judge the outcome or the success of these projects on the basis of what we

have seen in the first few days, weeks or months.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, up to now, how much has the two IRs contributed to the tourism industry in Singapore. Secondly, there is a report that most visitors to the casinos are actually Singaporeans. Is that a concern to the Government?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the first question on the contribution of the IRs to the economy – actually there is another question after this – but I will say that there have been significant investment commitments. To-date, together they have contributed more than S$12 billion worth of investments and they will be creating at steady state about 20,000 jobs, of which about 80% has already been realised and a significant proportion of that are for locals.

As for the patronage of the casinos, obviously, we want to ensure that Singaporeans who choose to go to the casinos give due thought to it before they go in and not to do it on impulse, which is why we have a whole slew of measures that have been put in place under the MCYS' approach towards ensuring that we do not have a problem with problem gambling. Having said that, I do not have specific data but it would be fair to say that, again, there is a novelty factor in play at the moment. To think that whatever we see at play in terms of numbers and of performance in the first few weeks and months is an accurate predictor of what is going to be happening 12 or 24 months down the road may be stretching the argument a bit. So what I can assure the Member is that the agencies are monitoring the situation closely and once we have a better sense of the patterns and trends, I think we will know how the measures we put in place are working.

13. Mrs Mildred Tan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) for the last one year, what is the dollar spending by the tourism industry and tourism receipts generated by visitors; (b) what proportion of this is generated by the recent improvements ranging from the Orchard Road upgrading to the opening of the two IRs; and (c) whether we are on track to achieve the expected $2.7 billion of value-add by the "IR effect".

Mr Speaker, Sir, 2009 was a challenging year for global tourism which was affected by the twin challenges of the economic downturn and the H1N1 virus. Even so, the Singapore tourism industry delivered a creditable performance. Tourism Receipts (TR) for 2009 was S$12.8 billion, and the value-add generated by the sector was an estimated S$7.3 billion.

This was possible largely because of the close collaboration between STB and the industry over the years to develop a diverse offering of world-class tourism products and experiences in Singapore, as well as the special efforts made to boost the tourism industry during the economic downturn.

The Orchard Road mall enhancement which the Member referred to, for example, has improved visitors' shopping experience and was timely with the addition of more than 100,000 square metres of commercial space along Orchard Road with the opening of three new malls. Besides hardware, efforts have also been made to improve our events space and increase Singapore's mindshare amongst international visitors, and this has helped to enhance Singapore's attractiveness as a top leisure and MICE destination.

In addition, at the onset of the downturn, STB introduced the S$90 million Building on Opportunity to Strengthen Tourism (BOOST), package in order to cushion the effects of the recession. One hundred and twenty retailers or so partnered STB to bundle and market promotional deals under the "2009 Reasons to Enjoy Singapore" campaign. And there was also enhanced support given to over 300 events and that will generate an additional 1.2 million visitor nights through February 2012.

So, as a result of these efforts, from 2004 to 2009, the tourism sector value-add increased by close to 30% from S$5.7 billion to S$7.3 billion.

With the opening of the IRs this year, STB has forecasted record international arrivals of between 11.5 million and 12.5 million visitors and S$17.5 billion to S$18.5 billion in tourism receipts. Already, STB has reported consecutive record highs in monthly visitor arrivals since January this year.

The IRs will directly bring in about S$12 billion of investments when they are completed, and as I have mentioned earlier, the job recreation element as well – about 16,000 workers have already been employed directly and when they are fully open, the number will rise to 20,000. But these are early days yet and I think the full economic benefits of the IRs can only be properly assessed and realised when both of them are fully open and operating in the city state.

Beyond economic benefits, the developments in Singapore's tourism sector have enhanced our national branding, sharpened Singapore's competitive edge for talent and broadened leisure options for residents. We remain confident that the IRs, together with the

other offerings that are coming up such as Gardens by the Bay, the International Cruise Terminal and the River Safari wildlife park, will position Singapore as a leading global city in Asia.

14. Ms Ellen Lee asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs in the last 12 months ending March 2010 (a) how many applications for long-term visit passes, both new and for renewal, were received and what were the respective success rates; (b) what was the number of applications for permanent residence and how many were successful; (c) what was the number of applications for Singapore citizenship and how many were successful; and (d) whether the rejections in each category were in response to the strong sentiments expressed by Singaporeans that there are too many foreigners in Singapore.

15. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority will grant long-term visit passes to foreign relatives of Singaporeans if the objective for the long-term stay is to help look after Singaporeans.

16. Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the last five years, what is the number of foreign spouses of Singapore citizens whose marriages were registered in Singapore and whose applications for long-term visas and permanent residence (PR) were rejected; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider measures to increase the public's awareness that marriage registration in Singapore does not entitle foreign spouses of Singaporeans to long-term stay or PR and the reasons behind this policy.

Sir, may I take Question Nos. 14, 15 and 16 together?

Yes. You have five minutes left.

Sir, from 1st April last year to 31st March this year, we received about 70,300 applications for long-term visit passes (LTVP), of which about 56,300 or 80% were successful.

Over the same period, about 124,600 applications for PR and 24,000 applications for Singapore Citizenship (SC) were received whilst 112,000 PR applications and 23,300 SC applications were processed. Of the applications processed, approximately 46,300 PR applications and 19,300 SC applications were approved.

Ms Ellen Lee asked if the rejections for PR and SC were in response to the strong sentiments expressed by Singaporeans that there were too many foreigners in Singapore. Sir, as mentioned at the Committee of Supply debate on the issue of population taken under the Prime Minister's Office this year in March, we had taken in larger numbers of foreigners over the last few years so as to catch the wind of growth to propel our economy forward. The growth in the number of new immigrants in recent years was because we wanted to take advantage of the strong economy to attract and retain suitable foreigners to sink roots here and to augment our population.

The Government recognises and understands Singaporeans' concerns and sentiments over the rapid increase in numbers. We have reviewed our immigration framework to better manage the pace and overall numbers. The PR and

citizenship framework was tightened in the last quarter of last year and the eligibility requirements have generally been made more stringent. Hence, there could be applicants who may not meet our new criteria and who, for example, will no longer qualify for PR or citizenship. Others, even though they meet the new criteria, may take a longer time before they are granted PR or citizenship, as the residency requirements have been stretched out in the new framework. For Singaporeans or PRs whose foreign dependants do not yet qualify for PR or citizenship, they can apply for long-term visit passes to remain in Singapore.

Sir, Ms Denise Phua asked for the number of foreign spouses of Singaporeans whose marriages were registered in Singapore and whose applications for long-term passes and PR were rejected in the last five years. ICA does not make a distinction between marriages registered in Singapore and those registered overseas. From 2005 to 2009, ICA processed an average of 15,400 long-term visit passes and 9,900 PR applications from foreign spouses of Singaporeans per year. Of these, about 2,200 LTVP and 4,500 PR applications were unsuccessful. So the success rate for LTVP is a high of 86%.

Ms Denise Phua asked if MHA will consider measures to increase the public's awareness that marriage registration in Singapore does not entitle foreign spouses of Singaporeans to long-term stay or PR. Over the years, Sir, we have reiterated in Parliament, for example, in July 2007 and again in January 2008, I think, in exchanges with both Ms Denise Phua and Ms Ellen Lee, that when a Singaporean marries a foreigner, the foreign spouse is not entitled to or automatically granted a long-term visit pass, PR or citizenship. The key consideration is whether the Singaporean can support his or her foreign spouse financially. And I believe most

Singaporeans are aware of this. In any case, I thank Ms Phua for giving me the opportunity to reiterate this policy again.

Sir, Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether ICA will grant long-term visit passes to foreign relatives of Singaporeans to help look after Singaporeans. Sir, Singaporeans can sponsor their immediate family members such as foreign parents, spouses and minor children for long-term stay but not other relatives. Each application for long-term stay is assessed on its own merits. Where a Singaporean family has critical needs and has no other immediate options available locally to provide care to a family member such as when there is a new-born baby, ICA may, on a case-by-case basis, allow a foreign relative such as a foreign spouse’s mother to extend her stay here. Sir, this is to help the family with interim care-giving for a limited duration while they look for alternative arrangements for long-term care.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

[ Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 20, 22, 26, 30-31, 35-37, 40-42 and 44 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 17-19, 21, 23-25, 27-29, 32-34, 38-39 and 43 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 19th May 2010.]

*Cols. 465-480.

Order for Second Reading read.

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

HEA and previous amendments to HEA

The Hindu Endowments Act (Chapter 364) has its beginnings in the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Ordinance of the Straits Settlements (Ordinance 17 of 1905). Subsequently, the Hindu Endowments Act (Act 30 of 1968) provided for the Hindu Endowments Board to take over, in May 1969, the administration of Hindu religious and charitable endowments – notably the Sri Mariamman Temple (at South Bridge Road), the Sri Srinivasa Perumal Temple (at Serangoon Road), the Sri Vairavimada Kaliamman Temple (in Toa Payoh) and the Sri Sivan Temple (in Geylang). These temples have previously been vested in the original Muslim and Hindu Endowments Board.

The Act was last substantially amended in 1993 to empower the Hindu Endowments Board to acquire property and to mortgage its property in order to raise funds to redevelop the property either solely or in a joint venture.

Proposed amendments

Sir, the proposed amendments to the Hindu Endowments Act have three main objectives: (i) to broaden the powers of the Hindu Endowments Board; (ii) to update the penalties for non-compliance with any requisition or order of the Board, and; (iii) to protect the members of the Board, the Secretary of the Board and any person acting under the direction of the Board from personal liability. In addition, the Bill also incorporates several minor and consequential amendments.

My Ministry, together with the Hindu Endowments Board, has embarked in the past two years on a series of public consultation efforts, including dialogue with key leaders from the Hindu and Indian organisations on these proposals. We have received broad-based support

and, where possible, we have also incorporated their suggestions into the amendments which you see in the Bill before you. Allow me to briefly describe the key features of the Bill.

Powers and functions of Board

Sir, since the last amendments 17 years ago, there has been a healthy growth in the Hindu population in Singapore. Hindu religious organisations have been more active in promoting a broad range of educational, cultural, social and welfare activities for their devotees and for the larger community in Singapore. In line with our multi-racial and multi-religious society, the Board and the Hindu temples have also been actively involved in interfaith efforts.

The amendments will give the Board wider scope to be involved in activities that are not purely temple-related but, nevertheless, of importance to the Hindu community at large.

As a trusted and knowledgeable body within the community, the Hindu Endowments Board is well-placed to perform these additional roles. It is therefore timely, Sir, to repeal and re-enact section 21 of the Act to provide the Board with the broader mandate to also expend its income to conduct social, cultural and educational activities which are determined by the Board to be for the public benefit. As is established in the common law, the term, "public benefit" does not require every single member of the public to benefit but can be confined to a section of the public, so long as that section of the public is sufficiently large or open in nature having regard to the charitable purposes that are to be carried out. For example, in the case of the "Ashram" – which is a halfway house run by Hindu Endowments Board (HEB) – although it benefits a section of the public

mainly, former drug addicts and its clients, in fact, include non-Hindus. This "Ashram" ultimately benefits society as a whole.

Power to form company, etc

The current Act provides for the Hindu Endowments Board to enter into a partnership to develop any property vested or acquired by the Board. This clause was added during the 1993 amendments to enable the Board to redevelop its property at Little India. That clause, however, is not wide enough to cover other areas of activities which the Board may, from time to time, find it necessary to pursue either through a joint venture or through incorporate companies.

I therefore propose to introduce a new section 17A which will expand the powers of the Board, to allow it to form companies directly or enter into joint ventures which are not confined to property development.

Updating of penalties for non-compliance

The third amendment deals with the penalties for non-compliance. Under the Act, the Board actually has a fair degree of investigative authority over other Hindu endowments in Singapore. To give teeth to these powers, section 24 acts as a penal provision which deals with persons who fail to cooperate with the Board. This penalty was last revised in 1952, and is now clearly inadequate.

The proposed revision of penalties in section 24 takes reference from the Charities Act as most Hindu endowments are also charities, in any case. To make the penalty consistent with provisions in the Charities Act, the maximum penalty will now be revised upwards from the present $400 to $5,000, while the fine for continuing non-cooperation will be reduced from the current $100 per day to $50 per day.

Protection from personal liability

Sir, the last amendment proposes for a new section 34A to remove personal liability for Board members except in cases of gross negligence. As trustees of the endowments administered by the Hindu Endowments Board, members of the Board can be held personally accountable if endowment funds are expended for purposes that are not authorised.

However, Sir, members of the Board are volunteers. This proposed change aims to protect these volunteers if they have acted in good faith in executing their functions and duties. Their fiduciary responsibilities, however, will continue to apply to all Board members.

Sir, to conclude, the Hindu Endowments Board must continue to evolve in its role in order to stay relevant in today’s society. The key amendments in this Bill will further help the Board and its leadership rise to meet the new challenges and fulfil its expanded roles in the future.

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 Vivian Balakrishnan].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

3.08 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to

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

Since the amendments in 2007 to the Land Titles (Strata) Act (LTSA), my Ministry has continued to consider public suggestions on how to improve the Act further. As part of our review, we have also consulted with industry experts such as academics, lawyers, property consultants, Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore (REDAS) and representatives from the Strata Titles Board. This Bill is a result of that exercise.

Context of amendments to the Land Titles (Strata) Act

In 1999, the LTSA was amended to provide for en bloc sales to be completed with majority consent. Depending on the age of the development, the criterion for majority consent is now pegged at 80%, or 90%, based on share values and floor area.

More than 10 years have passed since we made this amendment to the Act. There have been a variety of completely opposing viewpoints expressed on this as well as other aspects of this particular piece of legislation. Some have criticised that the policy of allowing en bloc sales undermined the property rights of individual owners, resulting in homeowners being evicted from their homes against their wishes. There have been calls for a reversion to the pre-1999 regime, where unanimous consent was required for an en bloc sale. Others have called for a restriction of an en bloc sale by majority consent to only much older buildings or if there are structural defects. And yet, others have argued the opposite: that the consent requirements for en bloc sales are too onerous and that we should, in fact, lower the requirements further. There have also been calls for procedural requirements to be relaxed even further. For example, there have been strong calls

to scrap the five-day cooling off period and the requirements to have a lawyer witness in the signing of the collective sale agreement by flat owners.

Our approach has been to do what we believe is right as between the competing interests. Each owner has a right to live undisturbed in his flat and has the right to decide whether to sell or not to sell his flat. At the same time, majority views on whether there should be a sale of the development should be recognised as well. And there is public interest in intensifying developments and rejuvenating older developments.

These different interests need to be balanced. The proposed amendments seek to achieve that balance, further to the 2007 amendments.

The LTSA serves as a framework for all strata owners, be they pro-sale or anti-sale, to jointly decide whether to carry out an en bloc sale. The Government monitors the en bloc sale market and, where necessary, will refine the Act as we are proposing to do today.

Role of the Strata Titles Board

I will now highlight the key amendments. First, is the amendment to have the Strata Titles Board (STB) focus on its mediatory role for en bloc sale applications.

Currently, the STB assesses all en bloc sale applications that have achieved the 80% or 90% majority consent requirement. This is to ensure that each en bloc sale transaction is done in good faith and complies with the provisions under the LTSA. The STB executes this role by both mediating and adjudicating on objections, filed by minority owners, who are against the en bloc sale.

In recent years, a number of such sale applications have become highly contentious with objectors raising questions on points of law, ranging from judiciary to constitutional law. Despite the best efforts of STB to mediate and adjudicate, a significant number of these cases have ended up in the High Court and even the Court of Appeal. These complex cases have resulted in protracted proceedings at the STB. This has strained the STB's resources and has also affected its ability to consider other applications promptly.

We, therefore propose that the STB focus on its mediatory function for en bloc sale applications. This will allow the STB to devote its attention to mediate on the relatively "straight-forward" cases. If mediation is successful and all objections to an en bloc sale application have been withdrawn, the STB can proceed to issue an en bloc sale order. To prevent undue delays and to give greater certainty to the mediation process, it is proposed that the STB will be given up to a maximum of 60 days, from the first day of mediation to try and resolve any objection for each application. For contentious cases, when it becomes obvious that any further mediation is not going to be useful, the STB may issue a "stop order" to conclude the mediation process. Majority owners can then choose to apply to the High Court for adjudication.

There have been some public concerns that this Amendment will make it more difficult and costly for minority owners to file objections to an en bloc sale application. The fact is that, in contentious cases, the process is likely to be long drawn and parties may have to seek legal representation, if they want to pursue every avenue. That is already the position now. After the amendments, minority owners can continue to file their objections to the STB, and the STB will then try to resolve any disagreement through mediation. If there is no resolution at the STB's mediation stage,

the STB will then issue a "stop order", as I mentioned earlier. If the majority owners will not proceed to bring the case to the High Court for adjudication within 14 days of such a "stop order", the en bloc sale application will lapse. If the case is brought before the High Court, objectors can then decide whether they wish to continue with their objections to the sale.

This new regime will apply to applications that are made to the STB after the new Act has come into force. Other than this set of amendments, we also intend to amend the Land Titles (Strata) Act Schedules, which are subsidiary legislations. Some of them are of considerable public interest and I will refer to them.

Two-year restriction period requirement

We will amend the Land Titles (Strata) Act Schedules to impose stricter requirements for owners to restart en bloc sale attempts, if there has been a preceding failed attempt.

In recent years, there have been growing complaints against pro-sale owners especially "en bloc raiders". These raiders will repeatedly try to initiate en bloc sale attempts even when they failed to get sufficient support from other owners in previous attempts. Our view is that such repeated attempts, especially frivolous ones, should be discouraged. If there is no prospect of an en bloc sale succeeding, then owners should not be harassed, nor should owners be worn down or be subjected to attrition tactics. The owner's right to live in peace and not be subjected to repeated attempts should be respected.

We therefore propose to introduce a two-year restriction period starting from the date of a failed en bloc attempt. Currently, an en bloc sale attempt can be

initiated by convening a general meeting where owners will decide whether to form a collective sale committee and to elect members to this committee. The Act already stipulates that a general meeting shall be convened as long as there is sufficient support from at least 20% of the owners by share value or 25% of the total number of owners within that development. Currently, this 20% or 25% requisition rule applies even if there have been prior failed en bloc sale attempts.

Hereafter, if a strata development encounters a failed attempt and the two-year restriction period kicks in, the first retry to convene a general meeting to form a new sale committee will need to meet at a higher requisition level of 50% either by share value or total number of owners. If there is a further failed attempt within the same restriction period, subsequent retries to convene a general meeting to form a sale committee will need to meet an even higher requisition level of 80% either by share value or total number of owners, ie, there must be a high degree of certainty that the proposal will succeed before the general meeting can be convened.

The 50% and 80% requisition levels will only apply to general meetings to form a sale committee. For all other general meetings convened for the purposes of the en bloc sale, the existing requirements for the 20% or 25% requisition level will continue to apply. At the end of the two-year restriction period, the requisition level will revert to the original 20% or 25% requirements. These new rules will apply to all strata developments in which there is a failed attempt after the new legislation has come into force and the schedules are amended.

We will also amend the Land Titles (Strata) Act schedules to expand the requirements for owners to declare their

interests if they are standing for election to a collective sale committee. Currently, candidates must declare if they have interest in any property developer, property consultant, marketing agent, or legal firm that may constitute a conflict of interest within the proposed en bloc sale attempt.

Hereafter, it is proposed that candidates will also be required to declare the extent of ownership they have in the strata development. In addition, they will have to declare any ownership interests held by connected persons related to them. Such connected persons will include immediate family members as well as companies in which the candidate and/or his family collectively hold more than 5% voting power. The aim of this additional disclosure requirement is to enhance the transparency of the sales committee election process and help other owners make a more informed decision on whom they should elect to their sale committee.

Such disclosure requirements will not be restricted to the sale committee election phase. Serving members of established sale committees will also be required to update the chairperson of the respective sale committees within seven days of knowing any changes to their declared interests. Consequently, the sale committee will be required to put up notices in the strata development notifying other owners of such new declarations within seven days. These disclosure requirements will apply to all sale committees which are formed after the new Act has come into force. However, we recognise that there may already be existing sale committees during this interim period. For such sale committees, members will have to make additional declarations to their respective chairpersons within thirty days of the amended schedules coming into force.

There are in addition a few other ancillary amendments to the Land Titles (Strata) Act schedules. These amendments seek to clarify and streamline the en bloc sale procedures. The first amendment will provide that once the sale committee has been formed, it will have up to one year to prepare its collective sale agreement and to obtain the first signature for its agreement. If the sale committee fails to do so, it will automatically be dissolved. This ensures that the sale committee cannot remain dormant after its formation and drag out the en bloc sale process indefinitely.

The second amendment will provide that the general meeting convene for the purposes of the en bloc sale shall be dissolved if the meeting quorum is not met within an hour of the designated start time of the meeting. This amendment will help to provide certainty on whether such general meetings can proceed.

Third, currently sale committees are required to hold general meetings to provide updates to owners on its sales such as the consent level obtained on the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA), the number of bids and bid amounts obtained on the sale tender, and the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase agreement with the eventual buyer.

The requirement for sale committees to hold such general meetings will be removed. Instead, sale committees are to hold simple meetings to inform owners of these issues. The intention is to avoid making the process of updating owners too onerous. This will also minimise the drawing down of management funds by sale committees to convene general meetings.

However, not all general meeting requirements will be removed. Sale committees will still need to convene general meetings when owners are required to decide on critical issues such

as the appointment of lawyers and corporate consultants, the approval of the method to the portion sale proceeds and other terms and conditions under the CSA.

Lastly, Sir, I would like to touch on suggestions which have been raised by some but which we have decided not to adopt in our regulations. There have been calls to disallow management corporation members from being members on the sale committee concurrently. This is due to concerns over a potential conflict of interest. We have considered this issue carefully and have concluded that we should not institute such a legislative requirement.

Each strata development has its own unique set of circumstances. The decisions on who should be eligible to stand for election to the sale committee are best left to the owners of each development to decide. For example, in smaller strata developments, there may simply be insufficient owners who are willing to volunteer and serve separately on the management corporation and the sale committee. There will also be owners who prefer to appoint trusted and long-serving members of the MC council to represent them in their sale committee as well. I should add that even as a management corporation council member becomes a member of the sale committee, he or she still has a responsibility to uphold the duties charged to the management corporation council. Any dereliction of duties should be reported to the Building Construction Authority (BCA).

We will also not remove two other requirements to those who are pro en bloc as well as some industry professionals that have been asking for. One, the five-day cooling off period after the CSA is signed and, two, the need for owners to sign the CSA in the presence of a lawyer. The property which is to be the subject of

a CSA may often be a very significant asset for the owner. It is important that the owners understand the CSA and it is important to avoid any arguments as to what was or was not said to them. It is therefore best to continue to keep the requirement that the lawyer must be present when the CSA is signed. The importance of ensuring the integrity of the transaction outweighs the administrative issues of having a lawyer present for each owner's signature.

We also want to ensure that the consent that the owner gives is informed, genuine consent. Owners will be contracting to sell their flats in multi-million-dollar transactions. In that context, it is appropriate to give them a few days to reflect on their decision after they have signed. That imposes some uncertainty for those seeking consent but all things considered, it is difficult to argue against giving house owners more time to reflect on their decision on the sale of their homes.

Sir, through these amendments contained in this Bill, we hope to improve the regulations governing en bloc sale transactions and ensure a fair environment where the interests of all strata property owners are balanced be they pro-sale or anti-sale.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.25 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

I wish to raise three queries. The first relates to the proposed two-year restriction period following a failed en bloc attempt.

En bloc sales have generated much debate, controversy and litigation. But at

heart of the legislation lies a fundamental principle – to what extent should the Government interfere in the rights of parties to own and dispose of their homes? For older apartments and condominiums, we have given legal effect to the concept of majority rule because it is in the interest of Singapore to maximise the use of land.

The potential of high sale prices have led to instances where en bloc sales have been pursued relentlessly by some to the anger and unhappiness of those who oppose them. Neighbours have turned against each other. It leaves a bitter taste, whether the sale is ultimately successful or not.

So we are now introducing more measures to temper the powers of the majority. One proposed amendment creates more barriers for owners to make repeated attempts to restart the en bloc sale process. A two-year restriction period is being proposed after a failed en bloc sale attempt. During these two years, the first attempt to convene an EOGM to appoint a sale committee will require the agreement of 50% by share value or of the total number of owners. Any subsequent attempts to convene an EOGM within this period will require 80%.

I understand the rationale for the proposal. It has the benefit of preventing unnecessary depletion of management corporation funds and provide owners disinterested in selling with some reprieve. However, the Government has to be clear what its role is. An en bloc sale is ultimately an agreement between private home owners and subsequently, the developer. Although some safeguards should be put in place to protect the minority, are we going too far by dictating when owners can even embark on the process? I accept that repeated attempts can be very inconvenient and frustrating

for unwilling sellers, but this is something owners should work out on their own collectively. It is no different with how owners decide what rules should govern the management of their property. There is no limit to the number of EOGMs owners may call may call on other issues. Why should en bloc sales be any different?

I therefore suggest that the threshold should remain 50% for all subsequent attempts. If more than 50% of owners want to explore a sale, we should not stand in their way. Ultimately, if they cannot secure the necessary 80% or 90% consent, the sale will fail. The law should not have to step in just because of possible inconvenience and annoyance. Those who disagree simply have to say "no". If the concern is that MCST funds will be wasted by the calling of numerous meetings, then all we need to do is require those who requisition subsequent meetings to bear the costs of those meetings, to be reimbursed only if the subsidiary proprietors agree to embark on the en bloc process. That should be sufficient to discourage frivolous requisitions of meetings.

The next issue I would like to raise is whether the Government should review which buildings qualify for en bloc sale. An en bloc sale essentially concerns three interests groups – the majority, the minority and the State. As the building gets older, the national interest in redevelopment becomes more important. For buildings that are 20 years or older, an 80% majority is required. For those that are between 10 and 20 years, a 90% majority. However, 10 years is too short a time to justify the need to re-develop. It is a waste of resources for buildings that are relatively new to be demolished. It is difficult to see how national interest can override the rights of private ownership in such cases. Likewise, there is a more

compelling case to reduce the threshold for buildings which are 30, 40 or even 50 years old. Would the Government therefore consider reviewing the current age under which a building qualifies for en bloc sale and to reduce the thresholds for very old buildings?

Third, a point of clarification on the issue of conflict of interest. Under the proposed amendments, a person standing for election as a member of a collective sale committee must declare any conflict of interest, failing which his election shall be void. That is clearly a sensible move. Likewise, a serving member of a sale committee must also declare conflicts within seven days of being aware of the same. However, the amendments do not specifically prescribe any consequences of his failure to do so. Could the Minister clarify what consequences apply or are intended?

3.29 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this topic.

I support the strengthening of this Bill, which is both timely and necessary. However, I would like to make two suggestions on the process.

The newspapers and commentators have already spoken about the changes to the cooling off period which are good, and which I support. Overall, the changes will ensure that the sales process is taken seriously, and is moved along expeditiously.

More importantly, I think, while it recognises the role that personal interests and emotions play a large part in any property transactions, it also recognises the need for the distillation of a collective interest and for this process to be fair as well as quick.

It is therefore a good idea to allow the process to move more quickly to the Courts. This is not because I do not support the idea of mediation, but because I do not think the same body should mediate and adjudicate. More critically, I also think that allowing more time for emotional debate does not help the resolution of competing interests during en bloc sales.

Sir, an en bloc sale requires the need to reconcile many different points of views. But when we speak of collective decisions, there are basically three ways to get it right. First, your decision is right if it is the most reasonable. Second, your decision is right if you go through the right process. Third, your decision is right if it takes into account all legitimate interests of the case.

The first is the best, of course, especially if there is full agreement and a unanimous decision is reached. The second relates to the process of mediation and adjudication, and it is my view that the amendments to the Bill improves these processes as well. The third way refers to adjudication – of the process of taking into account the different interests in the case – whether this is for profit or for sentimental reasons. In principle, therefore, I feel that any decision emanates from this Bill is fully justified.

I believe that when rules are clear and when the interest cannot be reconciled, we should then take a expeditious route, bite the bullet and allow the process itself to provide the justification of the decision. Hopefully, the thought of going to court, which could be an expensive and potentially difficult process, should be a deterrent forwards litigation and not an excuse to drag out mediation. My only reservation comes from the constitution of the sales committee.

First, I see that the new law allows a simple majority of owners to vote out

dissenters from the committee. That is to say, a sale committee member who does not agree to the sale can now be voted out. To me, this may create the situation of a committee that is inherently biased towards a sale.

We ought to retain members because they are reasonably intelligent, have some stake in realising the full value of the property and are willing to participate intelligently in the process of negotiation. Just because they are against any particular sale, or terms of sale, should not automatically disqualify him.

That person should also be agnostic about whether he is opposed to or supportive of any particular sale. If he does not agree to any particular sale, as long as he discharges his duties with proper due diligence, disclosure and governance, I feel he should be allowed to disagree. In any case, the strength of numbers will already count in the voting process of the en bloc sale itself.

Second, and relatedly, I feel that with the time limit on mediation and a potential swifter process to the courts, there needs to be some minimum qualification that members of sales committee should have. For example, they will need to understand the basics of property law, property rights, conveyance and so forth. As the sales committee now will more likely need to work at a different pace and level from the past, I would ask the Minster to consider if we need to state some minimum requirements or criteria be it the knowledge of the law, evaluation and estate management to qualify people who want to sit on these committees?

Sir, I support the Bill.

3.34 pm

Thank you, Sir, for

this opportunity to place on record my endorsement for this important Bill.

Home ownership is, to many, more than just an economic investment. Especially for elderly homeowners, the home is a repository of precious social memories. When en bloc fever hits a development, it is particularly heart-wrenching when we read of elderly homeowners who are forced to sell their homes, relocate and, as a result, suffer spatial and social displacement.

With your permission, Sir, I would like to share with the House the research findings of my colleagues at the university on the impact of en bloc sales on older persons and community building. Assoc. Prof. Alice Christudason, from the Department of Real Estate, and Assoc. Prof. Kalyani Mehta, from the Department of Social Work, are the investigators in this project funded by the NUS.

They found that those had lived in the estate for about 20 years or more, and these are usually the older residents, they were often negatively affected by the whole process of Collective Sales (CS). Apart from the destruction of their social support systems, respondents in my colleagues' survey expressed great anxiety about finding replacement homes, the actual moving process and the problems of adjusting to a new living environment. Some even suffered traumatic health consequences.

Therefore, I am in strong support of this Bill as it incorporates reforms which protect the minority homeowners who are not in favour of the en bloc proposition.

This Bill further empowers the Strata Titles Board (STB) to ensure that each application is done in good faith. Of significance are the disclosure requirements for individuals who stand for election to the Collective Sale Committee (CSC), as well as the extended

restrictions on when an Extraordinary General Meeting can be called.

I see these as proposals that serve to protect the minority proprietors who are often older residents. In addition to these, my colleagues have also made three recommendations based on their research findings which I would like to share with the House.

The first is the creation of a resource unit, perhaps to be located in the STB, that will serve to mitigate the stress and negative consequences of relocation, especially for the vulnerable homeowners, which include frail elderly living alone, the physically handicapped and the mentally challenged.

The second proposal is the publication of an information booklet that can be made available to those who require clarification about the en bloc process. This publication can include fundamental concepts such as share value and the apportionment method, obligations of those in the CSC, grounds on which a minority can object to the sale application, the role of the STB and other rights of the minority including adjudication.

The third recommendation proposes that, in view of environmental concerns on wastage due to unnecessary construction, the age and state of repair of buildings be included as factor in the STB’s evaluation of the application for CS.

Christudason's and Mehta’s preliminary findings reveal that for 223 out of the 325 buildings which have gone through CS since 1999, the majority, 80 buildings were between 21-25 years of age. However, a small number of developments, 28 buildings were only 11-15 years of age at the point of going through CS.

The researchers proposed that Singapore could consider the example of

Hong Kong where the age and state of repair of a building are factors which the Tribunal must take into consideration before it approves an application.

I shared these proposals with the House and the Minister as I believe that they will further enhance the safeguards to protect homeowners who wish to enjoy the fruits of their labour in their retirement years.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.39 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill aims to provide greater transparency and streamline procedures for en bloc sales to avert the long-drawn conflicts arising from such property transactions which have plagued us. I am happy to note that the role of the Strata Titles Board (STB) will be refined to focus on mediation (with a maximum mediation period of 60 days) and it is henceforth empowered to issue a "stop order" to cease mediation if the owners are keen to bring the case to court. This change could potentially help to reduce the costs and time taken to resolve more contentious en bloc applications via the litigation route.

I am also pleased to note the requirement that a person standing in a collective sales committee must disclose the extent of his or his kin's ownership in the development to offer greater

transparency. To further expedite the process, the sales committee can vote off a non-consenting member by a simple majority when an application for the sale has been made to the STB.

The imposition of a two-year restriction period on en bloc properties that fail to sell is one that has so far garnered mixed reactions from the industry and the ground. Those who wish to re-start the sales process during the restriction period will also have to abide by stricter rules. This measure could also prevent the draw down of management committee funds where Extraordinary General Meetings (EOGMs) are convened incessantly. Furthermore, the first re-try to convene an EOGM to re-appoint a sale committee will need to meet a requisition threshold of 50% by share value or total number of owners. This threshold will be moved to 80% for subsequent tries to convene an EOGM during the two-year period.

I opine that it is timely to remind ourselves what was said in Parliament in 1998 and 1999 (as reported in Hansard Vol. 69 at Columns. 601-607 and Columns. 632-634) that the en bloc sale legislation was to, I quote, "create more housing units in prime 999-year leasehold or freehold areas for Singaporeans" and that "a secondary benefit is that these developments, especially the older ones, could have been rejuvenated through the en bloc process". The secondary benefits of urban rejuvenation and higher land-use intensity as part of our national agenda may well be achieved at personal cost to citizens, by (i) impacting their homes, and (ii) downsizing or downgrading the real estate assets that form part of their retirement nest egg. Whilst it is recognised that en bloc sale offers one more channel to monetise the assets, we should bear in mind that demographic age profile of owners spans a spectrum and

too early monetisation for owners below the age of 70 may not be prudent, given present life expectancies of 80 for men and 84 for women.

More importantly, the changes should be calibrated to protect homeowners. The playing field is not level from the start as in en bloc sales, homeowners are the less-savvy sellers pitted against corporate developers who are expert industry players. Homeowners rely heavily on valuers, lawyers and property agents to safeguard their interests. But the valuer is mandated by law to come on stage only after the curtain falls – "to provide independent valuation upon close of public tender" and the lawyers and agents are not prohibited by law to work on no-sale-no-fee basis despite the inherent moral hazards. It is also noteworthy that these valuers, lawyers and agents have recurring business relationships with developers whereas they are likely to act only one-time for the en bloc homeowners. In the same vein, Sale Committee members and majority consenters are effectively selling unwilling homeowners' units along with their own units when minority dissenters are forced to sell under a collective sale order. A great deal is at stake.

I believe that transparency, accuracy, currency, relevancy and equity are important tenets which may well be improved if the Minister considers the following enhancements:

Apportionment Method Mandate. This requires a written report by an independent property appraiser prior to approving the terms of the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA) as to the appropriate apportionment method to apply for the estate with justification for such recommendation. This should not be too costly relative to a full valuation report and may be a more practical compromise. Yet, it would establish one of the key decision factors on a professional basis.

This goes towards improving accuracy and equity.

Agent's Business Proposal for potential developer-buyers and valuation report. Another possibility is to require that the Agent's Business Proposal with sensitised analysis of Residual Land Value (RLV) to be given to potential developer-buyers so that, in turn, the business proposal can be distributed to each owner as the agent's commission is paid by owners upon the sale of the estate. To further improve transparency and equity, two representatives from the agent's company should affirm or swear a Statutory Declaration that they have provided the full and complete set of business proposals to each owner for further consideration. By the same token, the valuation report to be obtained upon "close of public tender", must be one based on updated Development Guide Plan (DGP) specifications, projected RLVs with Development Gross Floor Area (GFA) sensitisations and apportionment method. Valuation is an art and not a science. Hence, it is not uncommon that interested parties will hunt down valuers who are prepared to say what these parties want to hear. This may well go towards improving transparency and currency. (c) Re-affirmation by majority consenters. Perhaps it is also timely to mandate re-affirmation by majority consenters prior to execution of Sale and Purchase Agreement with developer-buyer for equity. At present, the Bill provides for up to a 24-month window to (i) procure the Collective Sale Agreement signatures, (ii) commit developer-buyer and (iii) file notice of application of collective sale with the Strata Titles Board. This gestation period is too long. As en bloc interest is usually sparked in an upward moving property market, there is increased likelihood that within the period of up to 24 months, the current market value may already be out-of-sync with the reserve price that was locked-in by the

majority consenters via the Collective Sale Agreement. Despite these pre-loaded factors (long gestation period and upward spiralling market), the Bill does not provide for re-affirmation of majority consenters. Even where the sale is by tender, there should be a simplified re-affirmation procedure whereby the lawyer must produce proof of dispatch of such document. The re-affirmation document could then be collected by the property agent for consolidation by the lawyer or returned direct to the lawyer via registered post (or fax to be followed by post) within a stipulated period from date of dispatch. The level of re-affirmations should meet the requisite majority consent level but need not match the previous consent level. There could also be a deeming provision that non-return of such document by the specified deadline would be tantamount to re-affirmation.

For practical reasons, I can appreciate why the Bill mandates an independent valuation report only upon close of tender, although that would clearly mean the two key factors, ie, the reserve price and the apportionment method that determine the level of majority consent were set without professional basis. As these two factors are inscribed into the Collective Sale Agreement which is mandated for a long lag time of up to 24 months to lock-in the majority consenters, will the Bill be, in fact, putting the Sale Committee and the valuer in a bind?

For the Sale Committee, as proven in the Horizon Towers en bloc fiasco, the Sale Committee volunteers could be potentially ensnared into a situation of "damned if you do and damned if you don't". When the market is likely on an uptake to spark en bloc interest, it is naturally in the interest of the no-sale-no-fee property agent to recommend to the Sale Committee to launch tender just before any likely market run-up in order to secure a sale as opposed to launching a tender at market peak. Once the reserve

price is hit (despite the fact that such reserve price could potentially have been set some 18-20 months ago), the Sale Committee may be wary of aborting the sale even though they realise that the market run-up has made such reserve price out-of-sync because the valuation report would not reflect run-up as it would be based on values prior to the run-up.

For the valuer, given the legacy issues created by the Commissioner of Buildings, pre-April 2005, where the bandwidths for share values were set at a wide 100 sq m interval and the typical composition mix in most estates where big-unit owners are outnumbered, it is natural that the line of least resistance would be exploited by the Sale Committee, agent and small-unit owners even though it defies equity and transparency. Hence, with 80% or more of the owners pre-agreeing to an apportionment method set without professional basis and locked into the CSA, no valuer would commit professional suicide to say upon close of tender that the apportionment method in the CSA was improper. All the more so when the valuer knows that the agent and lawyer would have spent time and money for potentially up to 18-20 months of marketing the estate, marshalling consent, drafting legal documents, witnessing CSA signatures, attending EOGMs, etc, and if the sale should fail because of valuer's dispute with the apportionment method, the valuer knows that no fees would be paid to the agent and lawyer. By close of tender, the potential developer-buyers would also have spent time and effort to evaluate the project before bidding. Compounding all of the above is the business reality that valuers depend on agents, lawyers and developers for their professional appointments and business referrals on an ongoing basis, whereas the valuer acts for the en bloc estate only once. Would the present Bill's framework

serve to pre-load the dice against homeowners? En bloc sales also have harsh social impacts on the elderly in our society. I am also referring to the same National University of Singapore (NUS) research project entitled, "The Impact of Collective (En bloc ) Sales on Older People and Community Building" undertaken by Assoc. Prof. Alice Christudason and former NMP, Assoc. Prof. Kalyani Mehta, that my fellow Member, NMP Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan, has mentioned earlier. It stated that older persons who had lived in the estate for about 20 years or more were often negatively affected by the whole process of collective sales. And I shall not repeat all that she has mentioned earlier.

In view of the various and numerous contentious issues that have arisen out of this phenomenon, it would be good to have more information made available to homeowners who require clarification about the collective sale process as they are likely to be facing en bloc for the first time in their lives at an advanced age and most are at a loss as to what to do next. This can reduce misconceptions and provide homeowners with a basic understanding of collective sale and their rights.

In the light of all these, it is imperative that en bloc sales should be handled with utmost care and resolute Government intervention to protect homeowners and where education should be the desired approach instead of leaving it purely to free market forces. There are dissenting views that the Bill, by mandating that the will of the requisite majority would prevail over the will of the minority, even in respect of ownership of private property, has already impinged upon the concept of free market forces which in essence should be based on 100% consent as was the case prior to October 1999 when the previous Bill was gazetted. However, free

market forces cannot be given full rein in all circumstances especially when it affects larger national and communal needs. It is believed that once this can is opened, it may unleash different worms with a new set of forces that justify recalibration to counterbalance them. Looking at the frenzy that surrounded en bloc transactions in the recent two years, it is clear that one of the key factors for the potential developer-buyer astronomical bidding price is the residual land value which en bloc legislation may be unwittingly unlocking for the developer-buyers more than for the homeowners. I wonder if the Ministry could clarify if this perspective is correct.

With these considerations, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Members who have spoken on the Bill. Members have generally been supportive of the Bill, but they have made some suggestions and raised some questions.

Before I address the specific issues raised, let me reiterate the Government's thinking in deciding what should be the safeguards prescribed in the legislation. We are guided by two main considerations.

First, we seek to balance the interests of all owners. Those who are anti-en bloc sale want to have the sale process made more difficult; those who are pro-sale want the process made easier. Our task is to decide what would be a fair regime that will make the process more transparent to protect the interest of all strata unit owners, whether they are pro-sale or anti-sale. Neither side will be totally happy with the decision of the Government. But it is a matter of judgment and we have to try and strike a fair balance.

Second, the Government is guided by the principle that we should not micro-manage the process and prescribe too

many requirements as they may not be applicable to every development. Some of the measures suggested by Members are not without merit. They may well be very useful for specific developments, and owners may wish to adopt them. But it does not follow that these requirements should be or can be prescribed for every en bloc sale. Doing so may introduce unnecessary rigidity and pose considerable difficulties for owners if the requirement does not make sense for their particular development. Hence, our stance is not to be overly prescriptive. The real point is that owners are free to adopt these measures if they think they are suitable for their particular circumstances. Thus, the ultimate choice is with the owners themselves on how the sale should be conducted.

Ms Lee, taking the last point that she raised, made a reference to unanimous consent. One can really ask whether unanimous consent is the best way to achieve the objectives of unlocking the value in the land, and giving owners a say on how the collective properties should be developed. One single person in a 200-unit development could then hold up the entire development. Does that strike one as fair? So in all these things, you try and strike a balance. We have set 80% and 90% requirements. Mr Hri Kumar says why not go even lower. I will come back to that. But there are these competing interests and we balance them.

And I do not think it is these rules or the fact that we allow these en bloc sales that is necessarily contributing to the increase in property prices. That is subject to a whole variety of factors which is not appropriate to go into here. But supposing we made it very, very difficult to do en bloc sales, what do you think would be the impact on supply? What do you think will be the impact on prices?

Ms Lee and Prof. Straughan touched on the concept of social impact of en bloc

sales, particularly the impact on elderly owners.

For some elderly owners who have lived for a long period in strata units, I can understand how the process of selling and relocating may affect them emotionally. On the other hand, there may also be owners, elderly owners who welcome the opportunity to monetise their investment and sell their apartment units and perhaps move to another unit. We cannot decide on the relative merits between those who wish to sell and those who do not wish to sell. What we can do and have done is to provide a framework to allow the issue of sale to be decided by the vast majority of owners and put in place a process that is fair and transparent.

Ms Lee spoke about how en bloc sales are achieved at the personal costs to owners who have to sell their homes and downgrade their real assets. An en bloc sale can only take place if an overwhelming majority of owners think the sale is beneficial to them. It will be odd if more than 80% of owners vote for an en bloc sale which is disadvantageous to all of them. And the sale still has to pass the good faith test.

Ms Lee also asked if the Residual Land Value of the properties which results in "astronomical bidding price" by buyers is unlocking more value for the developer-buyers than the homeowners. If a transaction is fair, it should result in a win-win situation for the transacting parties. If buyers are prepared to pay very high prices, it must also benefit the homeowners who are selling their properties.

The legislation provides that the en bloc sale must be done through an open tender. This means that the price obtained should be the best price under the prevailing market conditions. But if sellers

feel that even this best price is not high enough and they are not benefiting adequately, they can choose not to sell.

Prof. Straughan suggested that a Resource Unit can be established to help vulnerable homeowners, such as the elderly, physically handicapped and mentally challenged, affected by such en bloc sale efforts. She also suggested the publication of an information booklet on the en bloc sale process.

MinLaw has been working to provide the public with information regarding en bloc sale regulations. For example, in 2009, arising from the public feedback on the lack of understanding over apportionment methods, we have worked with the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers (SISV) to issue a set of guidelines on general apportionment methods which owners may consider. The guidelines illustrate how and when to apply these apportionment methods. The guidelines can be found on SISV's website.

I thank Prof. Straughan for her suggestions. My Ministry will discuss with the STB and professional bodies such as the Law Society and SISV to see how we can put out more information.

Ms Lee also queried whether we have achieved the objective of creating more housing units in prime areas and rejuvenating older properties through en bloc sales. Let me share some statistics with the House.

Between 2005 and 2009, there were 462 en bloc transactions. Of these, almost half, or 217, are being redeveloped or have been redeveloped. These 217 developments originally had about 12,000 strata units – slightly less, 11,994. After redevelopment, the resulting new developments will have more than 26,000 strata units, more than doubling the number of strata units.

Specifically, for example, the 152-unit Westpeak Condominium, sold in 2006, will be redeveloped into The Parc Condominium, with 659 units. Also sold in 2006, Le Marque and Century Ville, totalling 53 units, will be redeveloped into 278-unit Cyan Condominium.

Prof. Straughan proposed that the STB should consider, among other factors, the age and state of repair of development in considering the application for en bloc sale. Mr Kumar asked if 10 years is too short a time to justify the need to redevelop.

The issue was discussed at length by the House when we were proposing amendments to the the Land Titles (Strata) Act (LT(S)A) in 1999. The matter was then referred to a Select Committee, which eventually took the view that it should ultimately be up to market forces that will determine whether an en bloc sale is economically viable. Demolishing younger buildings may not necessarily be a waste of resources if land potential can be better utilised through more intensive redevelopment. And if the owners themselves, or a vast majority of them, wish to do so, that ultimately is the litmus test.

That said, on the ground there has not been a rush to redevelop properties which are not too old. From 1999 until now, the STB had approved 160 applications for en bloc sales. Of these 160 cases, only one case involved a development less than 10 years old. It was nine years old at that time. The other 159 developments were more than 10 years old when they applied for an en bloc sale. (Ninety-nine percent were above 10 years old, 69% were above 20 years old and about 34% were more than 30 years.) There are, I note, some disparities between the statistics I have just cited and those cited by Prof. Straughan from the NUS report that she quotes. I am not sure of the data source

used by the NUS researchers. They may perhaps have included the developments which had obtained 100% consent from their owners to go for an en bloc sale. When there is a 100% consent, there is no need for owners to make an application to the Strata Titles Board for an en bloc sale. And if there is unanimous consent for an en bloc, really we should be careful about enacting rules which will prohibit sale based on the age of a property.

Mr Hri Kumar also asked if we have plans to reduce the consent level for buildings which are 30 or 40 years old. This point has been raised a number of times, by people who want the en bloc sale rules eased.

Mr Kumar said that the public interest in rebuilding such older developments should be given more weight. The House also heard a slightly contrary view from Prof. Straughan, who focused quite graphically on the impact on the elderly, and Ms Lee as well. So when you have as a clinical lawyer's approach contrasted with a sociologist's perspective, I was very tempted to say, "you know these corporate litigation lawyer types, they are all logic and no heart" but since Mr Kumar has at times shown that he has a heart, I cannot say that, I think.

However, humour aside, as of now, we see no compelling reasons to reduce the consent level. For older properties, the case for redevelopment is much stronger and it really should not be difficult to achieve 80% consent level.

And if people do not want to sell it – if you cannot get 80% and people do not want to sell, and without doing any research – I could suggest some reasons. They may well have people who have stayed there for a longer period of time, have a greater attachment and may well fall into the category that Prof. Straughan was talking about – older people – and if

they do not want to sell, you do not want to force them to sell either.

So, yes, there are arguments both ways, and we never say never, but we do not see at this stage, a reason to change the voting requirement.

Mr Kumar suggests also keeping the threshold at 50% for subsequent attempts in respect of the rule that we are proposing over a two-year moratorium. And "moratorium" is actually not the best word to describe it. When you have a failed attempt and you want to try again, you need to get a 50% consent before you try and if you fail again within that period, you need 80% consent level before your second try and all subsequent tries.

There is really no right and wrong level of threshold. We have to make a judgment call. Within a two-year period, if there were already two previous en bloc attempts which have failed, I think the signal from the majority, or at least a significant minority, of the owners is quite clear. Those who are pushing for en bloc sales should then respect the wishes of that significant minority.

If we keep the threshold level at 50%, this means that if only 50% of the owners are keen on an en bloc sale, they can make further failed attempts within a two-year period even if it is clear that they cannot get the 80% level for the sale. Now, really, there can be no objection in principle to require that before you restart the entire process, you have to make sure that you are going to succeed. If there is a third attempt within two years, there can be no objection in principle to requiring them to show that 80% of the people agree. And if they cannot agree, that means the attempt is almost certainly likely to fail. Then why put everyone through the process?

Our point also is that common funds are used for this exercise. And Mr Kumar says, "Well, you know, you can mandate that and say that they must pay out of their own pocket". Yes, we could do that, but there is the other aspect which I have emphasised, which is that in a development, if owners have made their views extremely clear, and there is no realistic prospect of success, these owners should not be bothered again and again.

And when the two-year period has lapsed, the consent level to convene an EOGM reverts to the lower 20% or 25% levels.

Mrs Mildred Tan voiced her concerns that the proposed amendment to allow a simple majority of Sale Committee members to vote out dissenting members from the Committee may result in a committee that is inherently biased towards an en bloc sale.

I think I need to clarify here, this provision can only be invoked after the Sale Committee had obtained the requisite 80% or 90% owner consent levels and has made the en bloc sale application to the Strata Titles Board.

As such, the provision will not diminish non-consenting owners' ability to participate in the en bloc sale process. It is only after the requisite 80% or 90% consent level has been reached that the Sale Committee can vote out dissenting members. It is at this stage that a non-consenting Sale Committee member can choose to file his or her objections to the sale application directly to the STB. The Sale Committee which represents the majority of the owners who had consented to the sale should be allowed to expedite with the sale process without being slowed down by non-consenting members on the committee.

Mrs Tan has also suggested that there should be a minimum qualification

standards stipulated for Sale Committee members. I appreciate the intent behind this suggestion but, again, I think we should not be micro-managing these issues. The owners should be free to decide who they would like to elect to represent them on the Sale Committee.

Ms Lee proposed that there should be requirements for an independent property appraiser to recommend an appropriate method to apportion sale proceeds among owners, prior to owners approving the terms of the Collective Sale Agreement.

Currently, the Act provides for an independent report on the method of distribution. This report, together with some other documents, is required to be sent to all owners before the en bloc sale application is made to the STB.

Beyond that, if owners feel that such a report would be useful for them to better understand the proposed en bloc sale, prior to signing the Collective Sales Agreement, they can always require the Sale Committee to provide such a report. Owners have the ultimate say. They can ask for what they think is necessary for the process, or for them to participate in the process.

If owners wish to find out more about apportionment methods, the SISV has issued a set of guidelines to recommend general apportionment methods. The guidelines also illustrate how and when to apply these apportionment methods. They can be found on SISV's website.

With regard to the requirement for a valuation report, the Sale Committee has to obtain a valuation report on the date of the close of the public tender or public auction. This is because we believe that this is the single most important juncture in the en bloc sale process where a valuation report will ensure that the development is not sold below prevailing market rates.

Beyond that, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for the provision of valuation reports to guide owners when they are signing the Collective Sales Agreement. Ultimately, it depends on the risk appetite and comfort level of different owners. Furthermore, valuation reports have a shelf life of a few weeks to several months depending on the volatility of the property market. Hence, it is best to leave it to the owners to jointly decide on the number and frequency of valuations to be carried out. We do not mandate that it should only be given at that point in time. We mandate that it should be given at such a point in time and all other points in time, it is up to the owners to decide if they want further valuations at whatever cost is appropriate.

Similarly, on Ms Lee's other proposal for the appointed property consultant or agent to provide their business proposals that they prepare for prospective buyers, it is best to leave these matters to the owners to request for such information if they consider it appropriate. It may be appropriate for some developments, it may not be appropriate for others.

At the end of the day, owners are making choices with respect to their properties which involve millions of dollars. You expect them to know what they want, and what sort of safeguards they wish. Our task is to prescribe certain minimum standards of conduct and to make sure that the whole process is fair, transparent and refine it as we go along, as we are doing now.

Ms Lee also proposed that there should be a mandatory requirement for a Sale Committee to seek reaffirmation from the owners before the award of a Sale tender. A Sale Committee has to act in accordance with the mandate specified in its Collective Sales Agreement. Thus, it really depends on what mandate is given to the Sale Committee. If the owners

empower the Sale Committee to make the decision for award of tender within certain prescribed parameters, without the need for reaffirmation, then it is not the Government's business to intercede and tell the owners how they should run the process.

Likewise, there is nothing in the legislation, either in the past or going forward, to prevent owners from specifying that they want the Sale Committee to seek such a reaffirmation from the owners before the tender is awarded. This can be provided in the Collective Sales Agreement if the majority wants.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents another step towards refining the en bloc sale regime in Singapore.

The Ministry will continue to review the Act in accordance with the state of the en bloc market, and the experience that we get, we will make further refinements if necessary.

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 Shanmugam].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

4.35 pm

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

This Bill, Sir, repeals and re-enacts the Criminal Procedure Code, which I will hereafter refer to as the CPC. The CPC sets out the procedures to be observed in the conduct of criminal cases in Singapore. It is a fundamental part of our Criminal Justice System.

Sir, the key principles underlying the approach we take in shaping the Criminal Justice System include the following: (1) Every person is presumed innocent. One is guilty only upon conviction by a Court. While we have specific exceptions in the law to this approach, the presumption of innocence is fundamental. (2) The procedure that is set out must be fair, and (3) the procedure must provide a system for arriving at the truth. That means that it should not be a system that leans towards conviction regardless of innocence or guilt. But it should also not be a system which gives the offender every possible technicality to escape conviction.

Each society seeks to strike a balance between the rights of society, to secure conviction of a person who commits an offence, and the rights of an individual, not to be wrongly convicted.

These amendments seek to strike the balance in a fair way. I will admit freely that there can be reasonable debate as to whether that balance has been rightly struck. There will be people who will disagree with the proposals. The procedure to be adopted for administration of criminal justice is an area where there are diverse and often contentious viewpoints. This is an evolutionary process and we will have to continue to be open to amending our criminal procedures to meet changing norms.

Consultation

In our efforts to achieve the correct balance that I referred to, we engaged in

extensive consultations. The draft Bill was first issued in December 2008. The public were invited to give their comments. There were several responses.

We then formed the working group, comprising representatives from relevant Government agencies, the Singapore Law Society, the Association of Criminal Lawyers in Singapore, faculty members from the National University of Singapore and the Singapore Management University, as well as other legal practitioners. The Working Group was tasked to examine the proposals which were received by my Ministry in the course of public consultations. Table top exercises were conducted by the Working Group to iron out the various procedures which were to be introduced by this Bill. After the Working Group had completed their discussions, my Ministry, together with its partner agencies, continued to review and deliberate on various aspects of the Bill in light of the points raised by the Working Group.

Each and every proposal has been given due consideration. Several proposals were adopted, for instance, the accused's whole statements (instead of only portions of those statements) would be provided by the Prosecution in discovery; the Preliminary Inquiry process was retained; the concept of using "oppression" as the touchstone for determining the voluntariness and, hence, admissibility of an accused person's confession was codified and even extended to all forms of statements.

Of course, not all suggestions could be taken on board. On a number of points the various members of the Working Group had to agree to disagree, but this was after a healthy and robust discussion of various points of view and concerns. This is best summed up by what the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS), through its President,

Mr Subhas Anandan, has told us, and I quote,

"ACLS had made written submissions to the Ministry of Law during public consultations on the proposed amendments to the CPC. Although the CPC Bill which had its first reading in Parliament on 26 April this year did not accept many of its recommendations, ACLS is pleased to note the introduction of the Criminal Case Discovery Procedure in the CPC Bill. The Disclosure Procedure requires the Prosecution to give to the Defence, apart from the charge, a summary of facts, a list of witnesses and exhibits and the statements to be adduced at the trial. This is a welcome change. ACLS also fully supports the introduction of the new community sentences in the Bill."

The Working Group deserves our gratitude for helping us with this Bill. Its members are listed in Annex I* to my speech.

Let me now take Members through the key provisions.

Increased jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Courts

Clause 7 of the Bill increases the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Courts to hear offences which carried a maximum term of imprisonment of three years to five years instead. The jurisdiction of the District Court and the High Court remains the same.

Private prosecution

At present, the right of private prosecution is allowed in summary cases before a Magistrate's Court, or for non-seizable cases before a District Court.

Sir, as I mentioned earlier, the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Courts is being expanded. It is therefore no longer appropriate to allow private prosecutions

in respect of all cases triable before the Magistrates' Courts. Neither is it appropriate to tie this to non-seizable offences: some of these offences are punishable with terms of imprisonment of up to seven years.

Hereafter, pursuant to clause 11(10), private persons will be able to prosecute offences where the maximum punishment is less than three years' imprisonment, or which are punishable by fine only. Private prosecutions will be tied to less serious offences where the punishments are less severe.

Police enforcement powers

The Bill makes a number of amendments to rationalise Police enforcement powers. I will touch on two key changes: the seizure of property and Police powers of intervention.

Seizure of property

Clause 35 of the Bill builds upon the existing powers of the Police to seize property under certain circumstances, by expanding the powers to three specific classes of property: (1) Property in respect of which an offence is suspected to have been committed; (2) Property suspected to have been used or intended to be used to commit an offence – for example, dangerous weapons used to commit gang robbery, and (3) property suspected to constitute evidence of an offence, for example, bits of clothing found at a crime scene.

Property falling within the first and second classes will include not only the original property, but also any property that it has been converted into. So, for example, if a suspected watch thief has sold the stolen watch and used the proceeds to buy a computer, the Police may seize the computer instead.

If property liable to be seized is held with a financial institution, a Police officer of Inspector rank or above may issue a written order to direct the financial institution to either deliver the property to any Police officer, or refrain from dealing in respect of such property within a specified period. At the same time, an absolute power to freeze property in a bank account may be unduly harsh on the affected person. Hence, a person whose bank account has been the subject of a written order may apply to court for the release of such property to meet legitimate expenses. For example, the payment of basic expenses, reasonable professional fees or, in the context of a company, day-to-day running expenses.

Police powers to intervene

The previous section 111 of the CPC gave the Police powers to interpose to prevent crime.

In the new security climate, it is appropriate for changes to be made to deal specifically with issues of terrorism. While the Police currently have the necessary powers to deal with acts of terrorism, clarity is useful for officers on the ground. This is in line with the amendments to the Penal Code in 2008, when illustrations were added to sections 79 and 81 of the Penal Code to give further clarity to officers dealing with terrorism.

The new clause 63 of the Bill puts in place the following safeguards in the use of lethal force by the Police: the Police officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that a person is doing or about to do something which may amount to a terrorist act, and the use of lethal force is necessary to apprehend the person.

A definition of what constitutes a "terrorist act" is provided in the Bill.

Criminal discovery

The Law Society, criminal law practitioners and various Members in this House, such as Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mr Alvin Yeo and Ms Sylvia Lim, have urged a reform in this area.

*Cols. 487-488.

Disclosure is familiar to lawyers operating within the common law system. In civil proceedings, the timely disclosure of information has helped parties to prepare for trial and assess their cases more fully.

Criminal cases can benefit from the same approach. However, discovery in the criminal context would need to be tailored to deal with complexities of criminal practice, such as the danger of witnesses being suborned.

To this end, Part IX of the Bill introduces a formalised framework obliging the prosecution and the defence to exchange relevant information about their respective cases before trial. This will introduce greater transparency and consistency to the pre-trial process.

After the charge is tendered against an accused, the prosecution is required to provide the defence with a "Case for the Prosecution". This document must include information about the facts, witnesses and evidence supporting the charge, together with the statements of the accused which the prosecution intends to rely on at the trial.

The defence is then required to serve on the prosecution its "Case for the Defence". This document will, in turn, contain information about the facts, evidence and witnesses that the defence will adduce at the trial. After the "Case for the Defence" is served, the prosecution will then be required to furnish to the defence all other

statements made by the accused person, documentary exhibits in the case for the prosecution, as well as the accused person’s criminal records, if any.

The framework has a number of safeguards to try and prevent abuse. The sequential nature of the process protects the interests of prosecution and defence. The onus is on the prosecution to set out its case first, with the accused’s statements that it is relying upon. The provision of all statements after the defence case is filed cuts down on opportunities to tailor evidence. At the same time, if either party refuses to file its case, or files an incomplete case, or advances an argument at trial inconsistent with its previously filed case, the Court may draw any inference it deems fit. In addition, where the prosecution fails to comply with its obligations, the Court may order a discharge not amounting to an acquittal. This approach tries to ensure that parties take discovery seriously. The new procedure will initially apply automatically to High Court cases and the majority of offences tried in the District Court. The accused may opt out of the system if he prefers. For Magistrate’s Court cases, the procedure will be available if all parties consent. Trial proceedings The new clause 281 follows upon the recent amendments to Article 9(4) of the Constitution, announced and taken through by Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng in this House last month, which allows an arrested person to be produced for First Mentions in Court by video conferencing.

In line with those amendments, clause 281 of the Bill sets out safeguards in relation to the use of video conferencing. The Court will have the discretion to summon the arrested person, or consider

the application of the arrested person to be physically produced in Court at any time before or during the First Mentions. Video conferencing will also not be used for accepting guilty pleas or passing of sentences. To streamline the prosecution process, the Public Prosecutor (PP) will be empowered to consent to composition between parties and compound certain prescribed offences by requiring a person to pay a composition sum. At present, once an accused has been charged in Court, composition requires the consent of the Court. The new clause 241 requires the consent of the PP instead, since he has control and direction of all criminal proceedings. This follows logically from the PP’s prosecutorial discretion. Even when the proceedings are ongoing in Court, and the Court does not consent to composition, the PP is empowered to withdraw the charge in an appropriate case. Clause 242 is a new provision which allows the PP to compound certain prescribed offences. These will be offences which do not involve specific victims, such as offences relating to damage to public property. Composition will be allowed to take place any time, even before the offender is charged in Court. This composition regime is similar to composition of minor regulatory offences by enforcement agencies. Admissibility of statements I now turn to the admissibility of accused persons' statements, at clause 258 of the Bill. Under this provision, the statement of an accused person is inadmissible if it is made as the result of a threat, inducement or promise which operates on his mind, such that it robs him of his free will and thereby rendering the statement involuntary. This admissibility

test, developed by our Courts in Seow Choon Meng v PP and Gulam bin Notan Mohd Shariff Jamalddin v PP, is now codified in Explanation 1 to clause 258. Clause 258 extends the protection of the admissibility test to all statements made by an accused person, whether made to a Police officer, above the rank of sergeant or otherwise. This plugs a gap in the existing section 121 of the Code, which confines the admissibility test only to statements made to a Police officer, but not any other enforcement personnel. I should also comment briefly on Explanation 2 to clause 258 of the Bill, which has been the source of some degree of debate (and I think, confusion) during the public consultation and working group phases.

Explanation 2 is a reproduction of section 29 of the Evidence Act (which is now ported to the Code). Its purpose is simply to clarify that the sole test of admissibility is the absence of threat, inducement or promise as set out in clause 258. This reflects the position taken by our Courts. Thus, and I emphasise this – there is no change in the law as a result of the amendments. The only addition is sub-clause (e) to clause 258, and the main change is that the test of voluntariness is now applied to all statements and that is an extension of the rights. However, I note from an article in the TODAY newspaper of 17th May, entitled "Criminal lawyers concerned over clause in proposed Criminal Procedure Code", that both Mr Subhas Anandan and Mr Edmond Pereira are quoted on this clause. Mr Anandan is concerned that a part of the law on what is admissible evidence is being "further entrenched". Mr Pereira has said that clause 258 was a "talking point", among the changes to the CPC. But as I have stated earlier, clause 258 does not change the law. It does not

detract from the rights of the accused. clause 258 simply brings over a similar provision in the Evidence Act – which is already the law, and that extends it to all statements. The change is the addition of sub-clause (e). Thus, there is no real "further entrenching" of this aspect of the law on what is admissible evidence. The law is set out in black and white in the Evidence Act and that is the law that the Courts have been applying all these years. And to the extent that this clause 258 is a talking point, it may be that its current avatar in the Evidence Act has perhaps been overlooked. We had explained these points to relevant stakeholders, as well as the Law Society. I understand now that the ACLS accepts that the real test of section 258 is whether there was a threat, inducement or promise operated and whether such threat, inducement or promise operated on the accused person at the material time, and that deception is therefore technically irrelevant. I can understand arguments that such a provision should be qualified. But it is difficult to understand arguments that object to the CPC essentially replicating a provision from the Evidence Act. Ancillary hearings Let me move on to ancillary hearings. Related to this year's admissibility of statement is clause 279 of the Bill, which makes provision for the conduct of ancillary hearings to determine the admissibility of statements, when any party objects to the admissibility of any evidence, which the opposing party intends to tender in any stage of the trial that Court must determine its separate ancillary hearings before continuing with the trial proper. Such illustrations are provided in this clause relating to whether or not an ancillary hearing has to be held by a Court. Ancillary hearings include trial within a trial. The clause further provides for procedures which have to be complied

with at an ancillary hearing. In particular, evidence given an in ancillary hearing, which is relevant for the purposes of the main trial will be admissible in the main trial itself, without having to recall any of the witnesses who testified at the ancillary hearing. If the court, after hearing any submissions from parties, decides to reverse its earlier decision in admitting such evidence, it must disregard such evidence when determining whether or not to call for the defence or when determining the guilt of the accused person. The converse will apply if the Court, after hearing any submissions, decides to reverse its earlier decision in refusing to admit the evidence. Where this is the case, such evidence may be admitted in Court for the purpose of determining whether or not to call for the defence or when determining the guilt of the accused. Appeals Under clause 390 of the Bill, the appellate Court will be allowed to frame an altered charge and convict on it if there is sufficient evidence for it to do so based on records before the Court. The amendment is a codification of case law as decided by the Court of Appeal in Lee Ngin Kiat [1993] 2 SLR 511.

The amendments go one step further to provide safeguards should the appellate Court decide to frame an altered charge. The appellate Court is required to ask the accused if he intends to offer a defence to the newly framed charge. The appellate Court will then have to decide, with reference to the nature of the defence and the records before the Court, whether to convict him of the freshly-framed charge or to send the matter for trial in the lower Courts. Clause 396 contains a new provision which allows both the Public Prosecutor and the defence to state a case directly on a question of law of public importance,

from the District Court directly to the Court of Appeal. The situations where a "leapfrog", as such provisions are known, will apply are: (a) where the High Court is already bound by a prior decision of the Court of Appeal on the point of law being stated, or (b) where there is a conflict of binding authority on the High Court on the question at hand. In these situations, the legal issues, for example, binding precedent on the High Court, are more appropriately dealt with by the Court of Appeal than the High Court. A leapfrog appeal direct to the Court of Appeal would thus save parties time and cost. To ensure that the provision is not abused, the leave of the Court of Appeal is required before a "leapfrog" is allowed. The Court of Appeal will determine whether the question of law is indeed of public importance, and whether a leapfrog is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Rectification of clerical errors Clause 301 of the Bill relates to the powers of the Courts to rectify errors in their judgments. Currently, only the High Court can alter or review its judgments. To the extent that the error was a clerical one, it can be rectified at any time. Any other mistake may only be rectified before the Court has risen for the day. The Bill extends the power to rectify errors to all Courts, including the District and Magistrates' Courts. The existing practice has been retained. For all other errors, including errors in the exercise of the Court's sentencing powers, the time in which the Court may rectify such errors has been extended to the next working day after the delivery of the judgment. Illustrations are also included in clause 301 to clarify how the provision will

work. For instance, where a District Court imposes a sentence of caning on a man who was 54 years old when he committed the offence in question, the Court would have made an error. Exercising its powers of rectification under clause 301 of the Bill, the Court may now revoke the sentence of caning and impose the appropriate sentence provided this is done by the next day after it had imposed the original sentence of caning. Notwithstanding this, there is a further limit on the Courts' rectification powers. Clause 301(2) expressly states that a Court may not exercise its powers under this clause to rectify any error resulting from a sentence which the Court subsequently views as being too harsh or lenient. Sentencing jurisdiction of the Courts Clause 303 of the Bill increases the sentencing powers of both the Magistrates' Courts and the District Courts to align them with the recent amendments to the penalties in the Penal Code. Essentially, the Magistrates' Courts sentencing powers have been increased from two years to three years of imprisonment, and the District Court's sentencing powers will be increased from seven years to 10 years of imprisonment. Clause 303 also increases the quantum of fines which can be imposed by the Subordinate Courts. For the Magistrates' Courts, the limit will be increased from $2,000 to $10,000; whereas the limit for the District Court will be increased from $10,000 to $30,000. The revision is necessary to take into account the increase in the purchasing power of money, since the jurisdiction for imposing fines for the District Court was last revised in 1996 and the jurisdiction for the Magistrates' Courts since 1959.

Caning Two main changes will be made to the provisions on caning. The first change is the imposition of a cap of 24 strokes for each occasion of sentencing or caning. The amendments will make clear that on each occasion of sentencing, a cap of 24 strokes will apply, even where the mandatory number of strokes for multiple charges could add up to more than 24. As an example, if the prosecution has, in the same set of proceedings, preferred five counts of robbery under section 392 of the Penal Code, each carrying a sentence of not less than six strokes of the cane, the Court cannot impose a sentence of 30 strokes. In such a case, the Court can only impose a maximum of 24 strokes.

5.00 pm

A similar rule will be imposed for the execution of caning. While sentences for caning can be combined, the maximum strokes for any one sitting will be capped at 24.

The cap does not apply for repeat offenders sentenced and caned over different periods of time. There is no immunity from further caning for serial offenders. This is because we cannot treat serial offenders in the same way as we do to an offender who has only committed, for example, two offences.

The second amendment relates to the imprisonment in lieu of stroke where the statutory cap of 24 strokes applies and in excepted cases.

Where an accused person would have been sentenced to an aggregate sentence of caning which exceeds the specified limit, the Court may impose a term of imprisonment of not more than 12 months in lieu of all such strokes which exceed

the specified limit. Thus, in the example which I had used since the Court can only impose 24 strokes, instead of 30 strokes, the Court may impose an additional term of, say, eight months' imprisonment in lieu of the six strokes of caning.

Another category of cases where imprisonment would be ordered in lieu of caning would be where caning is not possible from the outset (for example, male offenders who are 50 years old and those who are medically unfit). For these categories of offenders, the Court has the discretion to impose an imprisonment term of up to 12 months in lieu of the strokes which were forgone. This will give the Court discretion in exercising parity between co-accused persons, one of whom may be caned and the other may not.

I now turn to the main change to our sentencing regime: community sentences, which I refer to as CBS, detailed in the new Part XVII of the Bill.

Rationale for having new community sentences

Our sentencing philosophy is aimed at deterrence, prevention, retribution and rehabilitation. A fair sentencing framework is one that enables the Court to deliver the correct mix of these four objectives on the specific facts of each case.

CBS gives more flexibility to the Courts. Not every offender should be put in prison. CBS targets offences and offenders traditionally viewed by the Courts to be on the rehabilitation end of the spectrum: regulatory offences, offences involving younger accused persons and persons with specific and minor mental conditions. For such cases, it is appropriate to harness the resources of the community. The offender remains gainfully employed and his family benefits from the focused treatment.

Eligibility criteria

In line with these considerations, clause 337 of the Bill sets up the circumstances that prevent the making of a community order.

A community order cannot be made in respect of an offence for which the sentence is fixed by law or which attracts a specified minimum sentence or mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment or caning.

Community orders, except for the community work order, cannot be made in respect of an offence which attracts a specified minimum sentence or mandatory minimum sentence of a fine.

Community sentences cannot be handed down for the serious offences which are specified in the Third Schedule to the Registration of Criminals Act. Offences which are punishable with a maximum sentence of more than three years' imprisonment are also excluded from the community sentencing framework.

Finally, a Court cannot hand down a community sentence if an offender had previously been detained or subjected to police supervision under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA), detained in a Drug Rehabilitation Centre, sentenced to imprisonment, corrective training, reformative training, or preventive detention.

Community services

The Bill introduces five new types of CBS orders: (a) a mandatory treatment order (MTO); (b) a day reporting order (DRO); (c) a community work order (CWO); (d) a community service order (CSO); and (e) a short detention order (SDO).

A Court may pass a CBS order comprising one or more of these orders at the same proceeding.

Let me highlight the key features of the various community orders.

Mandatory treatment orders

Clauses 339 and 340 provide for mandatory treatment orders (MTOs). The MTO allows the Court to order an offender to undergo psychiatric treatment in lieu of imprisonment. The period of treatment can be up to 24 months.

Before making a MTO, the Court must call for a suitability report by a psychiatrist who is appointed by the Director of Medical Services of the Ministry of Health. The appointed psychiatrist will have to assess, first, if the offender is suffering from a treatable psychiatric condition; second, if he is suitable for treatment; and third, if his psychiatric condition had contributed to the commission of the offence. If the offender does not meet any of these requirements, the Court will not be able to make the MTO.

Day reporting orders

Clauses 341 to 343 provide for the day reporting order (DRO). This order requires the offender to report to a reporting centre on a regular basis for supervision and to undergo counselling and rehabilitation. An offender may also be monitored electronically, if necessary. The duration of a DRO can be from three to 12 months. This imposes discipline and aids in the rehabilitation as the offender's progress is monitored closely.

Before making a DRO, the Court must call for a suitability report by a day reporting officer appointed by the Director of Prisons.

However, even if the report concludes that the offender is unsuitable, the Court may still sentence him to a DRO, as the Court may take into account broader considerations. Where rehabilitation is a key consideration, the Courts would still impose a DRO, if satisfied that the offender will be sufficiently punished by having restrictions imposed, and is unlikely to re-offend if there is no significant disruption to his employment or family.

Community work orders

Clause 346 provides for community work orders. The CWO is modelled after the "Corrective Work Order" for litterbugs, but will allow for a wider range of offences and types of work to be mandated.

The type of community work will have some nexus to the offence committed. By performing work associated with the offence, the intention is to let the offender take responsibility for, and acknowledge the harm caused by his offence.

Community service orders

The Courts are currently empowered to make a community service order under the Children and Young Persons' Act, or as a condition of probation. Clauses 346 and 347 of the Bill expand the existing order to allow offenders aged 16 and above to receive a CSO as a standalone sentence or with other community orders. This would allow the offender to make reparations to the community while being punished for his actions.

The Courts will have to call for a suitability report before sentencing an offender to perform community service. The Court may make a CSO even if the community service officer finds the offender unsuitable.

Short detention orders

Clause 348 allows the Courts to detain an offender in prison for up to 14 days. By limiting the detention period, the short detention order (SDO) is less disruptive and stigmatising than a longer prison stay. Prisons will also put in place measures that prevent first-time offenders from being "contaminated" by hardcore criminals.

Taking and forfeiture of security

Clause 349 empowers the Court to take a security from the offender or any other person to ensure that the offender complies with the community order. Clause 350 provides for the forfeiture of the security if the offender breaches the order or any of its conditions.

Breach of community order

A CBS order gives an offender a chance to reflect on his actions. The onus is on him to complete the community sentence.

Under clause 352, if the offender breaches the conditions of a CBS order, he can be summoned back to Court.

After being notified of the breach, the Court can give a warning or impose a fine of up to $1,000, while at the same time allowing the offender to continue serving the community sentence. The Court can also vary the community sentence by extending or reducing it, up to the maximum length permitted for each order. If the community sentence is not a SDO, the Court may detain the offender in prison for not more than 14 days. Lastly, the Court may revoke the community sentence and impose the traditional sentence originally mandated for the offence.

Under clause 353, if the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a crime

committed before the CBS order is made, the community sentence will be revoked and he will be re-sentenced. The community sentence will also be revoked if the prior offence cannot be punished with a community sentence. Otherwise, the offender will be allowed to continue to serve his community sentence.

Under clause 354, if the offender commits a fresh offence while serving a community sentence and is convicted for it, the CBS order will be revoked and he will be brought back to the Courts for re-sentencing.

Sir, I have taken the House through the main amendments to the CPC.

This Bill, although wide-ranging, should be seen as part of an ongoing evolution of our criminal justice system since independence in 1965.

In 1966, the Code was amended to mirror the practice in the UK Judge's rules to grant discretion to the Court to admit an accused person's statement which was obtained in non-compliance with certain conditions, provided the statement was made voluntarily. In 1967, offences such as rioting and unlawful assembly were made non-bailable. In the wake of a number of cases in 1969 where accused persons were acquitted by juries despite there having been clear evidence of guilt, the jury system was abolished. The 1970s saw amendments to allow sentences of corrective training for young offenders who showed signs of embarking on a lifetime of crime. Amendments were also made in respect of an accused person's "right of silence" by permitting the Court to draw adverse inferences in appropriate circumstances. In 1984, the period in which a suspect could be detained when arrested without a warrant was extended from 24 hours to 48 hours to give the police adequate time to

complete investigations. Later, in 1995, vulnerable witnesses were allowed to give evidence via video-link to shield them from direct confrontation with the accused person.

The present Bill represents a significant point in the developmental continuum of our criminal justice framework. As our society continues to evolve and mature, our criminal procedure will have to be reviewed and updated to keep pace. In the process, we will continue to examine developments and innovations occurring elsewhere in the world.

For instance, the Law Society has highlighted that the United Kingdom introduced, in 2003, an indeterminate sentencing regime, known as "Imprisonment for Public Protection", where Courts are empowered to incarcerate an offender for as long as he or she is assessed to be a danger to the community, rather than for a fixed term of years. Similar regimes exist in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. We will study this, and other reforms, in close consultation with our criminal justice stakeholders. We will continue to search for solutions which work for us.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.12 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code constitute the second instalment of an extensive overhaul of our criminal laws, following on the changes to the Penal Code a few years ago.

This is a major move and a welcome move as these statutes have not been subject to major review for a number of years. The changes that the present Bill

seeks to make are also welcome as they update our criminal law regime to fit modern conditions and also strike a better balance between the rights to the prosecution and the defence.

Among the many changes, two stand up. The first relates to the introduction of a greater range of community-based sentences. This recognises that the circumstances of offenders can vary greatly and better permits the Court to pass the sentence that befits not just the crime but the offender's condition and culpability. In this way, there is a better likehood of the offender being rehabilitated and being reintegrated into society after his release.

The second major change is the new Criminal Case Disclosure Procedure which requires both the prosecution and the defence to exchange information of the case that they are mounting, in particular, the defence will obtain copies of all the accused person's statements, the lack of which has long been a bugbear of criminal defense lawyers. Amidst all these bouquets is, however, still more that could be done to further refine the criminal justice system.

I would highlight two areas.

Clause 258 seeks to make clear that the sole test for excluding an accused person's statement is whether it has been caused by any inducement, threat or promise. That, in itself, in my view, is not objectionable. However, it is the explanation that follows on upon it that do give rise to certain queries. In particular, Explanation 2A states that the statement would not be excluded merely because it was inconsequence of a deception practised on the accused for the purpose of obtaining it. This might be seen as condoning or even encouraging investigating officers to deceive or trick an accused into making a statement which may inculpate himself.

I appreciate that the Ministry has assured the public that there is no incentive for police officers to practise any deception, but that begs the question.

If there is no such incentive, why do we need an explanation to say they can do so and still have the accused's statement admitted? Could not such a deception itself constitute an inducement or promise to an accused which may then lead to certain other arguments as to whether it should be excluded? More significantly, is this the sort of message we want to send to the public that a statement enlisted through the police deceiving an accused can and will be used against him?

In that regard, I note from his speech that the Minister has said that section 258 merely codifies the existing law and the issue of any deception is perhaps technically relevant. If that is the case, then I would invite the Minister to consider dropping that part of the explanation and leave the application of the test which is based on any inducement, threat or promise to be applied by the Judges who are well equipped to apply such a test.

My other area of concern relates to the continuing absence of any time limit for police investigations after which the accused gets access to a lawyer. Right now, the investigative agencies have the discretion as to when the accused person can consult a lawyer which is when they decide they have completed their investigations. This could be weeks or even months after the investigation commences. And the threat or the risk that one is concerned with is a situation which has been perhaps anecdotally related where a police officer takes out an accused from the cell, questions him, does not get the answers he wants, puts him back in the cell for a few days, takes him out later, still does not get the answers he wants, back in there he goes again. And this could go on for some

time. I should make clear that I am not talking about imposing a short period of 24 or 48 hours or getting to the situation that you see in Hollywood legal dramas, with the accused refuses to answer any questions unless he gets to see his lawyer.

I appreciate and support the importance of allowing our investigative agencies to go about their work without the accused playing legal games with them. But there must be some limit to this as the right to obtain legal advice is a fundamental one for our citizens. Should there not be some fixed time period? It could be a matter of days or a week, after which the accused would have the right to see his lawyer even if the investigations are continuing. This period could itself be subject to further extension by a Court if good reason is shown.

The well-deserved reputation for efficiency and competence of our police investigators can surely cope with this constraint which is after all in the interest of fair play. We are all supportive of the vital role that our law enforcement agencies play in the prevention and detection of crime. But it is a mark of a civilised society that it can strike the right balance between the interests of the State and the rights of the individual.

I hope these areas of concern can be reviewed by the Ministry and changes made if not in this Bill, then in the not too distant future.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

5.18 pm

Sir, this Bill before Parliament has now undergone some changes from the initial Bill which was floated for public consultation. I am happy to note that

some points in my written submission to the Ministry have been taken into account in this revised version.

The Bill makes some progressive changes in three important areas: pre-trial disclosure framework, crime victims’ redress and community-based sentences.

First, pre-trial disclosure framework. The Bill provides for more balance between the State and the defence in preparing for criminal trials. The much-awaited statutory framework for pre-trial disclosure is now out. There will now be more disclosure between the prosecution and defence in criminal cases – the prosecution will now be required to furnish to the defence all statements made by the accused at any time, even those only useful to the defence. This is an improvement from the current position when such important evidence may be withheld from the defence and the Court. Likewise, the defence has disclosure obligations to reveal its defence before trial.

While the framework is a significant step forward, I have one concern about this. Under the new section 231, it is still possible for either side to call witnesses or produce exhibits not disclosed at the pre-trial disclosure conference, so long as "prior notice" is given in writing to the Court and the other parties to the case. It is not stated how much notice must be given. Will this be a loophole for either party not to disclose everything at the pre-trial conference and introduce new evidence at the last minute? If so, this will defeat the purpose of the framework.

Second, crime victims' redress. For too long, the criminal justice system has focused on punishing the offender, and neglected the harm and damage caused to the crime victim. Thus, the crime victim has had to pay for medical treatment or replace his property with his own funds, and suffers inconveniences in having to

attend at police stations and court hearings, with nothing in return.

The Bill has several provisions which recognise the crime victim as a stakeholder in a criminal case. It is now mentioned that a sentencing court can consider a Victim Impact Statement (VIS) under the new section 228. This will enable the Court to specifically consider the harm caused to the victim in determining the appropriate sentence. In addition, it will now be mandatory for a sentencing court to consider whether to also order the offender to compensate the victim for injuries or other losses under the new section 359. If used well, these provisions will make the process more meaningful for the victim and is a step closer to the progressive regimes in other developed countries such as Australia.

One concern I have about this is whether these provisions will end up simply being on paper and not actively used. For instance, I note that under the current practice, the Victim Impact Statement is not recorded by the police in the majority of cases. I would like the Minister to clarify whether there is going to be any change to this practice, ie, will the VIS be recorded by the police in future in a wider variety of cases? If not, the Court may not have the information readily at hand to adjust the sentence or to order compensation, which will undermine the purpose of the changes.

Third, community-based sentences. Increased options of community-based sentences are now available in lieu of incarceration. As a general rule, keeping minor offenders out of jail is a good principle. However, we should be careful that we do not inadvertently end up processing more people through the system and leave more people with criminal records. This "net-widening" could result if we start to prosecute people who would otherwise have been

let off with a warning, just because we think there are "light" sentences available.

Sir, apart from these three areas, I have other concerns about specific provisions in the Bill. These concern the composition of Penal Code offences, changes to the provisions on caning and powers of the Court on appeal.

First, composition of Penal Code offences. The Bill makes a significant change regarding offences which can be compounded by the victim under the Penal Code.

Under the existing law, certain minor Penal Code offences can be settled between the victim and the offender provided it is allowed by the Court. For example, in outrage of modesty cases, the victim may accept an offer of compensation and an apology, in exchange for an acquittal, provided the Court allows it. Such a route is only available for certain minor offences specified by Parliament – the CPC provides that for those offences, the victim is empowered to compound.

The new section 241 removes the Court as the approving authority and gives this role to the Public Prosecutor. The rationale for this, according to the MinLaw Consultation Paper 2008, is that the Public Prosecutor will have the public interest in mind when he exercises this power. However, it was not explained why it was felt that the power needed to be taken away from the Court.

There have been several local cases where the Court allowed an offence to be compounded, despite objections from the Public Prosecutor. In the reported case of PP v Norzian bin Bintat [1995], the accused had been charged with voluntarily causing hurt. He had made an offer to the victim who was willing to compound the matter. The Public Prosecutor objected to the composition. The Court found that there were no

aggravating factors, the injuries were minor and the parties had patched up their differences, therefore there was no reason to re-open old wounds by going through with the prosecution. The High Court clarified then that the Court was not a rubber stamp but had to make a judicial decision, apply the rules of reason and justice, and consider the public interest. In that case, it was found that there was no public interest element why the offence should not be compounded.

Sir, past cases show that there are instances where the Court and the Public Prosecutor differ as to what the public interest requires. With due respect, what reason do we have to think that the Public Prosecutor is superior to the Court in this regard?

Sir, in addition, the Public Prosecutor is a party to all criminal cases, on the opposite side of the accused person. Since this is an adversarial system, it is better to have the Court, an independent party, to assess whether the composition should be approved. The prosecution can always make its views known to the Court before the Court makes its decision.

I also do not see any compelling reason to move this decision from Open Court to the Executive Government, resulting in a loss of transparency and clarity to the general public.

Next, changes to the caning provisions. We are one of the few countries which continue to have caning as a judicial punishment.

However, though certain offences attract caning, some people are unable to suffer it. There are three main circumstances. First, ineligibility – women, and men above 50 or sentenced to death, are not eligible for caning. Secondly, serial offenders – a serial offender who is

sentenced for several offences may be liable for more than 24 strokes, which is above the now specified limit and therefore illegal. Third, a caning which is discontinued – caning of an offender may have begun, but the caning is stopped halfway by a medical officer who finds that the offender is not medically fit to complete it. In these three circumstances, I do agree that a question arises about fairness vis-a-vis other offenders who are able to suffer caning.

Sir, under the current law (section 233), when a caning was stopped halfway, the Court could sentence the offender to additional imprisonment of up to 12 months to make up for the unexecuted caning. However, there was an express proviso in that section. Under section 233(2), the Court could still not impose a term exceeding the accused’s liability under the law. In other words, if his offence attracts a maximum of seven years' jail, his original jail term plus the jail term in lieu of caning should not be more than seven years. Neither was the Court allowed to exceed its sentencing jurisdiction under the current CPC.

Sir, the new Bill changes that. For all the three situations I mentioned, the Court can add imprisonment of up to 12 months in lieu of caning. And it is further stated that the aggregate imprisonment term after this addition may exceed the maximum jail term for the offence he committed and may even exceed the Court’s sentencing jurisdiction.

While I can accept that imprisonment can be added in lieu of caning in all the three circumstances, I have great discomfort in allowing the combined jail term to exceed the statutory maximum imposed by Parliament for the offence.

Sir, the maximum jail term prescribed by Parliament is there for a reason – to reflect how much loss of liberty should be suffered by an individual in the worst

possible case. Furthermore, since the Courts rarely impose the statutory maximum jail term when sentencing an offender, there will usually be still room for them to add imprisonment in lieu of caning and still remain within the statutory maximum. Would the Minister clarify why this change is needed?

Next, Court powers on appeal. This issue concerns ensuring that accused persons have confidence in filing appeals.

I have raised this in MinLaw Committee of Supply (COS) three years ago. There have been cases where offenders appeal against their sentences for being too heavy, and the prosecution does not appeal that the sentence is too light – yet the offender’s sentence was enhanced by the appeal Court. This possibility of a boomerang on appeal will deter some offenders from appealing against their sentences, for fear of a worse outcome.

We should be concerned that people must feel free to exercise their rights of appeal in criminal cases, without jeopardising themselves. It is still my view that the CPC should be amended to provide that when only the accused person appeals against sentence, the Court can either maintain or reduce the sentence, but not enhance it.

Finally, Sir, there are two other areas left unresolved which the Government should review, if not now, then in the near future. First is the question of access to counsel which Member Alvin Yeo before me has touched on. As the law currently stands, an arrested person will not be allowed to consult his lawyer until the police decide that their investigations will not be jeopardised. This is despite the fact that the Constitution provides the fundamental liberty that an arrested person shall be allowed to consult a legal practitioner of his choice.

Sir, the Constitution was amended last month to allow the police

to apply for Court Orders to detain a person beyond 48 hours via video link. Therefore, it will no longer be required to bring the arrested person to the Court premises and produce him in person before the Magistrate. I argued then why this compromises the Constitutional liberties, as the custody will be extended while the person remains in the police facility, and the Court does not have direct contact with the person under arrest to ascertain his condition. Since that amendment has now been passed, the right to counsel as a check becomes all the more critical. I urge the Government to study seriously the possibility of setting a statutory time limit after arrest when counsel must be allowed to see the arrested person, say, a few days after arrest or, at most, one week after arrest.

Sir, lastly, pre-trial disclosure. The statutory framework in this Bill is a welcome improvement. Once this has been in operation for some time, the Government should strive to go a step further – towards a best practice of disclosing evidence it has collected which it does not intend to use, which could be helpful to the defence. As the Police are often the first at a crime scene with powers to seize evidence and take witness statements, what they gather at the time of the crime is likely to be reliable. By contrast, the defence is not empowered to compel such evidence.

Such disclosure is required in the United Kingdom where there are rules for Disclosure of Unwanted Material set out in the United Kingdom Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and their Joint Operational Instructions issued to the Crown Prosecutors and Police. The logic of this is straightforward. Reliable evidence should not be kept away from the Court. I hope the Government will look into these two areas in the near future.

Sir, overall, some important improvements have been made to the CPC. However, there continue to be areas for concern and further review.

5.32 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill to repeal the existing Criminal Procedure Code and re-enact a revised Criminal Procedure Code, or what we lawyers commonly refer to as the CPC.

Before I begin, let me declare my interest as a practising lawyer, although I do not practise at the Criminal Bar. I would like to acknowledge the input and assistance that I have received from the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS). I will also refer to the feedback published by the Law Society of Singapore on the CPC Bill.

Sir, I would like to cover five points: First, the introduction of a greater variety of community-based sentences; second, the introduction of a requirement for the Court to consider awarding compensation to a victim of a crime; third, the new criminal discovery process; fourth, certain safeguards for the accused person; and, finally, the right to be informed of the right to counsel.

Community-based sentencing has attracted a considerable amount of coverage in the media. The existing CPC provides for a very limited range of community-based sentences, with the proposed amendments in Part XVII of the Bill, the options have been extended. These are indeed positive steps that are to be applauded. The wider range of community-based sentences allows not only more options of sentencing for the wide range of crimes that are being committed, but also allows for a sentence better tailored to cure the underlying

cause for the commission of the offence. This will ultimately assist in the rehabilitation of the offender and hopefully reduce recidivism. In my view, this is especially pertinent for young offenders and first-time offenders.