Hansard, 2010-05-19

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 Cedric Foo Chee Keng 24 May 04 Jun Mr Matthias Yao Chih 25 May 25 May Mr Abdullah Tarmugi 16 Jun 18 Jun

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) if he will provide an update on the Youth Olympic Games (YOG); (b) how are our youths involved in this important event; (c) how many foreign visitors are expected to come for the YOG; and (d)

how will local youth athletes be able to directly benefit from Singapore's hosting of the YOG.

The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to inform Members of this House that the preparations to host the Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games (YOG) are well on track. The key components, such as the competition formats and events schedule, venue masterplan, Culture and Education programme (CEP), the Olympic torch run and the Youth Olympic Village, have all been finalised. We have tested many of these plans and, in fact, the ongoing testing is occurring right now. We have also completed the construction or upgrading for 14 out of the 18 competition venues. The remaining four will be completed within the next two months. Training of the 20,000 volunteers, including over 1,000 public officers, is also going on in earnest.

Just two weeks ago, the International Olympic Committee Co-ordinating Commission made its fourth and final visit to Singapore to inspect our preparations. Sergey Bubka, the Chairman of the Co-ordination Commission, informed me personally that he was confident and sure that we would be able to deliver on time, on target and an exciting and innovative programme for the YOG. This is an important endorsement of our operational readiness at a critical stage of preparation.

Our young Singaporeans have also been involved in many aspects of the Singapore 2010 experience thus far. Through the Olympic Education Programme and the Friends@YOG programme, both the Ministry of Education and the Organising Committee have reached out to over 500,000 students, from Primary Schools to Junior Colleges and Universities. The Olympic Education

Programme allows schools to engage their students and connect them with the Olympic values of Friendship, Excellence and Respect through lessons and activities. The Friends@YOG programme is one which enables our schools to twin with respective schools and national Olympic committees in other countries. So far, our schools have linked up with over 130 national Olympic Committees in other countries. And because of this programme, we have had an opportunity to link up with countries who we would not otherwise have traditionally strong links with.

In addition to these school-based programmes, young Singaporeans have also participated in the Singapore 2010 CAN! Festivals. CAN! stands for Create Action Now. These festivals were organised around the themes of Culture and Heritage, Digital Media, Environment and Arts. The youths have made their presence felt online too, through the WhyOhGee youth micro-site. They have expressed their views there and also contributed their own perspectives on the latest happenings and issues related to Singapore 2010.

We are happy that almost all these projects are initiated by young Singaporeans themselves. To date, we have some 177 such projects and initiatives which have reached out to another 108,000 young people. Because of the universal appeal of the Olympic movement, these activities have not only been focused on sports but, in fact, have extended to other youth-centric areas such as dance and digital media and the environment. The Organising Committee and the National Youth Council have also supported another 30 projects initiated by young people to celebrate the Games through the Singapore 2010 Young ChangeMakers scheme. This is a scheme that provides seed funding for self-initiated projects by young people.

The Organising Committee has also worked with community partners to involve disadvantaged youth in order to make the YOG an inclusive event. The Wheelchair Basketball Association, Special Olympics Singapore, Singapore Boys’ Home, St Andrew’s School of Autism, Students Care Service, Beyond Social Services and Kaki Bukit Prison School are examples of partners who were actively involved in the Singapore 2010 CAN! events and other YOG initiatives. Our youths from the Singapore Boys’ and Girls’ Homes have also participated by designing and creating art pieces as YOG corporate gifts. These beautiful handicrafts have been presented to foreign dignitaries and they have made the point that this is an inclusive event for all people. Some of these art pieces are currently on display at the YOG Learning Centre at Kay Siang Road.

The Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games will receive some 5,000 athletes and officials from 205 National Olympic Committees, along with them will come more than 1,200 media representatives, 20,000 local and international volunteers and 370,000 spectators. This will be unprecedented in terms of the diversity of background and culture of the visitors for a single event in Singapore.

Our hosting of the YOG will reap significant benefits for our local athletes. Up to 130 Singapore athletes will be competing in the Games. To support our youth athletes, the Singapore Youth Sports Development Committee, chaired by my Senior Parliamentary Secretary, is investing up to $6.2 million to help the National Sports Associations to set up a youth talent pipeline, and prepare our athletes for the YOG and beyond. This will enable more training and competition opportunities for our young athletes. There will also be more youth coaches, who will continue to develop future cohorts of Team Singapore athletes beyond the YOG.

The YOG is a once-in-a-lifetime event for Singapore but it is meant not just for young people, not just for sports and athletes but also indeed for all Singaporeans. It will be the first-ever Youth Olympic Games, and the way we conduct it will set a benchmark and will set standards for the future. It is also likely to be the only time that the Olympic movement and Olympic flame will be in Singapore in such an intimate manner and be deeply embedded in our own local community.

So, I would like to call upon all Singaporeans to come forth and support this special event. You can be friendly and gracious hosts to our YOG visitors. You can cheer on Team Singapore at the stadiums as well as foreign athletes who will be competing here and seeing Singapore for the first time in their lives. You can also show support for the Olympic torch runners as they make their way through various parts of Singapore. The local relay will cover all constituencies and most schools. So there will be a chance for you to participate, to witness and be part of a historic event.

We are asking all Singaporeans to make history and to make this inaugural YOG a resounding success that all of us can be proud of and all of us can remember.

Sir, I am very happy to hear about all these exciting lead-ups because this is a once-in-a-lifetime event for Singapore. I have three supplementary questions for the Minister. The first is media coverage, whether there are plans to cover the events extensively through the local channels. Second question is the Minister's comment on how he intends to create the buzz that we are all looking forward to. Hearing from him now, I know that there are a lot of exciting ways in which the community can participate. It is important that there should be sufficient information given to the public

so that we know, too, how we can be a part of this important event. Finally, can the Minister share with us plans that he has on the fringe, events leading up to the Olympics itself where the community and Singaporeans in general can just be a part of the excitement of this important event?

There will be extensive media coverage. As I said earlier, first, on the international media front, we will have over 1,200 journalists in Singapore and many of these journalists will be focused not just on sports, but also on the other facilities and attractions and entertainment that Singapore will provide. This will also be carried through newspapers as well as on television all over the world. We have had a large slate of international media companies who has confirmed their presence here. On that level, there will be extensive coverage. I believe StarHub will launch an Olympic channel which will be free, and will provide almost round-the-clock coverage. There will also be arrangements with MediaCorp as well as SingTel and people will be able to consume the media on mobile platforms, phones, digital devices, television and radio. We are also looking into opportunities to telecast certain of the more interesting events at public viewing sites either along the roads or where there are big screens already present. So I do not think there will be any shortage of media coverage, both internationally and locally.

The Member's second point was with respect to how to get involved. As I said earlier, there are numerous ways, depending on your interest and your time availability and your ability to commit to specific duties. We already have 20,000 volunteers training in earnest. If there are still people who are lining up and wanting to put up their hands, they had better do so very quickly. We also want support for our local athletes. Over the next few

weeks, as the National Olympic Committee, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, selects our athletes, we will provide more publicity because everyone wants to know who our local champions are, and the people to cheer for. We also need all Singaporeans to be gracious hosts. There will be many people – the young people, the parents and grandparents accompanying athletes and the officials – in Singapore because this is an international event involving the whole world. Many of them would never have been to Singapore and who would not even understand Singapore. We need Singaporeans to convey their impression of what Singapore is all about, who we are, how we are, and do so in a gracious, friendly, authentic and sincere way. Get away from all the usual stereotypes. We hope that tickets will all be sold out. We want to make sure that each event will not only be focused on the top athletes in the world taking part but also to create the atmosphere and the support, both inside and outside the stadium.

Finally, even for those of you who may not be totally obsessed with sports, there will be fringe activities. For instance, there will be nightly concerts at Marina Bay which will provide the youthful, vibrant and dynamic buzz on the Bay itself. There will be many other cultural activities which, to a large extent, will be driven by young people and by our schools. In our twinning arrangements, there have also been opportunities for young Singaporeans to discover the different cultures, different ways of life, language and civilisations. All in all, you will see, in a sense, the world coming to Singapore. We have an opportunity to be host and we can showcase the world and showcase ourselves. That is where we can create magic and that is what makes the Olympic events anywhere in the world special. It is that special chemistry of sports, entertainment, activities, hospitality, graciousness and participation by everyone concerned.

asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) when is the first review on the economic and social impact of the Integrated Resorts on Singapore planned to take place; and (b) whether the social impact of gambling will be closely monitored until the time of review.

The question was the economic impact of the Integrated Resorts. The resorts have really just opened. Yesterday, you would have heard the explanation from the Minister for Trade and Industry that it is too early to assess the full economic impact in view of the fact that these are early days.

Similarly, it is also too early to assess the social impact of gambling because of the fact that they have just started. My Ministry works with the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) and I will give the Member the assurance that we will closely monitor and address all the problems that will arise from casino gambling. The NCPG regularly releases statistics on the calls to the NCPG gambling helpline, as well as the number of exclusions. There has been a rise in number but this is not unexpected given the fact that there has been additional publicity in the last couple of months and the novelty that the two casinos have just opened. It does not necessarily indicate an absolute increase in the numbers but, nevertheless, this is something which we will watch closely. We have also stepped up our public education efforts to publicise the helpline number. And Members would have seen some of these advertisements on television, or at bus stops and other media.

The Government will continue to monitor the situation. As and when social problems arise, I give Members the

assurance that MCYS and all the Ministries will do our part to address these concerns.

The following Question stood in the name of Mdm Halimah Yacob –

3. To ask the Minister for Law (a) how many licensed moneylenders were there in 2009 compared to 2008; (b) how much did they lend last year compared to 2008; (c) since the Moneylenders Act was last amended, whether small borrowers are now better protected; and (d) with the lifting of the interest rate caps for loans above $3,000, how does the Ministry ensure that moneylenders do not charge small borrowers excessive or unconscionable rates.

Question No. 3, Sir.

At the end of 2008 and 2009, there were 173 and 221 licensed moneylenders respectively. Last year, licensed moneylenders granted $288.8 million in loans, compared to $188.5 million in 2008.

We had amended the Moneylenders Act in November 2008 to put in place additional safeguards to protect borrowers. These amendments took effect on 1st March last year. Before I list some of the key safeguards, I should first make the point that borrowers who have an annual salary of less than $20,000 may take up unsecured personal loans of up to $3,000 only, where the interest rates are capped at 18% per annum.

As to the safeguards, firstly, before granting a loan, the moneylender must inform the borrower of all the terms and conditions of the loan in a language he

understands. The intent is to enable borrowers to understand the offer and make an informed choice. This information includes the interest rate charged, expressed as a percentage per annum; how the interest is calculated, and all other charges, such as administrative fees or late payment charges. Secondly, the moneylender is required to give the borrower a copy of the loan contract and provide half-yearly statements of account. These statements must contain details such as the principal, interest and fees outstanding; amount of interest and fees payable and their due dates as well as past payments broken down into repayment of principal and payment of interest and fees, if any.

Let me emphasise that borrowers have a right to ask, and indeed should ask, the moneylender to explain all the fees. They should also compare interest rates offered by different moneylenders. In the situation cited by Mdm Halimah Yacob where the interest or late interest charged is excessive and the borrower finds the transaction substantially unfair, he can file a claim in the Small Claims Tribunal or the Court, under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. The borrower can also lodge a complaint with the Registry of Moneylenders.

The amendments to the Moneylenders Act also enhanced the investigative and regulatory powers of the Registrar of Moneylenders and introduced a range of enforcement tools to deal with errant moneylenders. Indeed, the Registry of Moneylenders has invoked these powers to deal with errant licensed moneylenders in breach of the requirements I had mentioned earlier by, for example, not renewing their licences. Such breaches include the inability to produce to the Registry the Notes of Contracts showing the borrower’s acknowledgement that the moneylender has explained the terms and

conditions to him, as well as failing to issue receipts for cash payments. If the Registry determines that a moneylender has given loans under false pretences, for instance, where he had falsely declared a loan to be a business loan, the Registry will not hesitate to take stern action against the moneylender, such as revoking or suspending his licence. The moneylender may also be prosecuted. If convicted, he can be fined up to $30,000 or imprisoned up to 12 months or both. Likewise, if convicted of making false representations to induce borrowers to borrow money or agree to the terms of a loan, the licensed moneylender can be fined up to $40,000 or imprisoned up to two years or both. To ensure that lenders conduct themselves properly, Registry officers can and indeed have made surprise checks on moneylenders’ premises.

Let me assure Mdm Halimah that the Registry of Moneylenders will continue to monitor the situation closely.

I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive answer. I would like to ask: what are the common and acceptable methods used by these licensed moneylenders to collect their debts? How does the Ministry ensure that these licensed moneylenders do not metamorphosise into licensed loansharks?

Sir, we are monitoring the situation carefully. We know that there is a surge in the number of moneylenders. Therefore, background checks are important to ensure that those who come on board as licensed moneylenders are not in fact migrating from the tough actions and the pressure we have put on illegal moneylenders. Let me assure Dr Lam and the House that no such migration has been detected. But the point I am making is that even though there is an increase in the number of moneylenders, they are put on notice. If

there are complaints, the registry will check. Eighteen complaints were received last year and warning letters had been issued. As far as I know, three licences have not been renewed. A licence has to be renewed annually, so that any moneylender who does wrong can be checked easily.

The following Question stood in the name of Mdm Halimah Yacob –

4. To ask the Minister for Law in 2009 (i) what number of bankruptcy cases were due to credit card debts; (b) what percentage does this constitute in relation to the total number of bankruptcy cases; and (c) what are the profiles of these credit card debtors with respect to age, gender and income level.

Question No. 4, Sir.

Sir, the Insolvency & Public Trustee’s Office (IPTO) collects the statistics on bankruptcies that are due to use of excessive credit, the causes of which may include not only credit card debts but also bank overdrafts and hire-purchase spending. These are based on declarations made by bankrupts in their Statements of Affairs.

Sir, last year, there were 2,058 bankrupts, of which 1,845 cases have filed their Statements of Affairs. Amongst these, 852 or about 46% declared that their insolvency arose from excessive use of credit.

By gender, about 80% were male and 20% were female. By age group, 12.9% were between 21 and 30 years old, 38.2% were between 31 and 40 years old, 33.1% were between 40 and 50 years old, while the remaining 15.8% were above 51 years old.

In terms of the breakdown by income, 18.7% earned no income, 20.4% earned $1,000 or less, 39.9% earned between $1,000 and $2,000, 13.3% earned between $2,000 and $3,000, while the remaining 7.7% earned more than $3,000.

5. Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Minister for Finance whether he will provide an update on the study of a specialised financial institution to handle cross-border financing for local SMEs as proposed by the Economic Strategies Committee.

Sir, the study that the Member has asked about is still underway. The Government is evaluating how best we can realise the development of a market-based institution to support and catalyse cross-border financing for Singapore-based companies.

The study includes an assessment of the various possible business models for such an institution. It involves discussions with both companies and banks, as well as with Export-Import (EXIM) banks and Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) of other countries who can give us a detailed understanding of how they operate in the marketplace.

We would like to find an approach that is commercially sustainable, and which also stays relevant through business cycles, not only at times of crises. Sir, we should also not rush into duplicating models elsewhere but instead explore solutions that meet the needs of our companies and address the gaps in our financial market.

In the meantime, IE Singapore continues to support cross-border financing through

existing schemes like the Loan Insurance Scheme (LIS) and LIS Plus, the Export Coverage Scheme (ECS) and the Internationalisation Finance Scheme (IFS).

Thank you, Minister for the explanation. While we see world trade picking up with the economic recovery, the SMEs do not want to miss out on the opportunity. So I have three questions. One is that though it is under study, when can we expect such a scheme to start, ie, the time frame? What amount can the SMEs expect? Lastly, will the Government consider taking in any partners, whether local or foreign, into this scheme?

Sir, I would like to assure the Member that even as the study is underway, the existing schemes will continue to be there to support the cross-border financing as well as internationalisation activities. So the SMEs will not have to worry about there being a reduction in lending or financing support. I will highlight some of the areas being considered in the study. There are two main areas of considerations.

The first is the scale of operations for such a market-based institution, and this will include questions like, whether it will cover trade finance, internationalisation and project finance; in what forms should these be undertaken, whether they be guarantees or they be direct lending. There is also the question on which markets to cover, so as to better support the SMEs and Singapore-based companies seeking to expand abroad.

Finally, there is the question which the Member has raised, which is the size of the institution, as well as the type of capital funding that such an institution will need in terms of equity and debt. These are all very complex issues that we would have to look through very carefully.

The second major area of consideration is the nature of Government's participation. Here, there is a whole range. It could be a Government-owned and Government-run organisation or institution, to one that is in partnership with private institutions, to the other extreme where Government outsources the entire operation. Again, there are various implications for each of these models. So until the Government is convinced that the resulting institution is best able to meet the different needs, it will not rush into forming one that may eventually prove to be ill-equipped. Because of the complexity of the issues and the need for us to continue consulting other players who have already been operating in that space, as well as consulting the business community in greater detail, the study would take the better part of this year.

6. Mr Laurence Wee Yoke Thong asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the significant outcomes of the recently concluded 50plus Expo held in early April 2010, especially in terms of participation and interests shown by the cohort of older persons and how will these affect the planning of such future events; and (b) whether these outcomes will have any impact on the active ageing and wellness of elderly movement, and what are the changes, if any.

The 50plus Expo is one of the key signature events under the Council for Third Age. It provides a platform for community and commercial organisations to showcase products and services that meet the needs and interests of our seniors.

2010 is the second year that the Expo has been running. This two-day event saw a total of 75,000 visitors, an increase

from 68,000 last year. While the majority was seniors, it was encouraging to see that many also came with their families. There was also a wide variety of products and services offered by companies, including that of healthcare and financial products, spa and beauty, fitness and exercise, travel, leisure and education.

An onsite survey undertaken by Forbes Research on the sponsors and exhibitors revealed that 93% expressed "Very Good" and "Good" in terms of overall satisfaction with the Expo. Close to 70% responded that they would participate in the Expo next year. To-date, 25 exhibitors have already signed up to participate in the Expo next year.

We are seeing more businesses which are keen to cater to the mature consumer segment. This is beneficial for our seniors as they would have access to more products and services to meet their varying needs. The C3A-POSB Active Card, which was launched at the Expo, is one good example.

This year’s Expo was held alongside the Active Ageing Carnival. The carnival brought together various community interest groups and showcased the things including tea-appreciation, traditional Chinese opera, line dancing and various physical activities for seniors. It provided seniors with the opportunity to discover new interests and to try out new activities such as scaling up a rock wall. The message is clear – that it is never too late to pick up a new hobby if you are up to it, and to meet new friends. Nearly 90% of the survey respondents indicated that they found an interesting hobby or activity from the carnival that they could and would pursue.

Through the public forums at the Expo, there has been greater public awareness in particular in the areas of active ageing and health and wellness,

63.8% indicated that they learned something useful at the Expo. This should continue to be nurtured and encouraged.

Our active ageing scene is becoming more vibrant with greater partnership across the people, private and public sectors. The Government will put in place the $20 million Active Ageing Capability Fund over five years, starting from FY 2011. The focus will be on further building of capabilities within the sector through a targeted approach to nurture organisations as active ageing champions. Leveraging on the 50plus Expo, the Active Ageing Carnival and other platforms, we will continue to work with partners toward a vibrant active ageing ecosystem that offers more opportunities for our seniors to remain active and well.

Thank you, Minister, for your very encouraging report on the active ageing scene. I will ask one question only and that is: is the Government prepared to promote greater filial piety as filial piety is connected to active ageing?

Mr Speaker, Sir, family ties are very much the foundation of our society, it is the cornerstone of our society and, I think, certainly for Singapore. We will continue to promote the strength of the family. Filial piety would be an integral part of family ties and family values. It is important for children to love and want to take care of their parents. I think it is important for everyone to remember that as parents, we are a model to our children through how we treat our parents; the way in which we expect them to treat us in our old age as well. But at the same time, obviously, it is also important for all parents to remember to bring up their children well and to treat them well so that in your old age, your children will remember your love and the many good things that you have

done for them in their growing up years and treat you properly. So, the answer is, yes, we will promote filial piety.

7. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the public response to the Lease Buyback Scheme since September 2009; (b) how many elderly homeowners downgraded from larger apartments to studio apartments in the last four years; and (c) whether these options are sufficient to help elderly homeowners unlock the value of their residential property to facilitate financial needs for retirement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) was introduced in March last year. As at 30th April 2010, HDB has received 552 applications for the scheme, 229 cases have been approved while another 166 cases are being processed. The remaining 157 cases are either not eligible or decided not to proceed with the LBS.

Besides the LBS, there is a range of other monetisation options which elderly flat owners can consider, depending on their individual needs and preferences. For example, they may consider moving to a smaller flat or a Studio Apartment (SA) purpose-built for the elderly. From 2006 to 2009, about 900 elderly owners have downsized from larger apartments to SAs.

If they wish to age in the familiarity of their home and environment, they can choose to sublet their spare bedrooms for rental income. Those who wish to move in to stay with their children for care and support can sublet their entire flats.

The Member asked if the current range of monetisation options is sufficient to address elderly homeowners’ financial needs for retirement. Findings from HDB’s Sample Household Survey 2008 suggest that 84% of our elderly do not need to monetise their HDB flats to meet their retirement needs. Elderly respondents to the survey indicated their main financial sources were support from their children, as well as their own personal and CPF savings. More than 80% indicated that their current sources of income were sufficient to cover their daily expenses. HDB will continue to monitor the sufficiency of monetisation options and ensure that they are readily available to our elderly flat owners as and when the need arises.

Can I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the Ministry is satisfied with the take-up rate, and also whether the Ministry has received feedback from the public whether the amount received from this Lease Buyback Scheme is sufficient for the elderly who want to use it as a way to monetise their flats.

Sir, we presented the Lease Buyback Scheme as one of the options. We do not want to see it as the only option because there are many reasons why the elderly would prefer to take up the Lease Buyback option. We decided that because of the concept of ageing-in-place, they want to encourage the elderly to see that as a viable option. Whether they are satisfied or not, of course, we want more of the elderly to take it up because it is a good scheme, but we also respect their individual decision as to whether they want to take this up or use other alternative options. As far as the financial payout is concerned, we have explained to the elderly that the Lease Buyback option is should be seen as a supplemental income, not the only source of income. We want to encourage them to

see that there are other sources of income that they could also source from, basically their children as well as CPF savings and other possible sources of income. So the Lease Buyback payout should not be seen as the only source of income. It is a possible supplemental income. It is one of the various options that is available for the elderly.

Thank you, Sir. I have three supplementary questions. The first is with regard to the Studio Apartments. Your data suggests that the take-up rate is quite healthy. The question is, perhaps, rather simplistic. I mean, at this point, if I am 55 years old, I can buy a studio apartment, and the lease is 30 years. What if I live beyond 85? What are the provisions in place that HDB has? My question – with regard to the Studio Apartment again, is whether HDB has plans to set up more Studio Apartments options so that within the mature estate, where the elderly households are likely to be concentrated, we can promote ageing-in-place. My last supplementary question relates to the Lease Buyback Scheme. As far as I can understand, this is for low income households, so, if I have a 4-room flat, I am not eligible for this. Moving ahead, does HDB have plans to extend this option, with ageing-in-place as emphasis, to facilitate this similar option for those owners of larger flats?

Let me take the questions from back to front. On the LBS, whether we can extend it to the 4-roomers. Whe we crafted the LBS, we looked at the different needs of the different groups of the elderly at this point in time. We see that the elderly with larger flats, 4-room, 5-room, they have other options of monetising their assets to buy smaller flats, meaning that they can downgrade from either 5-room to 3-room, from 4-room to 2-room, for example. Of course, there could be those who are interested in the Lease Buyback Scheme.

At this point in time, we want to try to encourage those who are in the 3-roomers first because the take-up from the 3-roomers is still quite low. We are still studying the reasons behind it. If it is proven, and from feedback there are indications that the 4-roomers are also equally interested and, in line with this concept of ageing-in-place, we are prepared to consider it at a later date. Because it is new, we have just executed the programme a year ago, it will take time before people are comfortable and understand what the scheme is all about. We still have a large pool of elderly in 3-room flats who need to be given better understanding of this scheme before we consider expanding it to larger flat households.

The second question is: where do we plan to build more Studio Apartments? Certainly we will try to build studio apartments in different locations. If you look at our plans for 2010, we launched the BTO flats in January in Choa Chu Kang, which is a semi-mature estate. There are young people there and elderly people living together with the young. In that development, there are also Studio Apartments. The concept now is to try to integrate the Studio Apartments together with the other flat types so that the elderly can continue to integrate with the other younger generation and they can co-exist within that same development.

On the issue of what happens after the 30-year lease runs out – at this point in time, of course, it is estimated that people do live beyond 85 years. I think at that point in time, HDB will probably assess the situation and see how else we can assist some of these elderly who are currently in the Studio Apartments, whether there is an extension of the lease. We will probably evaluate it closer to the time. I give the assurance to the Member and the House that we will not leave the elderly without a home by the end of the 30-year lease.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to applaud the Ministry for coming up with this Scheme because I think it is very thoughtful and allows people to monetise their flats. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary; with the low take-up rate for the LBS Scheme, what are the common reasons cited by those who are eligible and yet turn down the offer and what are the concerns of the elderly who do not take up the Scheme and what will the Ministry be doing to address these concerns? Secondly, awareness of the Scheme. I realised that among my senior residents, they do not fully understand the details of the Scheme and therefore they do not take up the Scheme. So I would like to urge the Ministry to look at other ways to raise the awareness so that the elderly are able to make an informed decision.

Sir, we periodically survey the residents to find out why they are hesitant to take up the LBS. One of the things that has surfaced quite regularly is the idea of wanting to leave behind something for their children. When you sign up for the Scheme, the potential of not leaving behind the asset or the property to their children is very high. And many elderly people do see it as an important aspect of their legacy to leave behind their property. So that is one of the reasons that they cited. The other reason is, they look at the calculations as Ms Irene Ng asked earlier; is the payout worthwhile for them? I think we have emphasised to them that it is not a main source of income for them. It is a supplementary source of income, along with other possible sources of income. I think the Member is right, we should try to educate the public more because they are elderly and may require a lot of hand-holding in understanding possibly a complex system because the Scheme talks about annuities, tail-end period of your lease and buying over that tail-end,

that sort of thing. These are some complex terms. The HDB officers have tried very hard. When we launched the programme, we engaged the grassroots leaders as well as the advisors on trying to target the groups that are eligible. We had sessions with them, tried to explain to them, but we are more than open to addressing local needs. I think if there are Members of the House who have got groups of elderly who they think would benefit from other schemes that require HDB officers to go down and explain further, we are more than glad to do so.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry has encountered more cases of the elderly being turfed out of HDB flats owned by their adult children or who prefer not to live with their children for various reasons; and (b) what housing options are available to these elderly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB does not have any data on the number of elderly who have been turfed out of flats by their children. Families must be the first line of support whenever someone needs help. This includes providing accommodation for and looking after aged parents, even when it is inconvenient or difficult. If the children are unable to house their parents in their homes, they should provide the necessary financial support for alternative accommodation, such as rental of a room or flat from the open market.

Elderly parents whose children are not willing to support them may seek the assistance of the Family Service Centres or the Office of the Commissioner for the Maintenance of Parents. If mediation is not successful, they can consider making an application for maintenance at the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents.

The Member also asked about housing options for the elderly. Based on HDB's Sample Household Survey 2008, about 60% of the elderly prefer to live on their own. HDB has built Studio Apartments which are designed for elderly living. Senior citizens who wish to live independently can consider buying such Studio Apartments or a smaller flat. If they wish to age in the familiarity of their existing flat, they can consider the Lease Buyback Scheme or sublet their spare bedrooms to generate income, if necessary. Yet another alternative, if they have the financial means, is to rent a flat or room from the open market.

Sir, at the Meet-the-People Sessions, I seem to see an increasing number of elderly residents who say that they cannot live with their children, either because the flats are too cramped and crowded or the relationship has broken down irretrievably and cannot be reconciled. Given such a situation, can the HDB review its policy to allow for such appeals where the need for rental flat is quite real? And can I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, if he agrees that this is not so much a matter to do with filial piety but the fact that it is a reality on the ground where some family members just cannot get along and, rather than force them to put up with further hardships, to provide them a solution with rental flats?

Sir, I can empathise with the Member's concern about the elderly. Often times, the other Members of the House also come across such situations

where residents come and say that they cannot live with their children because of strained relationships. Sometimes, when we ask the children, the story is somewhat different. It could be an issue of perception. They perceive that they cannot live with their children, and when we ask the children, the children say, "I am fine. They

can continue living with me." Of course, there are situations where the relationship is really difficult. On whether we can do anything about it to salvage it, we have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. The fundamental issue is, first, whether we are talking about a housing issue or a more fundamental issue of handling family relationships. Of course, it is not easy. We will always have difficulties living in a family environment, let alone living in a multi-generational environment where the needs, aspirations and expectations are different.

So, we recognise that there are some of these challenges. That is why I think we have put in place the social infrastructure. We want to encourage families to continue to be the first line of support, to ensure that families are strengthened to be able to do that. There will be situations where family members have difficulties living with the elderly. I do not think we can say there is one family in Singapore who has no problem living with elderly. There will definitely be situations where they have difficulties dealing with this relationship. If they are able to understand, and if they know, there are support services available, I think the challenge is to encourage them to seek assistance early, such that these issues can be resolved early. That is why I mentioned earlier about the social infrastructure, particularly the Family Service Centres, where issues of such a nature can be resolved. We want to try to encourage that. We want to try to have families to continue to be able to support the elderly. In the circumstances that the Member mentioned, the situation is so irretrievable that one cannot do anything about it, particularly if there are issues of violence involved, I think we will be very sympathetic to such situations. I would encourage Members to surface those cases to us and we can study the cases carefully, get inputs from the Family Service Centres and the relevant

professionals to see how else we can support such families. But, by and large, I think we want to start from the first premise that we want to try to help families cope with such situations. As they cope, they will be able to learn new coping mechanisms and perhaps able to manage future situations, so that we do not have to end up in a situation where we just provide alternative housing when families are not able to cope.

When some senior citizens apply for rental flats unsuccessfully, they are turned away because their children have flats which their parents can move into. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary: does the Housing and Development Board use criteria like flat types and, hence, what is the reasonable number of occupants per flat-type?

My second question is this. As we know, in our Asian society, a lot of parents, especially the older generations, do not see turning to their daughters as an option because they feel that their daughters are married out of the family. So when the HDB assesses such cases where the children have their own flats, does it make a distinction between whether it is a son or a daughter?

I think the issue is the role of the children in supporting the well-being of the elderly, which also translates into ensuring that the elderly have accommodation. When we say that the elderly have family support as a criterion in assessing their eligibility for rental flats, for example – this is a new criterion that we have put in place – we look at two possibilities. One is the availability of a spare bedroom. So, we look at not just the room type of the flat. If it is a 5-room flat but there are 30 people living in it – it is an exaggeration – it is, of course, not possible. If it is a 5-

room flat, the married child has two children. The assumption is that there is a spare bedroom – that spare bedroom can accommodate the elderly. In the circumstances where the elderly say, "No, I don't want to" or "I don't feel comfortable because I don't want to live with my children", we say, "You can afford to accommodate your parents. But if you do not want to accommodate your parents, we cannot force you. It is incumbent upon you, as a child, to provide the living accommodation for your parents." I think that is a fair system. The flip side to it is: do we then say because they are capable but they do not want to, then the Government should provide the rental flat for the elderly? I think that is a different proposition altogether.

So, we have to understand some of these circumstances. That also answers the second question of daughters. Yes, maybe they do not want to live with their daughters. But is the daughter capable of providing that living arrangement for the elderly, be it a rental room or an alternative accommodation? The issue is the responsibility of the children, who have the ability to do so, to provide for the well-being of their elderly.

9. Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Senior Minister (a) whether the recent fraud charges against Goldman Sachs over its marketing of a subprime mortgage product is likely to have any impact on the Singapore economy; and (b) whether his Ministry has received any feedback on the financial reforms put in place in the aftermath of the Minibonds saga.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) monitors developments in various jurisdictions.

However not all developments in other jurisdictions will be equally applicable in Singapore. The securities fraud charges brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission against Goldman Sachs are very specific in nature and are in relation to a specific synthetic collateralised debt obligation (CDO) linked to the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities. The allegation is that Goldman Sachs failed to disclose to investors the role that a large hedge fund had played in the portfolio selection process, and the fact that the hedge fund would benefit if the mortgage-backed securities defaulted. The notes were marketed to financial institutions, not to the retail public.

MAS has not found a similar situation to have taken place in Singapore. All entities offering securities to the public in Singapore are required to comply with the Securities and Futures Act which, amongst other things, requires disclosure of all the information that investors and their professional advisers would reasonably require to make an informed assessment of the product. Where there is a breach of regulations or law, MAS will take appropriate regulatory action.

Mr Teo has also asked about feedback on the proposals that MAS set out following its review on the regulatory regime for listed and unlisted products. MAS has released two consultation papers containing proposals to further safeguard consumers’ interests and promote higher industry standards for the sale and marketing of investment products in March 2009 and January 2010.

MAS has received a wide range of feedback from investors, market practitioners, industry associations, as well as the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) and the Securities Investors Association Singapore (SIAS).

In finalising its proposals, MAS will take these views into account as well as the outcome of its own review. Some proposals will require legislative amendments and take some time to implement. MAS has started work on the legislative amendments and will start consulting on draft legislation this year. Prior to implementation, MAS encourages financial institutions intending to sell investment products to adopt the proposed safeguards as good practice in conducting business with retail customers. MAS considers this to be part of the obligation of financial institutions’ Boards and senior management to deliver fair dealing outcomes to their customers.

10. Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Education whether he has plans to develop a more structured and consistent support plan for special-needs students in tertiary institutions such as the ITEs, polytechnics and universities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has, in recent years, strengthened the support for special-needs students at the primary and secondary levels. Those who are admitted into the post-secondary education institutes (PSEIs) are provided with support services which are customised to their needs at each of the institutions.

This is generally done through a three-step process. The first involves the identification of students and their special needs. Students who declare their disabilities are put in touch with counsellors who would find out more about their needs and customise arrangements for them. For example, wheelchair-bound students are allocated classrooms that are wheelchair accessible.

Second, as far as possible, students are given extra-curricular and pedagogical support to better support their learning. Academic staff members are notified of the students’ needs so that they may either provide extra help or modify their teaching methods appropriately, for instance, by providing extra notes or by speaking while facing a student who may need to lip-read. In addition, the PSEIs pay close attention to the needs of these students during examinations, for example, by providing scripts with larger fonts for the visually-impaired, and for cases where specific physical disabilities affect writing, students are allowed to use computers to type out answers in examinations. Students can also be granted extra time to complete their examinations.

Lastly, steps have also been taken to equip faculty and academic staff with the necessary skills to handle special needs students. For instance, ITE has been working with NIE to conduct training on "Teaching Adolescents and Adult Learners with Special Needs".

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. I have witnessed in developed countries professional, systematic, consistent support plans for students with special needs in universities, polytechnics and even high schools. I ask MOE to consider studying some of these models. I also have evidence from the ground – in fact, just this morning, I have been to one of the institutions – that there is no consistent or structured support for these students. I am not just talking about students with physical disabilities. As a result, it has led to greater stress on the part of both students and staff, and, in fact, more importantly, the under-optimisation of the potential of these students with special needs.

In view of this, this is a logical gap to plug. Since these students are able to

study and get on to tertiary institutions, I would ask MOE to consider addressing this issue, coming up with more consistent, systematic support plans and audits and, hopefully, also to do so by the next Committee of Supply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for her suggestions and timeline. I would like to re-emphasise the point that, currently, our post-secondary education institutions, whether it is ITE, polytechnics or universities, leverage extensively on their internal resources to try and accommodate the needs of special-needs students. As I explained, they identify their needs and render the extra support as it has been assessed to be required, and they also train their faculty and staff members to manage those needs. But I want to assure the Member that MOE and the institutions are prepared to consider further measures to assist such students, if necessary. She pointed out the examples in many parts of the world, in developed countries, and suggested we study their models. Indeed, MOE agencies are working together with the post-secondary education institutions in order to deepen our outstanding and see where the gaps are. Take the example of ITE, MOE's Psychological Services Branch is helping ITE with the needs assessment study to systematically identify the gaps that exist today in ITE's provision to special-needs students. ITE would then take steps to bridge those gaps. Whether that entails a specific allocation of resources or a more systematic response, as the Member has suggested, I think will depend on the kind of needs that have been identified and the extent of those needs.

I would also like to assure the Member that if there are any specific instances that she cited, like she feels that the support rendered is insufficient, then she should really highlight it and we will see what we can do to address that.

11. Mr Laurence Wee Yoke Thong asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Government has plans to put in place recommendations for the compulsory education of children with special needs sometime in the near future; and (b) as the education of children with special needs deserves our utmost support and encouragement for their full integration in society, what has been done by the Government in this direction.

Mr Speaker, Sir, almost all children with special needs already attend Special Education (SPED) schools or our mainstream schools. A very small number of children do not attend school each year. Let me give Members the numbers. Eight of them for this year’s Primary 1 cohort – so it is a very small number we are talking about – but this is because children have very severe disabilities or medical conditions that prevent them from doing so. Enforcing compulsory education on this group of children will not benefit them, and would impose unduly harsh requirements on their parents to comply with the Act.

Our goal is to provide valuable education to children with special needs, but this is better achieved through the "many helping hands" approach, which has yielded positive results, rather than the force of blunt legislation.

MOE works closely with the National Council for Social Service in funding and supporting the SPED schools. SPED schools receive funding of up to four times the per-capita funding of mainstream schools, with MOE contributing more than 80% each year.

MOE has also provided 95% of funding to build or refurbish facilities for SPED

schools and many of these schools have dedicated purpose-built facilities suited for their needs. Currently, 16 SPED schools are in newly built or upgraded facilities, with another three schools doing so by 2011.

In recent years, the Government has continued to enhance the support for children with special needs. For example, additional funding has been provided for curriculum enhancement in SPED schools last year, and this year, funding was provided to SPED schools to establish school-based education awards to recognise and encourage SPED students for their achievements and progress. From 2011, the Edusave Pupils Fund and Edusave Grants will be increased to better support SPED students offering mainstream secondary curriculum and vocational education programmes. MOE will also be offering a Direct Instruction reading programme to all SPED schools to help SPED students build a firm foundation of literacy skills to learn, communicate effectively and live independently.

Following the success of satellite partnerships by Pathlight School and Canossian School with mainstream schools, MOE will be facilitating more of such partnerships to provide SPED students with opportunities for meaningful interactions with their mainstream peers, and facilitate social integration. In addition, more SPED schools are now co-located beside mainstream schools to provide more opportunities for interactions, for example, through joint social and learning activities such as the Community Involvement Programme (CIP), National Education Programme and CCAs.

MOE has also been working with Government agencies and VWOs to enhance the employability of SPED students and facilitate their integration into society. Metta School and Delta

Senior School now offer their students a vocational education programme that comes with nationally accredited qualifications. We are currently prototyping a structured programme of vocational preparation for SPED students from age 13 years in four SPED schools, which aims to help students develop the necessary foundational and readiness skills for vocational education. In other words, we are bringing the collaboration downwards to an even younger age group to prepare them earlier in their lives.

Sir, MOE will continue to adopt the "many helping hands" approach to support children with special needs.

I want to register my deepest appreciation to the last and the current MOE leadership teams which have made resources available. I think the Member's question is really on the issue of legislation. I would ask MOE to look into the legislation to make it more progressive. There is evidence on the ground that parents of special-needs children do not send their children to school beyond the reason of them having severe physical disability. Some of the parents or families have special needs themselves or economically do not see the needs to send these children to school. Today, there is no recourse except by moral suasion and, on the ground, we found this to be difficult. As a result, I would like to ask MOE to consider relooking at this legislation to cover all children, whether they have special needs or not, under compulsory education. Allow an opt-out option for various reasons, either medical or some other reasons. Do not just exclude all children with special needs from compulsory education in one fell swoop. So I would ask MOE to consider that, hopefully, by the next Committee of Supply (COS).

Mr Speaker, similarly, I thank the Member for the

timeline as well. But I would just like to explain that that is actually what the legislation is intended to do right now. Compulsory education for all children with exceptions, and exception has to be made with good reasons. As I have explained in my answer earlier, we are talking about a very small group of children each year that has not been sent to school. We question the rationale for not sending them to school but, at the same time, we also question the effectiveness of applying legislation which means putting the parents themselves to the effect of law if they intend not to send them to school. As the Member mentioned, some of these parents themselves need a lot of help and whether sending them to face the effect of law is indeed the best way to deal with this issue. I would encourage members of the society, the community to work together to help facilitate as much as possible and to encourage them to send their children to school and, from MOE's perspective, we are ready to support in terms of funding, in terms of dedicated facilities for them and, as much as possible, I think we would want to work on that basis.

Ms Phua, a very short question, please. Three seconds.

Sir, I would still request MOE to consider the scope of the Compulsory Education Act so that we can actually avoid situations where families claim that they have special-needs children and do not send their children to school due to some other reasons which may not be acceptable and which may not be of benefit to the children themselves. Sir, I ask for more protection of these children.

Sir, I would suggest that we deal with such specific cases on a case-by-case because they are indeed very small in numbers.

12. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower how many jobs have been created by Resorts World Sentosa to date and, of these jobs, what percentage has been given to Singapore citizens.

Sir, the two Integrated Resorts (IRs) currently employ over 16,000 workers directly, in rank-and-file and professional, managerial, executive and technician (PMET) positions. MOM, WDA, MTI, STB and other agencies have provided strong support to the IRs in the recruitment and training of local hires which currently account for about 70% of the workforce in the IRs.

Thank you, Minister of State, for the statistics – 70% are local hires. How many more jobs does MOM envision Resort World Sentosa (RWS) and Marina Bay Sands (MBS) creating when fully operational? What is MOM's plan to ensure that the additional jobs created from now till the operational time are prioritised for Singaporeans?

Sir, the two IRs have projected that they require 20,000 direct workers. As you can see, and also mentioned by my colleague, Senior Minister of State Iswaran, yesterday, 80% of these jobs have been realised so far. The run up to the employment already saw the cooperation between the two IRs as well as the number of Government agencies. There is a work group that meets very regularly to look at just the manpower situation. We are pleased to note that the two IRs have committed to the localisation plan. Under this plan, when the IRs do the recruitment, of course, given the large numbers, they would recruit openly as Members can see

in their recruitment advertisements. They also have been going to the unions, to the schools, to ITEs, to polytechnics, to SHATEC, for the specific skill sets they need. I think they also make a special effort, in terms of reaching out, to various small groups but available employment pools such as the Back to Work women's group as well as the Yellow Ribbon. All in all, we see good progress being made. Out of the 16,000 workers that they have hired, about half of them have gone through the Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) certifiable training courses, especially for MBS, the recruitment is ongoing and we are working with them closely to make sure that they reach out more to the local pool and, at the same time, train them through the various WSQ courses at the Continuing Education and Training (CET) Centres.

I would like to ask the Minister of State three questions. First question is with regard to the service staff at the IR. It is very heartening to note that Singaporeans are moving forward to take up service jobs. I would like to check of these service staff, what is their power of retention or rather staying with the IR, especially those frontline people, how long do they stay in these jobs?

Second question has got to do with the ancillary service providers. We understand that supporting the IR industry are many ancillary service providers such as those who are in the laundry service, and so on. What plans are there to help these service providers to solve their manpower problems because I understand that many of them face great challenges of recruiting Singaporeans to take up these jobs but, at the same time, they are not getting the necessary quota to admit more foreign workers. We understand the need for these people to take the productivity route where they should mechanise, but there is a time-lag issue. To what extent is MOM prepared to allow

these service providers some time to plan better and, in the meantime, allow more of these foreigners to come in for a period of time?

The third question has got to do the 10,000 jobs that are supposed to be promised at the Marina Bay Sands. How many of these jobs have been taken up by Singaporeans?

I thank the Member for these further questions. On the service staff, if she is talking about F&B and the hotel frontline staff, both the IRs will have to compete in the market – they recruit against competition, they also have to retain against competition. It is still in a very early phase of being operational. So it will take a while to see what the turnover rate is. I hope the turnover will not be high because they have spent so much time in training and make a lot of effort to create a conducive environment for these people to develop their careers.

On the ancilliary service providers, what we know is that with the two IRs setting up, there were about 100 new companies, tourism-related companies formed, in support of the IRs. Some of them may fall into this category defined as ancilliary services, but whether they are ancilliary services or part of the supplier or part of the supply chain, all the companies within Singapore will have to find ways to raise productivity and find ways to automate. In fact, with more outsourced jobs that they can acquire, there should be economies of scale to justify automation. We work very closely with the two IRs so as to understand and preempt their operational problems. We do not see this is an area of concern yet.

The third question about the 10,000 jobs. As I said earlier, the local hires are accounting for about 70%. With our joint

efforts to localise the workforce, we should be able to maintain the target.

13. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the percentage of the total number of employers of Foreign Domestic Workers (FDWs) who defaulted on payment of their FDWs' monthly salaries in 2007, 2008 and 2009; (b) what measures does the Ministry have in place to ensure that FDWs' salaries are paid on time; and (c) will the Ministry consider implementing a centralised electronic tracking system to ensure that salaries of FDWs are paid on time.

Sir, the Ministry of Manpower has put in place measures to safeguard the well-being of foreign domestic workers (FDWs) in Singapore. This includes ensuring that FDWs are paid their salaries promptly. We do this through regulation, accreditation and outreach.

Our Work Permit conditions require employers to pay FDWs their monthly salaries not later than seven days after the last day of the salary period.

Employers are also obliged to pay FDWs their salaries via a direct fund transfer into the worker’s Singapore bank account, if the FDW requests such payment. Employers who fail to comply with the Work Permit conditions can be fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed up to six months. They can also be barred from hiring another FDW.

In addition, the two employment agency accreditation bodies – the Association of Employment Agencies of Singapore and CaseTrust – have introduced a standard employment contract for FDWs since 2006. The standard contract

provides a template for employers to record the schedule of salary payments and for FDWs to acknowledge the amounts received. The standard contract also requires employers to stipulate the mode of salary payments, ensuring FDWs are fully aware of their employment terms when they sign the contract.

We ensure that FDWs understand their right to receive salaries promptly. During the Safety Awareness Course that all first-time FDWs are required to attend, FDWs are informed of their legal rights including the prompt payment of their salaries, and are given a postage paid envelope addressed directly to MOM for them to report employment malpractices and abuses. In addition, the Ministry of Manpower conducts random audits on FDWs to ensure their continued well-being. We have also set up a dedicated helpline for FDWs to reach MOM officers.

As a result of our efforts, the proportion of FDWs in Singapore who had reported salary arrears has been low at about 0.1% of FDWs in Singapore. The numbers have also been falling from 276 in 2007 to 241 last year, despite an increase in the number of FDWs. There is therefore no need for MOM to implement a tracking system for salary payments at this point.

Thank you, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, for the comprehensive answer. The 0.1% statistic is indeed encouraging. My clarification is coming out of that 0.1% statistic, which are the reported cases. Of course, there may be instances where a FDW is not paid and does not report, and that is where my clarification lies. Does MOM agree that there is less incentive for a FDW who has not been paid to report, given that she is reporting against her employer who has to pay her salary? Therefore, if there is an increase in the statistic, would MOM consider the tracking mechanism that has been suggested?

Thank you for the question. As I have said, the number of FDWs who have reported that they have not been paid their salaries promptly or for a long period of time is really very small. We have enhanced our attempts to reach out to them to help them. Apart from that, as I said earlier, there are also the legal and regulatory measures to safeguard the FDWs' well-being. We require employment agencies to use the standard contract, which is a condition for the renewal of their licence annually. We expect the employment agencies to include in the standard contract a clause on salary payment mode. The standard contract, which is signed both by the employer and the FDW, has raised the awareness of the FDWs of their rights to salary payment promptly. FDWs are also informed about how to reach MOM offices should they need assistance.

Of course, there may have been cases of employers who got away with not paying their FDWs over a period of time. Through complaints from FDWs during our random audits, we may discover some of these cases from time to time. But we go by the fact that last year, only 0.12% of around 196,000 FDWs in Singapore complained to us about their salaries not being paid or not being paid promptly, and conclude that the electronic tracking mechanism is not needed now.

14. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) if his Ministry is aware that allowing hourly-rated or transit hotels in residential areas results in sex workers plying their trade in the neighbourhood and causes distress to residents; (b) what measures will his Ministry implement to prohibit the issuance of licences to charge hourly rates to hotels operating in residential areas; and (c) whether his Ministry will consider

only permitting hourly-rated or transit hotels near the airport and not in residential areas.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while I understand the Member’s concerns, it is important to point out that hotels that offer transit rates should not automatically be associated with vice. Hotels offer such transit rates to meet the accommodation needs of a diverse group of customers, including travellers, shipping crew, day trippers, and even locals for social gatherings. Hence, it is not practical for such hotels to be restricted only to locations near the airport, as the Member has suggested, as they do serve the needs of various groups other than air travellers.

Like many major cities around the world, Singapore allows our hotels the flexibility to set their operating model, as long as they meet the necessary requirements.

Notwithstanding this, the Hotel Licensing Board (HLB) will not hesitate to take firm action against hotels when there is evidence that they have been facilitating vice-related activities. Penalties against offending hotels can range from disallowing transit rates to revoking the operating licence of the hotel, in extremis.

To complement this set of downstream penalties against offending hotels, the HLB has, since September last year, also implemented a set of upfront measures to tighten the regulation of hotels offering transit rates. All hotels intending to offer such rates are now required to indicate the reasons for doing so in their licence renewal applications. To ensure the safety of guests and to curb possible illegal activities, all hotels will have to propose

security and preventive measures, for example, the installation of CCTVs in common areas and the deployment of security guards. For new hotels which are setting up in residential areas, the hotel will also be required to engage the community. The HLB, in consultation with the other agencies, reviews each licence application on its merits and conducts physical checks to ensure that hotels implement the security measures stated.

I would like to assure all Members of the House that the HLB is monitoring the situation closely, and will continue to work with all Government agencies and the industry to mitigate any social disamenities that might arise from hotel operations.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply and I appreciate that hourly-rated hotels service more than just air travellers, and I agree with that position.

I would like clarifications on two points. The Minister mentioned in September last year new guidelines came out imposing certain restrictions on those intending to set up budget hotels. So do those restrictions apply to budget hotels pre-dating September last year? And that leads to the second clarification which is, if there are budget hotels in residential areas which were set up before September last year, can the community also be engaged as to whether or not their licence should continue if indeed there is a high amount of vice being generated by that within the neighbourhood?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to both questions really is hotels are issued licences and these licences are subject to renewal, typically, I think, on an annual or biennial basis. And at the point of renewal, these considerations will apply, and HLB will take them into account.

As for whether we would impose the community engagement requirement, that would really depend on the situation because if, in fact, the hotel has been conducting its business in a manner that does not in any way incur or cause any disamenities to the community, then we do not need to impose these additional encumbrances on the hotels. But where there is an indication that there may be some issues, then certainly that would be required.

Mdm Phua, a short question, please. We do not have much time.

Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask Senior Minister of State Iswaran to buy Senior Minister of State Grace Fu a good cup of coffee. I agree with him that if there is no budget hotel in a residential area, there is really no issue of hourly rates. Although the Senior Minister of State Grace Fu has said that budget hotels can co-exist in residential areas, it is not so in the real situation. Hotels should only be built in hotel-designated use areas in the Masterplan. So I would like the Senior Minister of State Iswaran, please buy her a cup of coffee and resolve this issue on the ground.

I thank the Member and I will extend the due hospitality.

Ms Irene Ng.

Thank you. Sir, there is not so much time and I see that our colleague, Mr Christopher de Souza, has one more question.

Okay, you are giving the time to him. Yes, Mr de Souza.

I am much obliged and I think I should buy Ms Irene Ng a cup of coffee.

No, please. Get on with your question, Mr de Souza, please.

The Senior Minister of State mentioned the Community Engagement Programme (CEP) being imposed on hotels if MTI receives feedback about vice activities on the ground within the community. So is there a mechanism for the community to give feedback to MTI that indeed it thinks that the hotels should have the CEP imposed and what is the mechanism through which that filters up?

Two-and-a-half minutes.

The short answer is, I think there is quite a range of mechanisms. The community can inform the Hotel Licensing Board. The Member of Parliament can make representation to the Ministry or to the Board as well. And I think, in general, the HLB is also monitoring the situation on the ground and therefore tries to keep in regular contact with all the stakeholders and so the stakeholders should maintain that dialogue on a regular basis.

15. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for National Development (a) what has been the response from developers for the 30-year land lease for the development of retirement housing; and (b) if he will give an assessment on the need for retirement villages in Singapore.

The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) has made available a site at Jalan Jurong Kechil since 2006, where a retirement housing development can be built. This site has a tenure of 30 years

instead of the usual 99 years for residential land. This will reduce land costs for developers, which in turn could translate to more affordable housing for the elderly. While there has been some market interest in the site, no bids have been received thus far.

Retirement housing is but one of many possible housing options for senior citizens. For example, private sector developers have offered adjoining apartments that allow seniors to live next to their grown-up children. There are also Studio Apartments for senior citizens in HDB estates. While Government will facilitate new retirement housing options, we should let the market forces decide on the housing typologies that meet the needs of seniors.

I would also like to point out that Singapore is unique in that a large segment of our population owns their homes. Therefore, we have the opportunity to support ageing-in-place within these homes that the seniors already own. In fact, URA’s recent Lifestyle Survey 2009 and the Concept Plan 2011 Online Survey showed that nearly 80% of the senior respondents prefer to live in regular housing, rather than more dedicated forms of senior housing like Studio Apartments and retirement villages. They prefer to remain in the homes that they already own and age in an environment that they are familiar with alongside other generations. We will also continue working with other agencies to further improve the hardware and software to support ageing-in-place.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 16 and

18 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question No. 17 has been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament. ]

*Cols.601-604.

Resumption of Debate on Question (18th May 2010), "That the Bill be now read a Second time.". – [Minister for Law].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker Sir, the Criminal Procedure Code Bill makes several amendments to the existing Code. I would like to talk about the proposed "community-based" penalties, listed under Part XVII.

The new community-based sentencing options are as follow: Low-risk offenders might face a Short Detention Order of up to two weeks, which is less stigmatising than a jail term. There is also a Day Reporting Order where the offender reports for supervision, counselling and rehabilitation on a regular basis. It can range from three to 12 months. The third option is the Mandatory Treatment Order where the offender undergoes psychiatric treatment instead of imprisonment. This order is capped at two years. These sentencing options depict a shift towards the focus on rehabilitation.

The current Code does not give sufficient powers to the Community Court Judge. As Singapore develops, her criminal justice system can no longer only rely on traditional forms of punishment like fines, jail or caning.

This change is to be welcomed, as the Community Court is capable of doing something more meaningful for the accused person. Further, once the sentence is served, it is "cleaned off" or removed from the offender's record. This helps the offender in the job-finding process as well as the integration back to society.

I would also like to call upon the Government to look at cases where the convicted person’s crimes are not so severe as to warrant the person’s incarceration together with hardcore criminals. Putting a minor offender with a seasoned offender would only serve to harden and embitter a person who could have benefited from a community-based sentence and transform him into a valuable asset to society. This is especially so if the offender is a young person. Segregating these young and vulnerable offenders from seasoned offenders would prevent the creation of another wave of hardened criminals. Singapore society could do with less of such people. Here, I would like to draw attention to Peter Drucker’s nugget of wisdom on managing people, which seems apt here: "Any organisation develops people; it either forms them or deforms them."

However, there is the concern that while this is in line with a shift in focus towards rehabilitation and doing something meaningful for the accused, there is a danger of compromising on deterrence which has been the main sentencing principle in the Singapore criminal justice system that is keeping the crime rate low. As we know, traditional deterrent measures will significantly de-incentivise potential offenders. Playing the devil’s advocate, I would like to ask if this change will be perceived by the public as a "softening" stance on crime.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree that it is a good step for the Community Court to provide relevant supervision, counselling, psychiatric treatment, rehabilitation to the offender. However, I would like to query how these will be funded on top of the existing resources provided to the Community Court?

On a different note, the Singapore legal system practises the doctrine of stare decisis, the legal principle by which

judges are obliged to obey the set-up precedents as well as sentencing options established by prior decisions. This is a distinctive feature under the common law system. I would like to query how the Ministry intends to address this taking into account the shift towards rehabilitation?

I would like to commend the Ministry for reviewing the current sentencing options and for taking steps to assist criminal offenders. This will go a long way in integrating them back into the society and to lead a meaningful life ahead.

With that, I support the Bill, Sir.

3.04 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to address this House on some of the proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code. I can see that the Ministry of Law has taken some bold steps in this set of amendments and has attempted to move our criminal legal system progressively forward in several important areas. I speak in support of the amendments. However, I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to certain areas or aspects which I feel more clarity and certainty can be imbued into our progressive criminal legal landscape.

The new community-based sentencing options, in particular the new "Short Detention Order", "Day Reporting Order" and "Mandatory Treatment Order" are laudable and I particularly liked the fact that once the sentence is served, it is "spent record" or erased from the offender's record. It is noted that some of these options are meant to prevent moral stigmatisation. As such, it is therefore important how such options will be implemented, that is whether the hearings will be held "in camera" and whether the serving of the offence will be out of public and media view as well as the

confidentiality of the identities of these accused persons will be protected when they are serving out their sentences in various "community" bodies.

I note that some elements of the civil discovery process are now being introduced in the criminal law arena. With the new Bill, both the prosecution and defence must now exchange documents called the Case for the Prosecution and for the Defence. This comes with certain conditions imposed on both parties and especially the defence before they are entitled to be served the relevant documents by the prosecution. This new discovery process is a major paradigm shift and will strain both the defence who will have to meet deadlines for requests and also the prosecution which, in some cases are not only the Police, but enforcement agencies and Government Ministries who carry out prosecutions. For this to be meaningful in achieving justice, especially for the defence, there should be sufficient time for both sides in the implementation of this new move. Most importantly, the roll-out should be seamless and all parties must be equipped with the procedural requirements. In fact, if the procedure can be simplified, such as in terms of using standard forms and precedents for the discovery, it will be even more expedient and cost-effective. I take cognisance that the new Criminal Case disclosure procedure will initially apply automatically to High Court cases and the majority of offences tried in the District Court and, that for offences in the Magistrates Court, the procedure will be available through an opt-in mechanism if all parties agree to it. In my opinion, this new process of discovery should apply to all criminal hearings instead of making it an opt-in process at the Magistrates Court. This will ensure uniformity and consistency in approach. It is also worthy of note that the defence will not get the

witnesses' statements as part of this document exchange. Perhaps the rationale for this should be better explained as it goes against the grain of full discovery.

The proposed changes will effectively remove the role of the Court as the final arbiter or decision maker as to whether an offence is compoundable. The proposed changes will grant such discretion to the public prosecutor who will also be empowered to set such terms and conditions as he thinks fit. This invites worry as most people question whether there is "excessive" prosecutorial discretion. Should it not be better to let the power and discretion remain with the Court so that the Court can make its decision based on all facts and submissions made by the defence and the prosecution?

In this Bill, private persons may now commence prosecutions before the Magistrate’s Court without the involvement of the public prosecutor for offences which are punishable by fine only or offences which carry a maximum term of imprisonment of not more than three years. Currently, many Singaporeans still do not know that they have this recourse of private prosecution available to them. Apart from having to create awareness of this right through public education, I wonder if this change will necessarily be a good thing as it will in effect be encouraging people to resort to prosecution as a means of settling a score rather than considering meditation or other non-litigation processes now in place to discourage litigation.

This constitutional right to counsel, enshrined in Article 9(3) of the Constitution, has been well entrenched. However, I believe many have argued for greater clarity in light of decisions made in our highest Courts that there is no right to be informed that one has such a constitutional right. I therefore urge that the Ministry seriously consider the right to counsel to be incorporated as an integral

part of the CPC with detailed provisions marking the extent of the right to be informed of the right to counsel. It would be counter-intuitive to have a right to counsel without also clearly stipulating when the accused is to be informed of his right to consult a lawyer and how he can go about contacting a lawyer. This will be in line with the practice of many jurisdictions who have entrenched this right to be informed of one’s right to counsel.

In conclusion, I am glad to note that this Bill seeks to introduce many forward-looking changes to enhance and uphold fairness and justice in the criminal legal and judicial process.

Sir, I support this Bill.

3.10 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to declare my interest in this Bill as a practising lawyer. I welcome the move to amend the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

I recall many years ago when I was a law student, the law class took one year to study the Evidence Act and the CPC. These also took me many years of practice as a lawyer before I became more familiar with the CPC.

Hence, I applaud those Members who were not legally trained, had only three weeks to plough through this Bill and try to make some sense out of the massive changes to the CPC comprising 451 pages, 430 sections and six schedules.

Perhaps, the Government should consider allowing more time for Members of Parliament to read through and try to absorb the salient changes whenever the Government moves to introduce or amend entire Bills with huge content or changes.

Sir, there are few key changes to the CPC which deserves praise.

Sir, I support the move to introduce criminal case disclosure procedure. This would require the prosecution to produce documents or what is called the Case for the Prosecution to the Defence before the trial. Frequently, criminal lawyers go for trial without adequate knowledge as to what the prosecution's case would be and whether there are any statements made by the accused which have not been disclosed to the defence counsel.

I recall one case, where my client instructed me that he did not commit the offence. After spending lots of time and effort to prepare the case, on the day of the trial, the prosecution revealed to me that my client had actually, during the course of investigation, admitted to committing the offence in his long statement, or what lawyers call the Section 122(5) statement.

When I confronted my client, he was unable to recall whether he indeed signed the confession as he could not read English. He claimed that he was not told what he had signed. As Mr Hri Kumar said yesterday, many people are unable to recall what they have said to the Police, whilst they are under stress of investigation. Had I been aware that my client had signed a confession, I would have advised him differently on whether he should proceed with his defence. And this would have saved prosecution and the Court precious time and also save the accused person additional legal cost.

This new procedure of criminal case disclosure would thus ensure greater transparency in criminal cases and would allow every accused person to have a fair chance to the best defence accorded to him or her, according to the law. There is no reason why the prosecution would be afraid of disclosing their evidence to the defence. The role of the prosecution

should not be to secure conviction at all cost, but to ensure that any party who has committed offences is punished, according to prescribed law. In fact, Sir, I would urge the Police to give a copy of every statement signed by an accused person immediately after he has signed the statement.

There are few matters in this Part IX and X of the Bill which I would wish to seek clarification from the Minister. Section 162 (e) of the Bill requires the prosecution to produce any statement made by the accused which the prosecution intends to adduce in evidence. May I ask why is the prosecution not required to produce all the statements made by the accused? Are there any other statements which the accused had made but which the public prosecutor does not wish to show because it may weaken his or her case? Surely, it ought to be fairer for all relevant statements to be produced. The role of the prosecution should not be just to secure convictions, but to ensure that justice is done for all persons, including the accused person.

Next, may I ask why is it that conditioned statements from witnesses under Section 176(4)(d) are only required for trials in the High Court and not for trials in the Subordinate Courts?

Finally, on this part, where the public prosecutor fail to serve the case for the prosecution, Section 169(2) provides that the Court may order a discharge not amounting to acquittal. However, if the prosecution is taking its time to prosecute its case, why should the accused be penalised? If the prosecution delays proceeding with the case, for say two or three years, surely it would be difficult for any accused person to find witnesses who can recall what had happened on

that day of the offence.

Would it not be fairer to set a time limit for the Prosecution to complete its case, failing which a discharge amounting to an acquittal should be granted?

Sir, I also fully support the introduction of community-based sentencing as provided for in Part XVII of the Bill. Sir, community-based sentencing allows the Courts greater flexibility to impose suitable punishment for minor offences. And there are many occasions where a more suitable punishment for some kind of minor offences is proper psychiatric treatment.

Likewise, I would submit that it will be beneficial for the Courts to have the power to order Community Service Order or Community Work Order if the circumstances are suitable. For example, in a neighbourly dispute, where one neighbour commits a minor offence against the other, it may be more suitable for a Community Service Order to be made instead of imposing a fine. The key question, Sir, is really whether rehabilitation can be provided for offenders who have committed minor offences.

I do have some other queries on the CPC Bill, which I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister. Section 23 is a caution statement and it provides that if a statement is made by the accused, it should be signed by him and if he does not understand English, then the statement should be interpreted to him in a language which he understands. Sir, I would urge the Ministry to consider having an independent interpreter to translate the caution statement into a language that the accused can understand. Justice must be seen to be done. Having the same Investigating Officer (IO) take the statement and then interpret the statement to the accused seems unfair. This is especially so, if the IO is already convinced that the accused had committed the offence.

As a practitioner, I have come across cases where the accused person had signed a statement in English. However, he denied that the statement which contained a confession was ever translated to him. In such cases, the Investigating Officer said the statement had been interpreted to the accused who voluntarily signed the statement, but the accused denied that he was told about the confession before he signed. Who should the Courts believe? Unfortunately, the Courts would invariably believe the Investigating Officer. The odds are usually stacked against the accused person.

In the New Paper on Sunday, it was reported that there have been several cases in the past where police officers have strayed onto the wrong side of the law. Sir, I am not in any way suggesting that our Police Force is not to be trusted. However, the reality is that we do have rogue police officers once in a while. And if such a rogue police officer were to record a statement in a prejudiced manner, then there is a possibility that innocent citizens may be wrongfully charged, convicted and deprived of their freedom. Surely, Sir, it would be better to err on the side of caution, to require independent interpreters to witness and to explain the statement to any accused person.

Next, Sir, let me talk about admissibility under section 258 of the CPC. I thank the Minister for clarifying the intent of Explanation 2 of section 258. And whilst I accept that the contents of section 29 of the Evidence Act is somewhat duplicated in the CPC, however, whatever the reasons for section 29 of the Evidence Act, the question I have for the Minister is whether we should allow any statement made by the accused person whilst he is drunk, to be made admissible. If an accused person makes a statement whilst he is clearly drunk, surely it is a risk to admit his statement which was made when he may

be incoherent or not in control of his senses. How is any judge able to determine how drunk the accused was, when he made the statement to the Police? How is any judge supposed to determine how much weight to be given to such statements? And many of us in this House have heard drunkards bragging about their prowess. Could anyone here say with certainty whether the drunkard was simply bragging or was he telling the truth?

Sir, section 85 of the Penal Code provide that intoxication in certain circumstances shall be a defence in any criminal charge. If the person charged did not know that such Act or omission was wrong, or did not know what he was doing, Sir, does the law recognise that there are occasions when an accused person may be insane or not in control of his senses due to intoxication? With respect, this Explanatory Note, Sir, seems to go against the principle that any statement made by an accused person should be admissible only if it was made of his own free will or voluntarily.

In similar vein, Sir, may I ask the Minister, why do we allow statements to be admissible, even though it was made in consequence of a deception practised on an accused person? Does a law like this not encourage deceptive behaviour amongst police officers? Is it acceptable for the Police to deceive an accused person as long as the end result is a conviction of the accused person? Sir, perhaps, it is also timely for the Ministry of Law to review section 29 of the Evidence Act to see whether this law is still relevant today.

Sir, let me speak about section 104, which are the duties of the surety. A couple of years ago, a few residents saw me to appeal against a show cause notice against forfeiture of bail. The accused person had jumped bail many years ago. Thereafter, this same accused person was

arrested, jailed and later released after serving his sentence. The bailor was asked to show cause why he should not have the bail sum of $5,000 forfeited. Sir, I urge for some form of protection for such bailors, such that they do not have to show cause once the accused person has been arrested, convicted and sentenced. I would also urge the Minister to consider setting a time limit, maybe one year, for the Courts to issue a show cause notice, failing which the surety or the bailor should not be asked to carry a burden indefinitely.

May I also ask whether the burden imposed on the surety under section 104(1)(b) too onerous? How is a bailor or surety expected to keep in contact with an accused person everyday, if a six-week adjournment is granted for representations to be made? If we make the duties of a surety too onerous, then the surety is likely to say no to being a bailor. In such a case, would the accused person have to stay in remand longer until the case is dealt with?

Next, Sir, section 123 of the CPC. Frequently, when an accused person consults a lawyer, he usually does not have a copy of the charge sheet stating the essence of the charge against him. As a lawyer defending an accused person, I usually have to ask the Court interpreter for a copy of the charge sheet and, in some cases, the District Judge asks me to apply to the DPP for a copy of the charge. The criminal charge against an accused person is very serious – surely, the Police or Prosecution ought to ensure that each accused has a copy of the charge to be issued against him or her. It should be given as a matter of course instead of having the Defence Counsel ask around or being directed to apply for the charge sheet.

If an accused person appears in Court 26 and he is not represented when he

attends Court, then he would not be given a copy of the charge sheet at all. This is an absolute waste of time, Sir, as his lawyer would have to waste time applying for a copy of the charge sheet to find out what are the charges against him.

Finally, Sir, on arrest. Section 76 of the Bill provides that there should be "no unnecessary restraint" when a person is arrested. However, everyday in Court 26, accused persons are handcuffed regardless of what offence they have committed. Is it necessary for handcuffs to be used even if the person is charged for some minor offence like, say, affray? The process of handcuffing a person reduces his dignity especially when he may be eventually acquitted. However, in the meantime, he is treated like a common criminal. Is there any intention to change this policy of handcuffing accused persons when they are in Court?

Sir, I would be grateful to receive clarifications from the Minister.

On that note, I support the Bill.

Sir, I wish to thank the Members who spoke. Members have unanimously welcomed the Bill while making specific comments and suggestions. Before I deal with the specific comments, let me make a general point.

Members have generally noted how the changes in the Bill are progressive. Nominated MP Ms Sylvia Lim has noted that the Bill makes progressive changes in three important areas – pre-trial disclosure, crime-victim redress and community-based sentencing. She has also noted that a large part of her suggestions, made after we invited public consultation, has been incorporated into the current Bill. Mr Palmer said that we are moving out of the Dark Ages. Not sure if he is saying we are into the late

Medieval period or into the Renaissance. But it is clear that he welcomes the changes.

Ms Lim's suggestions, made in response to our invitation for public responses, were similar to feedback received from various others. Members will recall that I had said yesterday that the Ministry formed a focus group which conducted extensive discussions. There was a genuine and sustained effort to obtain feedback and seriously consider it in order to put forward a Bill that will be fair. And I would say this: my Ministry as well as other Ministries, in particular Home Affairs, who are involved in the process all have a similar goal, which is to ensure a fair criminal justice system, which is what Members want. That will be a continuing exercise. We will continue to look at best practices, make changes where necessary, and seek to ensure that the system is fair and robust. Members have that assurance from us.

With regard to Mr Lim Biow Chuan's point that, perhaps, there may not have been enough time for MPs to consider this Bill, I think the Bill, in its original form, came out in December 2008 and, while it is a substantive Bill, there have been amendments since then. I think there has been enough lead time in terms of public consultations for people to consider it for more than a year. And the Bill in its current form came out more than a month ago. So, I think MPs and lawyers have had adequate time to consider the Bill. I will come back to the specific points made by Mr Lim later.

First, let me start again with the admissibility of evidence. I touched on Explanation 2 to clause 258 yesterday, before we adjourned. Let me set out the position as I understand it. I do so because this point has been raised both yesterday and again today. In law, a confession is admissible if it was made voluntarily. If it was obtained under a

threat, inducement or promise, then it is not admissible. If the statement was made voluntarily but, say, that there was some deception in getting the statement – assume that the person was intoxicated – then the Court has to look at the facts. It has to consider whether, one, the maker of the statement knew what he was saying. This will require the Court to consider the effects of intoxication. If the person knew what he was saying, then it is admissible regardless of intoxication, ie, to throw out a statement, the person cannot just rely on intoxication. If the person did not know what he was saying, then, obviously, the statement would not be admitted.

The second point the Court has to consider is whether the statement was made voluntarily. If it was involuntary, the statement will be thrown out.

Should this be the law? If the person has spoken the truth, whilst being tipsy or intoxicated, should the statement not be admissible? I think the Courts should have the power to admit such statements as long as they are satisfied that there was no threat, inducement or promise, the statement was voluntary, that the statement truly represented what the maker intended to say and the maker knew what he was saying.

Mr Alvin Yeo asked if the deception could itself constitute a threat, inducement or promise to an accused, which could then lead to circular arguments as to whether the statement should be excluded. If the deception amounts to a threat, inducement or promise, then the statement would not be admissible. It is as simple as that. The Court has to be satisfied that there is no threat, inducement or promise. But if the deception on the facts does not amount to a threat, inducement or promise, then deception, in and of itself, will not, as the law now stands, render the statement inadmissible. That has been the law for

the last 100 years and the Criminal Bar has not raised any objections or arguments against that law. Such a statement would be admissible as long as it is voluntary. An example is the case of Chua Poh Kiat v Public Prosecutor [1998] 2 SLR 342. In that case, the accused had been charged with one count of trafficking of a controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act. His accomplice gave two statements to the CNB, implicating the accused. At the trial, the accomplice repudiated the statements, claiming that he was high on drugs at the time the statements were recorded. A trial-within-a-trial was conducted. The trial judge was satisifed that the statements were given voluntarily and he so ruled.

So, here you have a situation where the Court then applies its mind to the facts and says, "No, it was voluntary and you knew what you were saying. You may have been slightly high but you knew what you were saying." On what basis should that statement be thrown out? I agree that you can argue it both ways, but that is the current law and I think it is justifiable. I agree that an opposite point of view could also be advanced. But the fundamental point is, we are keeping to the law as it is and not making the change which seems to be the perception that some people have gotten. On appeal in that case, the High Court found that there was no evidence of any inducement, threat or promise when he made the statements.

Although the urine samples showed traces of amphetamine, there was no evidence to suggest that he was so drugged or intoxicated as to be incoherent, ie, he knew what he was saying.

Mr Hri Kumar asked about the sub-clause in Explanation 2. This covers the situation where the recording officer fails to observe technical requirements during the questioning. Mere technical flaws will

not render the statements obtained inadmissible if, on the other hand, as a result of improper questioning or recording, the accused contends the statement is not his, or that the statement is not voluntarily. Those are contentions that the Courts will test in deciding issues of admissibility and weight.

Mr Kumar asked if it was fair to use statements made by a person who is so intoxicated that he has not realised the implications of the statements. And the short answer is this: if the person did not know what he was saying, either because he was intoxicated or because of language difficulties, then that is not his true statement and it cannot be used against him. The Court has the task of deciding whether the maker knew what he was saying, and that the statement was made voluntarily.

That is why Explanation 2 is, in the negative, taken from section 29 of the Evidence Act. You cannot get out of a statement by simply saying that you are intoxicated. If, however, you can go further and show that you were so intoxicated that you did not know what you were saying, then, it is not a statement that can be relied upon against you.

I think some misunderstandings have risen because some Members may have conflated two different points. They have assumed that if one is intoxicated, then one is automatically incapable of speaking one's mind. The law draws and has always drawn a distinction between those two concepts. Factually speaking, it would probably depend on the degree of intoxication.

Mr Kumar also asked if I can categorically say that there have been no instances where accused have signed statements that they did not understand. How can I say that? Of course, there have been cases where accused have signed

statements that they did not understand, and for a whole variety of reasons. And the courts have thrown out such statements. I myself have successfully argued for such statements to be thrown out. Any system operated by human beings is prone to human error. Our task is to set in rules and systems which seek to minimise those errors and, equally importantly, ensure that innocent parties do not suffer as a result of such errors.

In this context, having a high degree of professionalism among investigation officers is critical. Investigations are a critical component of law enforcement and the criminal justice system. The Ministry of Home Affairs has traditionally placed a strong emphasis on investigations in the Home Team, both in terms of selection of the officers, the resources accorded and the training provided. We also recognise that the nature of investigations will become more complex with time and greater demands will be placed on our investigators. The investigators' standards, procedures and training are constantly reviewed. The Home Team is now conducting a review of investigative competencies, training and criteria with the view to raising the bar even further for investigations, and increase the professionalism of the investigating officers. And, of course, when the matter goes to Court, the Courts have the jurisdiction to scrutinise the statements carefully.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Hri Kumar asked if it will be more appropriate for an independent interpreter, instead of the IO, to read the accused person's statements back to him after the statements have been recorded. The Police have found it difficult in the past to require the presence of an independent interpreter in every case. The Police are now reviewing these aspects as part of a review which I have just referred to earlier on how investigations are conducted.

Mr Lim's suggestion that the caution in clause 23 should be administered before taking any statement from the accused person is difficult to implement. The purpose of the caution is to require the accused to state the facts upon which he intends to rely in his defence, and to notify him of the consequences of failing to do so. This should only apply to persons who are charged or who have been informed that they may be prosecuted for an offence.

On a related note, Mr Kumar has asked whether police interrogation sessions should be video-taped. Alternatively he has suggested that a third party such as Counsel or Commissioner for Oaths be present during questioning. The point on video-taping has been raised before and the position taken has been stated and the reasons explained. I do not need to reprise the same points.

The idea of having an independent third party was discussed during the focused group sessions in the run-up to this Bill, which comprise the Law Society, ACLS and criminal law practitioners as well as law professors. This was discussed at length. The conclusion was that this idea was not feasible at this point in time.

Mr Palmer raised the query on the accused's "right of silence". The Court of Appeal in PP v Mazlan's case held that the suspect need not be expressly informed of the right to remain silent when the statement is recorded from him. If, on the other hand, the accused is additionally told that he is bound to state truly everything he knew concerning the case, then that might amount to an inducement rendering the statement recorded inadmissible. We do not intend to change this position.

Ms Lee and Mr Palmer asked why an accused should not be informed of his "right to counsel". And Mr Yeo, Ms Lim

and Mr Palmer also asked if the accused can be given access to counsel after the prescribed time limit, and Mr Lim made similar points as well.

In Singapore, the law is that the right to counsel may not be exercised immediately upon arrest but only within a reasonable period. This strikes a balance between the rights of the accused and the public interest in ensuring thorough and objective investigations. Again, this point has been raised and answered quite extensively. A recent police study showed that more than 90% of the arrested persons were released within 48 hours. The monitoring system ensures that for the rest, investigations are completed expeditiously so that there is no unnecessary remand.

Since March 2006, the police have had an "access to counsel" scheme, to grant an accused person access to counsel before his remand period ends, as long as investigations have been completed or are near completion. The scheme was formed in August 2007 and has been in place since then.

I think the real point underlying some of these suggestions is this. From the perspective of the law enforcement agency, we need to ensure that crimes are solved, that correct evidence is obtained, and people tell the truth. On the other hand, there is public interest in making sure that the statements taken are taken in a process with integrity and the statements represent the truth. So, the suggestion that lawyers should be interposed quickly and there should be other various safeguards – we have been reviewing a number of them. Some suggestions have been incorporated. For example, let us take the suggestion that you give access to lawyers immediately. What will happen? At least, in some cases, the advice given would be "don't

cooperate with the Police". Not all lawyers are the same. Mr Kumar mentioned something to that effect yesterday.

So, is that in public interest? But, nevertheless, we accept the point that the investigative process must be one filled with integrity and access should be given as quickly as possible, taking into account the need for the investigations to be completed fairly quickly.

Mr Lim asked if there is any intention to change the policy of handcuffing accused persons in Court. An accused person is handcuffed for security reasons and to avoid risk of escape. Such an accused person may apply to the judge to have his handcuffs removed. It is for the Court to decide on such an application based on all the facts including security issues.

Mr Lim also asked why the Courts make some sureties attend hearings to forfeit their bonds many years after the accused have jumped bail. He suggests imposing a one-year limit on the Courts to issue show cause notices. He said that sureties should also not have to show cause once the accused has been re-arrested. Mr Lim, perhaps, can give us the information of these specific cases and my Ministry will then provide that feedback to the Subordinate Courts.

Insofar as the duties of the sureties in the Bill are concerned, we do not think they are too onerous. A surety has to maintain daily contact with the offender. It is also not unreasonable to require the surety to take steps to ensure that the offender does not leave the country, for instance, by taking custody of the offender's travel documents. Ultimately, the Courts still retain the discretion to take into account the totality of the facts in determining whether to forfeit the whole or any part of the bond. But, people must also understand that taking

on the duties of a surety can have consequences and they must be aware of those consequences before they voluntarily become sureties.

Mr Lim has suggested that a copy of the charge sheet be given to the accused as a matter of course rather than requiring defence counsel to apply for it. We agree that this should be done as a matter of course. This is why the Bill now requires that the copy of the cautioned statement which includes the charge will be given to the accused person.

Mr Calvin Cheng said that cases involving voluntarily causing hurt, for instance, when persons are assaulted in public should be investigated by the police. Such victims should not have to pursue the matter on their own through Magistrates' Court complaints. Mr Cheng specifically cited a case reported in TODAY newspaper by Mr Conrad Raj where a young doctor was allegedly beaten up by six assailants at Geylang. The offence was initially classified as "voluntarily causing hurt" but subsequently classified as "grievous hurt" 10 days after an appeal. The Police have clarified some of the inaccuracies in Mr Raj's article. The re-classification of the offence as "grievous hurt" and the investigation by the Police was done a day after the medical report was produced, not 10 days. And there were two assailants. But I accept that if you are beaten up, then you are not likely to be relieved that it was by two people rather than six or eight. But the reason why "voluntarily causing hurt" is not seizable is that it comprises a wide range of acts, from minor couple disputes, family disputes, to serious incidents such as road rage.

Many cases being minor can be resolved amicably. And if it is a minor quarrel, the Police will generally not intervene. If there was a threat to public order, the Police will intervene. If there are aggravating factors or there are

serious injuries, the Police will act. In this context, the medical report is important in their deliberations. Nevertheless, we will take note of Mr Cheng's comments on the type of cases in which there can be intervention or should be intervention.

Ms Lee suggested that the changes to private prosecutions may encourage people to resort to prosecution as a means of settling a score. The "right to private prosecution" has always existed. Previously, it was available for all magistrates' cases and non-seizable district court cases.

In this Bill, we have streamlined it to a smaller and less serious category of offences with a maximum of no more than three years. This change should, therefore, not result in an increase in private prosecution.

Mr Lim asked why the prosecution is not required to produce all the statements made by an accused person, instead of just the ones which he intends to introduce at the trial. This is incorrect.

The Bill provides that after the defence case is filed, the prosecution must serve all statements made by the accused in relation to the charge. I think Mr Lim looked at section 162. I think he did not look at section 166. That may explain his comment that the Bill is so long and, perhaps, even a year is not enough to go through it.

Mr Lim also asked why conditioned statements of witnesses are furnished to the defence as part of the prosecution case for High Court cases but not for Subordinate Court cases. For High Court cases, conditioned statements are part of the Prosecution's Case because they are used for committal hearing which precedes the High Court trial. Conditioned statements can be used in the Subordinate Courts if they are served before the hearing and parties consent to

the use. But such statements are not prepared as a matter of course.

Mr Lim suggested that if the prosecution fails to file its case, and is taking its time to prosecute the matter, the Court should order a discharge amounting to an acquittal after a time limit.

Criminal trials are not the same as civil trials. They serve a wider public interest. Delays in filing the Case for Prosecution could be due to a variety of reasons: complex cases may require more thorough investigations; witnesses may be difficult to locate. An outright acquittal would mean that the prosecution will then be barred from prosecuting any further. The prosecution's non-compliance could have been due to reasons outside its control. I think it strikes a fair balance to give the Court the power to decide what should be done, including ordering a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.

Ms Lee and Mr Kumar asked why the discovery provisions in the Bill do not apply to all criminal trials. Currently, discovery applies to all cases in the High Court and the majority of the cases in the District Court.

The Subordinate Courts deal with about 250,000 charges a year, of which some 200,000 are departmental cases. Magistrates' Courts, in particular, deal with minor offences, the majority of which are regulatory. Discovery would not be essential in these cases and if we were to make it compulsory, it would just become a huge burden. For a Magistrate's case which is complex, parties may opt in to the discovery process.

Ms Lee asked why witness statements are not provided to the defence. Witness statements are not provided to the defence for public policy reasons. The police rely quite substantially on the assistance of the public to solve crimes.

If witnesses know that statements that they have given in the course of investigations may be supplied to the accused for his counsel, they may not be inclined to come forward. We also cannot rule out the possibility that threats may be made to witnesses or that they may be otherwise suborned.

Mr Kumar queried whether there will be consequences for deliberate concealment of material evidence and that the State can be compelled to provide disclosure on pain of contempt. Where there is inadequate discovery given by a party, the Court can ask for an explanation and draw such inferences as it thinks fit.

The Bill does not seek to prescribe all the consequences for inadequate disclosure as it can occur in a wide range of circumstances. If documents are being deliberately withheld, the appropriate remedy should be left as a matter of judicial discretion to the Court. It should be noted that lawyers appearing in Court, whether prosecution or defence lawyers, are officers of the Court. If they deliberately suppress material evidence, they will be acting in gross breach of their duties. One cannot put forward evidence in Court while holding back other evidence which could put a different complexion on the evidence that has in fact been tendered in Court. I have no doubt that the Court will take a serious view of such conduct.

Ms Lim referred to clause 231 of the Bill, which enables a party to call a new witness or adduce new evidence after giving prior written notice. She suggests that this could provide a loophole in the pre-trial disclosure framework since there is no prescribed timeframe for doing so. This clause is necessary, as new evidence may only become available closer to the trial. For example, it may not have been available earlier on and you cannot and you should not shut that out.

The power of the Court to allow new evidence has always existed. It is not practicable to assign a prescribed period of notice in the Bill. Parties who seek to adduce new evidence, whether prosecution or defence, must satisfy the Court that there are good reasons why they could not have produced it in the first place and why they are making the application at the time that they are doing so. The Court then has the discretion to make such directions as may be necessary on an application for new evidence to be admitted. It could grant an adjournment for the parties to consider the evidence; it may make suitable findings, depending on the reasons for the late application to adduce evidence, and for a party who had withheld evidence and did not follow the pre-trial procedure, the Court is likely to ask for a satisfactory explanation and decide what to do based on their explanation. So we should give the discretion to the Court and leave it to the Courts and trust them, rather than seeking to prescribe it upfront.

Ms Lee and Ms Lim suggested that the power to compound offences should remain with the Court, instead of the prosecution. This power of composition is consistent with the Public Prosecutor's constitutional role, which is to exercise overall control and direction of prosecutions. He exercises this power in the public interest, in line with his constitutional role. He also has access and regard to the totality of investigative evidence. It should be noted that the Public Prosecutor already has a discretion to withdraw a case or a charge at any time.

So, we should view this in two aspects: one, the prosecutor's authority to charge and bring criminal proceedings; and, two, the Court's jurisdiction to decide on the trial and impose a penalty. Conceptually, the decision whether to compound falls within the first rubric. If the Court feels that the charge should not

be proceeded, it can make known its views to the prosecution, as Courts sometimes do. If the prosecution decides to proceed anyway, then the Court has to decide whether the charge is made out and, if so, what the penalty should be. If the Court feels that the matter is minor, that will be reflected either in the verdict (if the ingredients of the charge are not made out) or in the penalty imposed.

Assoc. Prof. Straughan, Ms Lee, Mdm Ho, Ms Lim and Mr de Souza support the initiative on community-based sentencing (CBS). I thank them. They have also raised a number of issues. Ms Lim has raised a concern that community sentences may have an unintended net-widening effect, ie, offenders who could otherwise have been let off with a warning, may now be prosecuted because of the availability of CBS orders. There should be no such effect. In deciding whether to prosecute an offender, AGC will be consulted. The decision to prosecute will be based on all the relevant facts. Some of those who would have been dealt with more severely in the past would now face CBS, and that is the purpose of this provision which Members have unanimously welcomed. Those who have faced warnings in the past will continue to receive the same treatment, but we will take note of Ms Lim's concerns.

Assoc. Prof. Straughan has sought clarifications on two issues: first, whether the Court will consider the offender's social environment when determining whether a community sentencing is suitable; and second, with reference to the case of the "Monster Dad" reported in the Straits Times, whether there are sufficient risk-assessment processes to address recidivism and how we can equip the community to handle such cases.

On the first issue, the Court, before passing a community sentence on an offender, will call for a suitability report. If

the offender is assessed as suitable, a management and treatment plan tailored to meet his needs will be proposed to the Court. This will take into consideration the offence and the offenders' social environment such as the presence of family support. For example, in the case of a Day Reporting Order, the reporting frequency will vary according to the risk of the offender and his or her progress in rehabilitation. Where necessary, the offender and family may also undergo counselling and family-based programmes. But I do agree with Assoc. Prof. Straughan that to do all of these effectively, there must be adequate resources.

On her second point, I will make the following comments. CBS is not intended to apply to the kind of serious crimes that she refers to. On the facts of the reported "Monster Dad" case, that person or any such person will not qualify for CBS. I think Assoc. Prof. Straughan's real point probably is, how should such convicts be treated when they are released from prison and how should the risk of recidivism be assessed. In this context, the current position is that convicts are released upon serving their fixed-sentencing terms.

We have one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world but that statistic is little comfort for a victim of a person who is released. One possible approach is to have indeterminate sentences: the Court can impose a sentence of indeterminate length, in respect of a dangerous sex or violent offender and the prisoner will be released only when professionals assess that he is safe to be released. This is an approach that I have said we are studying. But I have to add that while risks can be minimised, there can be no foolproof method. And MCYS has specifically commented on the case that

Assoc. Prof. Straughan spoke about. I do not need to go into that again.

Mdm Ho was concerned as to whether CBS will be perceived as a softening of our stance on crimes. Yesterday, I spoke about the eligibility criteria for community sentences. The net effect of the various qualifying criteria, I highlighted yesterday, is that the sentences would be limited to offenders who have not been previously sentenced to imprisonment, other than imprisonment in default of fine payment. It is also limited to minor offences for which there is no mandatory imprisonment term provided and the maximum term for the offence does not exceed three years. What these amendments do is to make available to the Courts, a wider and more sophisticated range of sentencing options.

Ms Lee noted that some community sentences are meant to prevent moral stigmatism and asked whether the implementation will serve the purpose. For example, whether the sentencing will be done on camera and whether the identities of the offenders will be protected when they serve their community sentences. I should clarify that preventing moral stigmatisation is not the primary objective. In fact, for example, for Community Work Orders, shaming may or may not be an integral part of the sentence. For Corrective Work Orders in littering cases, for example, offenders must perform their sentences in public.

A community sentence is intended to prevent the offender from being dislodged from his family, employment and society and to assist his rehabilitation. It remains a punishment. In and of itself, it cannot form a good reason for a trial to be in camera for an offender's identity to be protected. Trials must be conducted in the open. The Court exercises its discretion as to when a trial could be heard in camera and will do so in accordance with the categories listed in the legislation.

Mdm Ho asked how the Community Courts will be funded to carry out community sentences. Each community sentencing option will be implemented by a relevant agency which will be given the necessary resources for implementation.

Mr de Souza asked if there is adequate staffing to support Community Service Orders (CSOs). MCYS, which will oversee the carrying out of CSOs, already has a pool of experienced officers to oversee Community Service Orders under the Children and Young Persons Act.

Mr de Souza also asked if there are measures to ensure that the level of management and supervision is matched to each offender. This is addressed when the offender is assessed to determine its suitability to serve a Community Service Order. If the Community Service Officer finds that there are risk areas associated with the offender that need to be addressed through counselling or rehabilitation, he can inform the Court. The Court may then decide whether to impose conditions to mitigate the risks or choose not to make a CSO in the first place. On whether there is a framework to provide adequate through care and aftercare for an offender – if a Community Service Officer finds that the offender is in need of other forms of assistance, the offender will be referred to a Family Service Centre, voluntary welfare organisations and other community resources, where appropriate.

Mr Palmer has asked why we have not adopted the conditional stern warning and the suspended sentences as part of community sentencing. The Police, in consultation with the Attorney-General's Chambers already issue conditional warnings where offenders must abide by conditions, which will include staying away from crime. If the offender breaches the conditions, he can be charged for the original offence. This is part and parcel of prosecutorial discretion and does not need to be hard coded in the Bill.

As for suspended sentences, they run against the expectation of society that when a sentence is passed, it should be served. In such cases, where other jurisdictions have used suspended sentences, a CBS-type order will generally be more appropriate and is the approach we are taking. Rather than giving a sentence which hangs in abeyance, the Court has a jurisdiction to give a CBS Order targeted at treatment and rehabilitation, retaining the power to sentence for the breach of the order and for the offence itself. When it does so, it can probably take into account all the facts of the case and decide on an appropriate sentence.

Next, on caning. When imprisonment sentences are given in lieu of caning strokes, the aggregate of the in lieu term and the original imprisonment term imposed for the offence is allowed to exceed the maximum term of imprisonment allowed for that particular offence as well as the sentencing jurisdiction of the Court. Ms Lim asked why this was so when the previous section of the CPC restricted the Court to the maximum allowed for the offence. This amendment is targeted at the worst cases. It ensures parity in treatment between, for example, co-accused. Let me explain. Two co-offenders commit the same offence and are equally culpable. Both are given the maximum jail term for the offence. In addition, one is given caning but the other cannot be sentenced to caning. To achieve parity in sentencing, the Court is given the discretion to sentence the offender who did not receive caning, to receive an extra jail term in lieu.

Mr de Souza asked whether clause 359 is flexible enough to accommodate the possibility of a victim filing a separate civil claim if he or she should choose to do so and, if so, how the compensation granted by the Criminal Court will affect his subsequent civil claim. The clause

does not preclude a victim from subsequently filing a civil claim against the offender. This is expressly provided for in sub-section 4, which provides that "any damages subsequently awarded by a Civil Court will be deemed to have been satisfied to the extent of the amount paid to the victim under the criminal court's compensation order".

Ms Lim's query on victim impact statements. The Bill now obliges the Courts to consider in every case, whether it is appropriate to order victim compensation. The appropriate level of compensation will be based on the victim impact statements. To facilitate this, procedures will be worked out on providing such information to the Court, in deciding the appropriate victim compensation.

Ms Lim has suggested that when an accused appeals against his sentence, without any cross-appeal by the prosecution, his sentence should not be enhanced by the Courts. On any appeal against sentence, the Appellate Court is required to consider the totality of the circumstances and must have the discretion to enhance the sentence, if it considers that the sentence is inadequate.

The criminal justice system must take cognisance not only of the accused person, but also the interests of the victim and the protection of the public. We should therefore not fetter the Court's duty to decide the punishment that fits the crime.

Sir, in conclusion, I have covered the points that have been made. I once again thank the Members for their support of the Bill. I would like to thank those Members who have given their extensive comments to us during the public consultation. We will continue to try and ensure that our criminal justice system is robust and delivers justice.

Thank you, Sir. I have a few clarifications for the Minister.

First, he started off his reply by referring to me as a nominated Member. I thought we have clarified the difference between NCMPs and NMPs at last month's sitting. [Laughter ]. I have two questions on his reply on the Bill. The first is regarding composition of offences. He mentioned that the Bill is re-allocating the consent from the Court to the public prosecutor (PP) because it is in line with the public prosecutor constitutional role to control prosecutions. But, Sir, as far as I know, that will remain unimpeded even if the power resided continuously in the Court. Meaning that at any time, the PP can still discontinue proceedings and the Court cannot stop that. My question is why is there a need to remove this power from the Court? Has there been any malfunction? Is the public prosecutor not happy about certain cases, where the Court gave leave despite the objections?

Secondly, does the Minister not agree that by removing the power from the Court to the prosecutor, there will be a loss of transparency? Right now, decisions to compound written judgments can be appealed again. Therefore, the public is in the know about the considerations. But once you move it into the hands of the PP, that transparency will disappear.

Last clarification, Sir, concerns caning. Minister replied that the allowance under the new Bill for the Court to exceed the statutory maximum punishment is in a situation where, for example, there are co-accused and both of them have been sentenced to the statutory maximum. I would like Minister to clarify whether this is the only situation where the Court would consider exceeding the statutory maximum. I think that is a cause of concern.

Sir, I thank Ms Lim for pointing out that I referred to her as an NMP. It is a sensitive point from our last discussion.

Sir, on the issue of composition. The point about removing the discretion from the Courts to the Public Prosecutor, Ms Lim asked: why is there a need to remove? And whether the Public Prosecutor has been unhappy and that will there be a loss of transparency". Certainly, it does not arise because of any particular case nor has a Public Prosecutor been unhappy about any single case or at all generally. It is one of conceptual clarity. That is why the change has been made and the conceptual clarity is this: you ask yourself, what is the role of the Public Prosecutor? Public Prosecutor decides when a case should be brought to Court and prosecuted. What is a role of a Court? The Court decides the case, gives a verdict based on the facts presented to it. It also decides on the penalty to be imposed. If you see those two functions as distinct, and they should be distinct for there to be an independent trial, then the decision whether or not, if prosecution should be stopped by way of a composition, should be one that the Attorney-General's Chambers, the Public Prosecutor should exercise, rather than for the Court to intervene. The Court has got to deal with the evidence presented to it by the parties and try the case.

Ms Lim may disagree, but that is the way I see it and that is the rationale. There are no other extraneous reasons. That is how we put it forward and this was discussed in focus groups. Some people who understood the distinctions, in fact, thought that this was a much neater way of proceeding. As to whether there will be a loss of transparency, Sir, I see this word "transparency" thrown about in a variety of situations. It is a new mantra but one has got to talk about transparency in context. If there is a

whole series of decisions taken by the Public Prosecutor, do you say every decision of the Public Prosecutor should be open to question? Should the Public Prosecutor's decision to charge also be made "transparent", to be subject to public scrutiny? That is not the way an efficient system can work. The decision as to whether or not to prosecute, whether or not to compound should be his, and should he proceed in Court, then the trial should be transparent. The evidence has to be produced in open Court. For the Court to be satisfied to convict, the case should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The trial process is for public scrutiny. The decision to charge and to compound, these are matters for the Public Prosecutor and should be within the Public Prosecutor's discretion to be exercised as a public officer.

Now, with regard to the sentencing that could be given in lieu of caning, those are the only situations where there can be an excess of jurisdiction. The Court's jurisdiction ultimately is a matter of statute. The Court does not exercise any independent inherent jurisdiction on sentencing beyond certain quasi criminal laws like when they exercise jurisdiction in contempt and so on. Beyond that, their power to send someone to prison is derived from statute. It has to be set out in statute. They have no other jurisdiction. That is why, to give them the power to impose a sentence in lieu of caning, that has to be expressly set out.

Thank you, Sir. The Minister mentioned earlier this issue of transparency and that it is a convenient word. I have a very specific concern about this. Currently, decisions to compound, which are approved and not approved by the Court, they are reported in judgments. They can be appealed against. Everybody can read the reasons why the Court exercised its discretion this

way or the other. By moving this decision to the DPP, that will no longer be available. I would like the Minister to confirm that this is going to be a case. I was not saying that every decision of the DPP had to be subject to public scrutiny. But the fact is by moving this decision out of the Court's hands, there will be a loss of this articulation of the reasons for exercise of discretion.

Secondly, regarding caning: could the Minister clarify whether there is any intention to articulate in some kind of tariff, for example, say how many strokes were not given translates to how many months imprisonment? For defence counsel to advise their clients, this is going to be a big grey area.

On the first point, I freely accept that, yes, now that the issue of composition is going to be decided by the Public Prosecutor, it is no longer a matter for the Court. To that extent, it is not going to be part of the judgment and it will not form part of the record of the Court proceedings. That is so, and that is intended to be so for the reasons I have explained.

For the second point, the current provisions in the Bill provide what is the maximum that Court can impose in lieu of a caning sentence. I should not go beyond what is set out in the statutory provision. It is for each Court to look at the facts, for example, for parity of the co-accused, and whether it is a matter of few months or few weeks, this has got to be something that is decided on a case-by-case basis by the Courts.

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 Shanmugam].

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

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

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.12 pm until 4.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.35 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, the provisions on Coroner's Inquiries are currently found in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). This Bill is a result of our review of the CPC. Like the CPC, public feedback was sought through a Consultation Paper on an earlier draft of this Bill over a period of four weeks last year. Useful feedback was received, some of which have been incorporated in the Bill now before the House.

Sir, in terms of presentation, other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, New Zealand and Australia have also enacted standalone Coroner's legislation. Substantively, the proposed changes will update our coronial system, more clearly defining its role and strengthening its procedures so that it will better serve the public interest.

Sir, the Bill contains three key proposals. First, it changes the present fault-finding nature of a Coroner's Inquiry to a fact-finding one. Second, the Bill

widens the technical expertise available to the Coroner. And third, the Bill re-scopes the Coroner’s jurisdiction, giving it a clearer focus.

Shift to a fact-finding inquiry

Sir, let me first elaborate on the shift to a fact-finding inquiry. The current regime under the CPC requires the Coroner to hold an inquiry to determine the circumstances under which the deceased came by his death and also whether any person is criminally concerned in the cause of the death.

Under the Constitution, it is the Public Prosecutor who decides whether or not a person should be prosecuted. There is therefore no need for the Coroner to come to any conclusion on criminal responsibility in a Coroner's Inquiry. The Public Prosecutor may take cognisance of the Coroner’s findings of fact in deciding whether or not to prosecute.

Hence, clause 27 of the Bill states that the purpose of an inquiry into the death of any person is to inquire into the cause of and circumstances connected with the death. The Coroner will focus on ascertaining the facts and circumstances behind a death, instead of apportioning blame. Other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia and Hong Kong have also adopted such a fact-finding approach.

Widening of technical expertise

Sir, the second key proposal of the Bill is to widen the technical expertise available to the Coroner. This will be especially useful in cases involving medical negligence where medical and other technical expertise may be tapped by the investigators and the Coroner.

Hence, clause 4 empowers the Chief Executive of the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) to appoint any pathologist as a

forensic pathologist. Clause 16 provides that a Coroner or the Public Prosecutor may, if he considers it appropriate to do so, direct a forensic pathologist to investigate the cause of and circumstances connected with the death.

In addition, as the present law does not provide for the appointment of assessors, clause 32 gives the Coroner the discretion to appoint up to two assessors with skill and experience in the matter to which the inquiry relates to assist him in the hearing of any inquiry. This approach of leveraging on lay expertise has also been adopted in other bodies such as the Strata Titles Board. Indeed, a similar clause is found in the Subordinate Courts Act and Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

To facilitate investigation and any subsequent inquiry, clause 8 imposes a duty on persons-in-charge of hospitals, clinics or places of official custody to preserve the deceased's medical and healthcare records. Failure to comply, without reasonable excuse, is an offence.

Coroner’s jurisdiction

Sir, the third key proposal of the Bill re-scopes the Coroner's jurisdiction, giving it a clearer focus. Clause 24 first sets out the current position where the Coroner has jurisdiction to hold an inquiry where a body is found in Singapore or death occurs here. It then goes on to extend the Coroner's jurisdiction to cases where the cause of death occurs in Singapore or where death occurs or results from an occurrence on board a Singapore-registered civilian vessel or aircraft. An example is where a person dies on board an SIA flight or where a person dies as a result of something he ingests during an SIA flight. In the above situations, other than the one where the body is found in Singapore, the Coroner will have jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into the

death even without there being a body, for instance if the body was destroyed.

I must add, however, that even though the Coroner may have jurisdiction, in some cases, such as when death occurs on a Singapore registered ship that is berthed in a foreign port, the Police will still not have the powers to conduct investigations abroad. If the Coroner decides to hold an inquiry, Police may have to seek the assistance of their foreign counterparts.

Sir, clause 25 sets out when it is mandatory or discretionary for a Coroner to hold an inquiry. The approach we have adopted is consistent with the approaches taken in other jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and British Columbia where the respective Coroners legislation stipulates the circumstances in which an inquiry is mandatory or discretionary. This approach will result in a more efficient use of resources and better serve the public interest, by, for example, enabling the Coroner to focus the Court's resources on the more complex cases.

Under clause 25(1), an inquiry is mandatory for any death which occurs in Singapore where a person dies while in official custody, where the death is the result of capital punishment, where the Public Prosecutor so requires under clause 26, or where death occurs in Singapore in any of the circumstances set out in the Third Schedule. These would constitute the majority of reportable deaths such as medical treatment-related deaths; deaths by unknown causes or that occur under suspicious circumstances or caused or suspected to be caused by an unlawful act or omission; deaths of persons whose identities are unknown, deaths from law enforcement operations, deaths involving a public vehicle or commercial transport vehicle and deaths in any workplace or as

a result of any accident at a workplace. The list of reportable deaths is set out in Schedule Two.

Sir, for the rest of the reportable deaths, clause 25(2) provides that the Coroner may decide not to hold an inquiry if he is satisfied that the death was due to natural causes and that it is unnecessary to do so, or if he is satisfied that there is no public interest to do so. An example of a situation where there is no public interest to hold an inquiry would be a suicide or accidental fall where the facts are clear and the family does not request for an Inquiry to be held. In deciding whether or not to hold an inquiry, a Coroner may take into account a range of factors such as the desire of any member of the immediate family of the deceased for an inquiry, whether the death had occurred outside Singapore, and whether an investigation into the death has been conducted outside Singapore. When a Coroner decides not to hold an inquiry, he has to report the facts to the Public Prosecutor, stating his reasons for not doing so. If the Public Prosecutor is of the view that an inquiry ought to be held, he can require the Coroner to hold one.

In any case, Sir, the Police will investigate all instances of reportable deaths. In the event that no inquiry is held, as per current practice, a Certificate of the Cause of Death will still be issued, based on the evidence before the Coroner.

Finally, let me highlight some other provisions of the Bill.

Presently, Coroners are appointed under section 10 of the Subordinate Courts Act. The appointment provision has been moved from the Subordinate Courts Act to clause 3(1), which provides for the appointment of a State Coroner and Coroners by the President, on the recommendation of the Chief Justice. There is no change to the appointing authority. There is also no change in the

qualifications of a Coroner who, under clause 3(2), has to be a Magistrate or District Judge appointed under the Subordinate Courts Act. In the case of the State Coroner, he must be a District Judge appointed under the Subordinate Courts Act. Under clause 3(3), the State Coroner is charged with the general administration of the Coroners Act.

Sir, clause 5 provides that a person who becomes aware of a reportable death is obliged to make a police report as soon as reasonably practicable. Failure to do so, without reasonable excuse, is an offence. An example of a reasonable excuse would be if the person knew that another person had already reported the death. As mentioned earlier, the list of reportable deaths is set out in the Second Schedule. The coronial systems in New South Wales and Victoria also impose the duty to report deaths which are reportable deaths. Failure to do so is a criminal offence. We believe that this will further improve our coronial system and better serve the public interest.

Sir, lastly, the Bill makes related amendments to the Private Hospitals

and Medical Clinics Act (PHMCA). The amendments to the PHMCA arising from the proposed changes to the Coroner’s Bill will enable the existing mortality reviews that are already in practice at public and private hospitals to be enhanced and extended to other healthcare institutions.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.45 pm

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

This Bill is good and timely as it defines clearly the work and jurisdiction of the Coroner, shifts its focus to fact-finding rather than fault-finding, and for

the first time, schedules that define reportable deaths and Coroner’s cases are clearly spelt out.

The Coronial system was established in England in Medieval times. The duties of Coroners then included investigating sudden and unnatural deaths and also inquiries into treasure troves. The Coronial system underwent numerous changes in England and local Coroners are often medically qualified.

The English Coronial system was introduced to many of its colonies, including Singapore. Whilst the system may differ in different countries depending on when they were introduced, the basic features of being a quasi-criminal proceeding, focussing on whether criminal conduct caused the death remained. The first Coroner of Singapore appointed was Mr Andrew Farquhar in December 1827. The laws on coroners remained largely unchanged and the processes were prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code.

This Bill is therefore a by-product of the Ministry’s review of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Allow me to highlight some of my concerns on the Bill and to seek clarifications from the Minister on certain issues.

This Bill defines the appointment of the State Coroner and Coroners and sets out their qualifications and functions. Clause 3 of the Bill stipulates that the Coroner must be a judicial officer appointed under the Subordinate Courts Act and in the case of the State Coroner, a District Judge appointed under the same Act. This Bill makes no mention of the seniority and experience of the Coroner. However, can a non-judicial officer, such as a medical doctor or other professionals, be appointed? If not, what are the considerations for deciding otherwise? In

England and Wales, the Coroner must be a lawyer or doctor of at least five years standing. In addition, the UK also regulates the training requirements of appointed Coroners.

Clause 4 of the Bill stipulates that the CEO of the Health Science Authority can appoint any pathologist as a forensic pathologist. Similarly, there is no mention of the seniority and experience required. Is there currently a pre-approved list of accredited pathologists from which the forensic pathologist can be appointed from? In the UK, there is a home office pathologist register from which the forensic pathologist can be appointed. What is the rationale for the provision for this appointment by the CEO of Health Science Authority? Why not the Minister or the Attorney-General?

Clause 6 imposes a duty to report all deaths which occur in the course of arrest or detention or while the deceased is in official custody, except in cases of lawful execution of a death sentence. This duty is on the person effecting the arrest or detention or the person in whose custody the deceased was, to report the death. Failure to do so is an offence.

Clause 8 imposes a duty on persons in-charge of hospitals, medical clinics or places of custody to preserve all medical records and healthcare records pertaining to the deceased. The penalties for failure to report death and preserve medical records respectively are fines not exceeding $10,000 for both and/or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months and 12 months respectively. I would like to clarify with the Minister the rationale for the difference as it gives the impression of one offence being more severe than the other.

With the criminalisation of non-reporting, it is likely that there will be a

surge in the number of medical Coroner’s cases. What is the current workload of Coroners and forensic pathologists? Will the anticipated increase overwhelm our Coroner’s system?

Clause 12 sets out the procedure for the Coroner to view the body and make preliminary investigations. It allows the Coroner to view and identify body by a live video link or any other such means as the State Coroner may approve, to make an important decision of whether an inquiry is needed. Will this provision trivialise the investigative process? What safeguards are there to ensure that proper identification and investigations are carried out and that important information will not be missed if the Coroner is not at the scene to view the body?

Clause 32 provides for the appointment by the Coroner of not more than two assessors with skill and experience to assist in the hearing of any inquiry. However, the Bill seemed ambiguous with regard to the exact role and function of the assessor and the skills and experience required. Clause 32(3) also states that the remuneration of the assessor sitting in the inquiry shall be payable out of moneys provided by Parliament. Can the Minister elaborate on the remuneration procedure and its source, and how the rate will be determined? Will it be payable through the Parliament’s budget or from a budget to be nominated by Parliament?

The Bill provides no provision for appeals against a decision made by the Coroner. In the United Kingdom, appeals against the local Coroner’s decision can be made to the Chief Coroner. What avenues are available to relatives should they disagree with the decision of the Coroner?

It is often asked, "What is the difference between Coroner’s case and Sentinel events?" It is important that clear guidelines be made available as non-

reporting of supposedly Coroner’s case can result in persecution. Can the Minister clarify whether all sentinel events resulting in death will be classified as a Coroner’s case? In addition, will all Sentinel events leading to death be subjected to autopsies so that the actual cause of death can be determined? Are there clear guidelines for Coroner to decide if the case be signed off without autopsy or otherwise?

Sir, the introduction of this Bill is certainly welcome as it clearly clarifies the Coroner’s jurisdiction, refocuses the role of Coroner to that of fact-finding, increases its effectiveness and enhances public confidence.

With that, I support the Bill.

Sir, I thank Dr Lam Pin Min for speaking in support of the Bill. He raises a number of queries on selected aspects of the Bill which I will now address.

Sir, on the appointment of Coroners, Dr Lam observes that the Bill does not specify the requisite seniority in terms of years of experience. As I have said in my speech, the seniority requirements are tied to the appointment of District Judges or Magistrates as Coroners who under the Subordinate Courts Act must be qualified persons of not less than five years and one year's standing respectively. While a State Coroner must be a District Judge, the other Coroners may be District Judges or Magistrates who as judicial officers, hearing civil and criminal cases in the Subordinate Courts on a daily basis, are well placed to perform the role of Coroners.

This leads me to the next point that Dr Lam makes which is whether other professionals such as doctors can be appointed as Coroners. Sir, I note what the Member shares that in the UK, a Coroner can be either a lawyer or doctor

of at least five years' standing. On this point, our view is that as functionaries of the State, judicial officers are in the best position to conduct independent fact-finding inquiries. But, we recognise that the circumstances of death in each case can be varied and may involve medical technicalities, that is why we have provided in the Bill for the appointment of forensic pathologists to assist in investigations and also of assessors from any technical field, including the medical field to provide expert input when required during an inquiry. So this will enhance the quality of investigations and also ensure that inquiries are not hampered by the lack of medical or other technical expertise. So, essentially, what we have done is to keep the basic approach of having Judges as Coroners who will be in-charge of the inquiry and, if necessary, complement his legal oversight with the relevant professional expertise, including medical expertise.

Dr Lam makes a few points about the appointing authority and qualifications of forensic pathologists. On whether we should specify the requisite seniority or experience before a person may be appointed a forensic pathologist, currently the task of examining Coroner cases is carried out by qualified and trained forensic pathologists from the Health Science Authority (HSA) who hold post-graduate qualifications in this specialised field. The Bill essentially formalises this arrangement. All practising forensic pathologists in Singapore are presently employed by HSA. I think currently there are six, which require that such practitioners are not only registered as pathologists under the Singapore Medical Council's Register of Specialists but also hold relevant post-graduate qualifications in forensic pathology. By the time a medical practitioner attains the necessary qualifications and completes specialist training to qualify as a forensic pathologist, he or she would have had at

least five to six years of supervised training and on-the-job experience.

But Dr Lam also asks why forensic pathologists are appointed by the Chief Executive of HSA under the Bill, and not the Minister or the Attorney-General. Sir, the short answer to that is that HSA is a public authority charged, among other roles, with providing professional, investigative, analytical and other services in health sciences to the Government. It is therefore appropriate for the Chief Executive of HSA to appoint forensic pathologists to carry out functions under the Act.

Unlike the UK, there is no need to keep a Register of Pathologists from which forensic pathologists can be appointed. The UK Home Office Register was established to ensure that forensic pathologists who provide services to Coroners and the police maintain professional standards. This is necessary because in the UK, forensic pathologists can operate out of private practice or a variety of institutions. Indeed, some Coroners in the UK may also outsource the work to hospital pathologists. So their historical development is quite different.

In Singapore, all forensic pathologists must register with the Medical Council's Register of Specialists under the specialty of pathology. Forensic medical services are provided by the forensic pathologists employed by HSA which maintain professional standards through an internal peer review system and the performance appraisal that includes a professional component that is evaluated annually. HSA's Forensic Medicine Division is also fully accredited with the US National Association of Medical Examiners which requires its forensic pathologists to comply with certain performance standards.

Next, what are the skills and experience required of assessors and how they are

paid. Sir, essentially, an assessor advises the Coroner at an inquiry which involves technical, scientific or highly specialised matters so that the Coroner is better informed in making his determination. The value of an assessor lies in the fact that he is a non-partisan expert assisting the Coroner. The types of skills and experience required of an assessor will really depend on the facts of the case. For instance, whilst medical experts may be required in medical-related deaths, engineers will be useful. Their input will be useful for inquiries into workplace-related deaths.

As for the remuneration of assessors, this is to compensate them to some extent for their time and expertise. The law currently already provides for the remuneration of assessors who assist the Courts in other proceedings. Sir, as I have said in my speech, the provision in the Coroners Bill is based on those in the Subordinate Courts Act and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. Essentially, the Courts will have to provide for the assessors' remuneration in their budget submissions to Parliament.

Then, next, Dr Lam asks why the penalties for failing to report a reportable death to the Police and failing to preserve medical records are different. First, just to clarify that there is a general duty to report a reportable death in clause 5 by any member of the public for which the penalty for non-compliance is a maximum fine of $1,500 or imprisonment not exceeding one month or both. The penalty for failing to report a reportable death to the police under clause 5 is in line with the penalty in section 176 of the Penal Code which is an offence of intentionally omitting to furnish information on any subject to a public servant when one is legally bound to do so. This obligation applies to the public at large. Now, the intention is to ensure that the police receives information on reportable deaths so that they can conduct investigations.

Then next, there is a specific duty to report deaths that occur in official custody in clause 6 which I think Dr Lam points to. The penalty for this is stiffer, and rightly so, because this reflects the public interest in ensuring the investigation of any death that occurs in official custody.

Finally, there is an even stiffer penalty for failing to preserve medical records. The preservation of medical records is vital as it helps the forensic pathologist determine whether a death is medical-related.

To fail to preserve the medical records for the requisite period is tantamount to disposal of evidence. By way of comparison, the destruction of documents or electronic records, which may be required as evidence in Court, under section 204 of the Penal Code, is punishable with imprisonment of up to two years or with fine, or with both. The law takes a serious view of such offences.

This explains the disparity in the maximum penalties, in terms of the equivalence in the Penal Code. But, of course, I think the point to note is that in any given case, the Court has the discretion to impose an appropriate sentence according to the facts of the case and the level of culpability involved.

Will criminalising the failure to report result in an increase in the number of Coroners' cases involving medical-related deaths? First, I should say that as of now, the failure to report is already an offence. This Bill does not change the position, although as Dr Lam rightly points out, the instances of reporting are now made clearer, as set out in the Second Schedule. So, essentially, it should not lead to an increase in the number of Coroners' cases involving medical-related deaths.

As to the current workload for Coroners and forensic pathologists: every year, approximately 4,000 Coroners'

cases are handled and about 50% of these undergo autopsies. Dr Lam asked if it is acceptable for the Coroner to view and identify a body by a "live" video-link or any other such means, as the State Coroner may approve, in order to make the important decision of whether to hold an inquiry. Sir, this provision will enable the Coroner to harness technology in appropriate cases, where the Coroner may be indisposed to be physically present to view the body, without having to cause unnecessary delay to the progress of time-sensitive investigations. This will expedite the release of the body to the next-of-kin after the Coroner has viewed and identified it.

But let me assure Dr Lam that the norm will still be the current practice of the Coroner going down physically, right to the mortuary every morning to view and identify the body, and that includes weekends and public holidays. I should add that the decision, whether or not to hold an inquiry, is actually not determined by the viewing or identification of the body, but really by the factors that I have set out earlier under clause 25.

Now, let me quickly address two other concerns that have been raised. Dr Lam asked if all Sentinel events resulting in deaths would be classified as Coroners' cases. For those of us who are not doctors, I understand that Sentinel events refer to unexpected deaths or major injuries in healthcare institutions that are associated with the treatment, lack of treatment or delay in treatment. Sir, indeed, there will be instances where a death occurring in a hospital will trigger both a Sentinel event report as well as a report to the Coroner. On the other hand, a major injury arising may be a Sentinel event but need not be reported as a Coroner's case, as there is no death. In any case, the point is that these two reporting systems serve different purposes, and are reviewed and managed separately.

Sentinel event reports are made by the hospital's quality assurance committees to the Ministry of Health for the principal purpose of identifying and addressing any systemic issues. On the other hand, when a death is reported as a Coroner's case, this triggers a Police investigation that may eventually lead to criminal charges being preferred. As such, there are separate guidelines for reporting Coroners' cases and Sentinel events. As to when an autopsy is required, yes, I believe there are factors to be considered on this. The key point is, really, the purpose of an autopsy is to determine the cause of death. The Coroner taking professional advice from the forensic pathologists will decide if a reported case can be signed off without the need for an autopsy.

Finally, Sir, as to whether the Coroners' findings are appealable: the Coroners' findings are not subject to appeal or criminal revision. But a person with sufficient standing, such as an immediate family member, may apply for judicial view. The Public Prosecutor may, at any time, direct the Coroner to reopen a concluded enquiry or if an enquiry was not held in the first place, to conduct one.

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. – [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

5.06 pm

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

This Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact with amendments the existing Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) to maintain its relevancy in a rapidly changing digital world. It ensures that, going forward, the ETA will continue to fulfil its fundamental role of providing a conducive legal framework for electronic transactions to take place in Singapore. In doing so, we can facilitate the continual growth of electronic commerce (e-commerce), electronic communications and electronic transactions, hence strengthening Singapore’s position as a trusted global infocomm hub.

This is of strategic importance given the increasing use of the electronic medium for communications and transactions, and substantial growth in global e-commerce trade. According to comScore, a global market research company, US e-commerce trade reached a total of US$130 billion in 2009 and is expected to grow by almost 7% this year. Closer to home, Singaporeans increasingly go online to purchase goods, procure services and transact with the Government. As an example, based on the annual e-Government perception survey conducted in 2009, almost nine out of 10 users who transacted with the Government did so electronically, at least once a year.

For the ETA to effectively play its role, we will need to ensure that it remains aligned with global developments on the rules of conducting electronic transactions, and be capable of adapting to constant technological change. A comprehensive review of the ETA was therefore conducted to identify aspects of the legislation which required amendments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the review had identified three sets of amendments to the ETA, which are presented in this Bill. They

are: first, amendments to align the ETA with the UN Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts (UN Electronic Communications Convention); second, amendments to the ETA to facilitate more effective delivery of e-Government services in Singapore; and third, amendments to the Certification Authority regulatory framework enshrined in the ETA to enhance the technology neutrality of the legislation.

In addition to these amendments, a substantial restructuring of the ETA has also been proposed in order to streamline the Act, and facilitate future amendments in response to technological developments. Since the existing ETA needs to be extensively re-arranged and amended in order to accommodate the proposed changes, we therefore seek to repeal and re-enact with amendments the ETA.

Electronic communications in international contracts

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now move on to elaborate on the three sets of amendments to the ETA, starting with the alignment of the ETA with the UN Electronic Communications Convention. Developed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group chaired by Singapore, the UN Electronic Communications Convention is an updated international legal framework for e-commerce that takes into account developments brought on by the Internet and other technological advances. It seeks to facilitate global e-commerce trade by establishing a set of comprehensive rules to guide the use of electronic communications in the negotiation and formation of international contracts.

This Bill seeks to amend the ETA for consistency with the rules under the UN Electronic Communications Convention. Existing provisions in the ETA, such as those responsible for defining the time

and place of despatch of an electronic communication, will hence be amended to follow the UN Electronic Communications Convention. New provisions that are currently not in the ETA will also be added. These new provisions include rules on the use of automated programmes in the formation of contracts, use of electronic originals in place of the physical originals, and clarifications on the rules in a formation of an electronic contract. These amendments are necessary for Singapore’s legal frameworks to keep pace with international developments on the laws of e-commerce.

In addition, by harmonising our laws on e-commerce with the UN Electronic Communications Convention, businesses in Singapore will not be subjected to different standards for domestic and international transactions. This prevents any complication arising from different definitions and conventions between local and cross-border electronic transactions.

E-Government

The second set of amendments to the ETA is aimed at facilitating the more effective delivery of e-Government services. Since the start of Singapore's e-Government journey some 30 years ago, the Government has consistently sought to improve public e-services for the benefits of citizens and businesses. This Bill supports our e-Government efforts by enabling the greater use of electronic documents and transactions in citizens' and businesses' interactions with public agencies.

Use of electronic forms and intermediaries

It is proposed that the ETA be amended to clarify that during transactions with public agencies, information can be submitted using electronic forms in the manner specified by the agencies, even if these forms do not resemble the physical prescribed forms required for the

transactions. The amendments are proposed to provide flexibility for public agencies to design electronic forms suited for online transactions, and hence improve the customer’s overall e-Government experience. For example, public agencies can create integrated electronic forms to facilitate a user’s performance of multiple e-Government transactions from a single point of access. Using the integrated electronic form, the user needs to input his relevant information just once, instead of having to fill in the same information repeatedly in the multiple forms for the different e-Government transactions that he is performing. This saves time and effort on the user’s end, and improves overall efficiency in the delivery of e-Government services.

Retention of records

The other e-Government related amendments to the ETA are aimed at facilitating the Government’s push towards paperless public service delivery. Under some laws, Government agencies will require individuals or businesses to retain certain records for the purposes of inspection or for future reference. Some Government agencies may, in other cases, require original documents to be produced as part of an application process. The proposed amendments seek to establish that for such requirements, Government agencies will, by default, accept the retention or provision of the required documents in their electronic form.

These amendments are recommended in view of the trends and merits in the use of electronic documents. As technology becomes available to safeguard the integrity of electronic documents, it has become increasingly common for businesses and individuals to convert, and create, their paper records and originals in electronic form. This is a more attractive alternative since paper documents are

bulky and, generally, cost more to physically store and manage.

There may be situations where public agencies will require electronic documents to be retained or submitted in a particular manner. These requirements are necessary for various reasons – for instance, to ensure that the information can be properly processed by the system or to facilitate efficient processing of the documents. Hence, there will be provisions in the ETA to allow Government agencies to specify additional requirements for the retention or provision of electronic records and originals.

Exclusions from ETA

It is worthwhile to highlight that the ETA will not apply to all forms of electronic documents and transactions. When the ETA was enacted in 1998, it was recognised that there were certain classes of documents and transactions, such as wills and the conveyance of properties, which were not ready for the transition into the electronic medium. A decision was then taken to exclude them from the ETA.

During the review, we had sought feedback on whether these exclusions should continue to be maintained given technological developments and growth in public confidence in the use of electronic documents and transactions. Based on the responses to the public consultation exercises, there is a general agreement that the exclusions should be maintained. We concur, and view that the reasons for having the exclusions continue to be valid in today’s context. Negotiable instruments and documents of title, for example, continue to be excluded because there is no internationally recognised standard for ensuring their uniqueness in the electronic environment. We also note that the exclusions are commonly adopted in other jurisdictions.

There will hence be no change made to the classes of documents and transactions excluded from the ETA. The amendments to the list of exclusions presented in this Bill are merely additions that highlight the specific examples of documents and transactions excluded from the legislation. They are meant to provide greater clarity on the exclusions and for consistency with the UN Convention.

With these exclusions, parties cannot rely on the ETA to satisfy the legal requirements, such as the need for writing or signatures, stipulated for the excluded classes of documents and transactions. However, parties are not prevented from conducting these excluded matters electronically. For instance, the Singapore Courts have recognised the use of electronic communications in agreements for the conveyance of land. Similarly, the exclusion of certain matters under the ETA does not invalidate the use of their electronic versions if they are deemed valid under other rules of law, such as in the Rules of Court for the e-filing of Court documents.

Certification Authorities

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now touch on the last set of amendments, which seeks to amend the regulatory framework for Certification Authorities (CAs) to enhance the technology neutrality of the ETA.

The current CA regulatory framework enshrined in the ETA is largely based on Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) technology. As this was one of the most secure authentication architectures at the time, we had used PKI technology as the benchmark for the integrity and security of authentication services offered by CAs in e-commerce transactions.

Since then, new security technologies and solutions have emerged, and changed the authentication and security landscape

both in Singapore and globally. Some of these new technologies like biometrics have begun to be adopted, as they have been found to be appropriate alternatives to PKI. To keep pace with these industry developments, we have proposed to remove PKI-specific references from the ETA. Requirements and details relating to specific technologies, whether current or new, will instead be provided in the ETA Schedules and various regulations made under the Act.

The effect of these proposed amendments is that proven new security technologies can now be treated as comparable to PKI in ensuring the reliability and security of authentication services.

We have also ensured that there will be no dilution in the regulatory controls that have been put in place to govern CAs in Singapore. For example, the Minister still retains the powers to issue regulations to safeguard or maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of CA services. The Controller appointed by the Minister retains enforcement powers over CAs, and has additional powers to issue directions requiring CAs to work with public and civil bodies for national emergency purposes. Mr Speaker, Sir, in summary, this Bill proposes to harmonise our laws on electronic transactions in line with international developments, and hence provide a conducive legal framework for e-commerce trade to flourish in Singapore.

It also amends the ETA as part of our continual efforts to improve the delivery and use of e-Government services. Lastly, enhancements to the technology neutrality of the ETA will allow us to better respond to the ever-changing and continued developments in security technologies.

Overall, the new ETA will facilitate the increased adoption and use of infocomm

technology as a productivity tool, and at the same time, buttress Singapore’s position as an international infocomm hub.

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. – [RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew].

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

Resolved,

"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." – [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Adjourned accordingly at

Twenty-four Minutes past Five o'clock pm

to a date to be fixed.

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

asked the Minister for Health in view of the widespread risk of infections from tattooing whether he will consider regulating this activity so that only those who are registered can perform it and also impose a minimum age limit for anyone wishing to be tattooed.

All invasive procedures carry the risk of transmitting an infection through contamination. Tattooing is an invasive procedure and poses such a risk. However, the risk can be eliminated through proper infection control measures.

There were two cases of Hepatitis B linked to tattooing in the 1970s. With enhanced infection control measures, we have since not received any reported case of a notifiable infectious disease linked definitively to tattooing or body piercing.

But with more children going for tattooing and body piercing, I understand the concerns of their parents. My Ministry is reviewing the regulatory experience overseas to see if we should also introduce some regulations here, especially with a view to protecting the minors.

asked the Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts whether the Preservation of Monuments Board will consider preserving Fort Tanjong Katong as a national monument.

The Preservation of Monuments Board (PMB), now part of National Heritage Board (NHB), does not plan to gazette Fort Tanjong Katong (Fort) for the time being.

Excavation works were conducted in 2005 to ascertain the full extent of the underground Fort. The studies have since shown that part of the old Fort is located outside the Katong Park boundary and extends into State Land that is currently zoned for Residential Use. In 2008, then PMB recommended to keep the archaeological remains of the Fort buried, in-line with conservation practice, to protect it from damage by further weathering or human interference. It was also established that there was no immediate threat to the Fort since there were no plans to develop the neighbouring residential site. In addition, National Parks (NParks) left the southeast Caponier, which is the most significant feature of the Fort, on display. Storyboards and signage were installed to explain the findings.

As there are considerable costs involved in undertaking full excavations to expose the structures and long term maintenance of such excavated structures, NParks will keep the Fort buried for the time being. The public can be assured that the PMB will continue to work closely with the agencies involved to address the long term future of the Fort, and

ensure that its historical significance is appropriately recognised. Should there be any new developments affecting the site, NParks and the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) would alert PMB, which would then decide on the direction for future archaeological investigations and preservation strategy to be adopted. I understand that the then PMB had also met with Member Lim Biow Chuan and members of the Mountbatten Citizen’s Consultative Committee to convey their decision to maintain the status quo for the Fort.

asked the Minister for Education if his Ministry has plans to chart a blueprint for bilingual education that maps out its direction for the next 10 years.

I have appointed a Mother Tongue Languages (MTL) Review Committee headed by the Director-General of Education to chart a road map for the next 10 to 15 years. The Committee commenced its work earlier this year, and has been studying best practices around the world. In the coming months, the Committee will continue to consult our educators, parents and community stakeholders.

While the review is still in progress, the Committee’s preliminary scan of local trends and best practices overseas, has shown that in order for language instruction to be effective for students with a broad spread of linguistic abilities, we have to make teaching more customised to the range of student abilities, and make learning more relevant in different real life situations. Our assessments and examinations will also have to be aligned. This is a long-term endeavour, as we will need to recruit more MTL teachers, re-train existing ones, and develop new instructional materials. We are also mindful that any future changes will have to be phased in carefully. The Committee will complete its review by the end of the year.