Hansard, 2010-07-19

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 Baey Yam Keng 22 May 25 May 12 Jun 19 Jun 03 Jul 07 Jul Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 24 May 01 Jun 12 Jun 16 Jun 06 Jul 11 Jul 27 Jul 31 Jul Mr Teo Chee Hean 24 May 28 May Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 26 May 28 May 10 Jun 13 Jun 15 Jun 15 Jun 08 Jul 08 Jul Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed 26 May 31 May 08 Jun 12 Jun 20 Jun 01 Jul Mr Hri Kumar Nair 27 May 06 Jun Mr Lim Biow Chuan 27 May 30 May 10 Jun 13 Jun Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 27 May 01 Jun 07 Jun 11 Jun 12 Jul 14 Jul Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim 28 May 01 Jun 28 Jun 01 Jul Mr Goh Chok Tong 29 May 05 Jun 30 Jun 02 Jul Column: 613 Mr Yeo Guat Kwang 30 May 02 Jun 12 Jun 14 Jun 17 Jun 19 Jun 14 Jul 18 Jul 26 Jul 08 Aug Mr Charles Chong 31 May 02 Jun 15 Jun 18 Jun Mr S Iswaran 02 Jun 14 Jun 22 Jun 25 Jun 08 Jul 15 Jul 21 Jul 23 Jul Mr Lim Hng Kiang 03 Jun 09 Jun Dr Balaji Sadasivan 05 Jun 07 Jun Mr Gan Kim Yong 05 Jun 07 Jun 10 Jun 23 Jun Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong 06 Jun 10 Jun 17 Jun 22 Jun 22 Jul 24 Jul Mr Lee Hsien Loong 07 Jun 12 Jun 22 Jun 22 Jun 08 Jul 15 Jul Dr Ng Eng Hen 07 Jun 11 Jun Mr Zainudin Nordin 07 Jun 15 Jun 16 Jun 20 Jun 05 Jul 13 Jul 14 Jul 18 Jul Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 08 Jun 09 Jun 30 Jun 08 Jul 09 Jul 10 Jul Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien 08 Jun 12 Jun Mr Michael Palmer 08 Jun 17 Jun Mr Teo Ser Luck 08 Jun 15 Jun 09 Jul 10 Jul Mr Lim Swee Say 10 Jun 17 Jun 13 Jul 18 Jul 22 Jul 24 Jul Dr Teo Ho Pin 10 Jun 14 Jun Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 11 Jun 19 Jun 22 Jun 22 Jun 23 Jun 25 Jun 29 Jun 30 Jun 01 Jul 02 Jul 19 Jul 24 Jul Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 11 Jun 15 Jun 21 Jul 27 Jul Dr Lee Boon Yang 13 Jun 18 Jun 21 Jun 23 Jun Column: 614 Mr Zaqy Mohamad 13 Jun 25 Jun 30 Jun 03 Jul Ms Ellen Lee 14 Jun 18 Jun Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee 14 Jun 19 Jun Mr Lim Boon Heng 17 Jun 23 Jun Mr Mah Bow Tan 17 Jun 17 Jun 22 Jun 22 Jun 02 Jul 14 Jul 22 Jul 24 Jul 29 Jul 31 Jul Mr Sin Boon Ann 18 Jun 24 Jun 12 Aug 13 Aug RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew 19 Jun 22 Jun 30 Jun 02 Jul Mr Inderjit Singh 20 Jun 26 Jun 04 Jul 10 Jul 16 Jul 20 Jul Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman 20 Jun 23 Jun Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M 21 Jun 22 Jun 12 Jul 15 Jul Mr K Shanmugam 22 Jun 22 Jun 23 Jun 27 Jun 28 Jul 30 Jul Prof. S Jayakumar 22 Jun 24 Jun 29 Jun 02 Jul Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo 25 Jun 27 Jun Mr Heng Chee How 29 Jun 01 Jul 14 Jul 18 Jul 30 Jul 01 Aug Mr Lee Yi Shyan 29 Jun 03 Jul 22 Jul 24 Jul Mr Ang Mong Seng 30 Jun 02 Jul Dr Lim Wee Kiak 02 Jul 06 Jul 15 Sep 20 Sep Mr Seng Han Thong 02 Jul 05 Jul Mr Wee Siew Kim 02 Jul 02 Jul 06 Jul 08 Jul 12 Jul 17 Jul 03 Aug 07 Aug 10 Aug 10 Aug 12 Aug 12 Aug 17 Aug 17 Aug 18 Aug 26 Aug Mdm Halimah Yacob 07 Jul 09 Jul 14 Jul 18 Jul 24 Jul 27 Jul 30 Jul 01 Aug Column: 615 Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong 07 Jul 09 Jul Mr Low Thia Khiang 10 Jul 20 Jul Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 12 Jul 16 Jul 21 Jul 23 Jul Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon 13 Jul 23 Jul Mr Abdullah Tarmugi 14 Jul 14 Jul Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan 14 Jul 17 Jul Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 14 Jul 16 Jul 25 Jul 02 Aug Dr Lily Neo 15 Jul 25 Jul Ms Indranee Rajah 19 Jul 19 Jul Ms Joscelin Yeo 19 Jul 19 Jul Mr Wong Kan Seng 21 Jul 26 Jul Er Lee Bee Wah 28 Jul 31 Jul 28 Aug 31 Aug 04 Sep 07 Sep 09 Sep 12 Sep 03 Oct 14 Oct

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

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

9th June,2010 (1) Hindu Endowments (Amendment) Bill (2) Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill (3) Coroners Bill (4) Criminal Procedure Code Bill (5) Electronic Transactions Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what has been done in Singapore to counter the continuing threat of jihadist radicalisation; (b) whether there are sufficient measures in place to prevent radical individuals from teaching in local mosques and other Islamic institutions; and (c) what more can be done to prevent such radicalisation.

2. Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs in view of the increasing availability of, and ease in accessing, terrorist-related information on the Internet and other channels (a) what are the Ministry's plans in managing self-radicalisation amongst Singaporeans; and (b) how can Singaporeans help in tackling this issue.

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

Yes.

Sir, jihadist radicalisation has become a global phenomenon of concern, and Singapore is certainly not immune from it. Some radicals, including many members of the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) terrorist group, are actively indoctrinated and recruited by extremist groups. Others, like Muhammad Fadil Abdul Hamid, are radicalised in the course of their individual quests for answers to personal religious and ideological questions, which unfortunately led them down a misguided and

dangerous road towards deviant teachings that advocate violence.

Self-radicalised individuals are no less dangerous to society than those indoctrinated by extremist groups. Such individuals include Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bomber who tried to set off a bomb on an aircraft flying to Detroit, and Faisal Shazad, who tried to set off a bomb in Times Square, New York. Both started out as self-radicalised individuals and because they were unchecked, went on to establish links with terrorist groups which facilitated their bid to undertake militant jihad. Fortunately, in both cases, their bombing attempts were unsuccessful. Had they succeeded, the outcomes would have been horrific.

To counter the spread and influence of jihadist ideology in Singapore, we must take a multi-pronged approach. We must not allow radicals to spread their ideas here. Our mosques and other Islamic institutions must be vigilant, and keep a close watch on individuals who teach, preach or conduct activities at their premises. Foreign religious teachers and speakers need to obtain a letter of support from MUIS before the Ministry of Manpower will grant them an Employment Pass or a Work Pass to teach or give speeches on religion here.

Muhammad Anwar Jailani’s case has shown that attention must be paid to religious teachers who preach and instruct others. Local Islamic institutions and Muslims should only engage properly qualified teachers accredited under the Asatizah Recognition Scheme, which MUIS introduced in 2005. More and sustained publicity for this scheme is needed to raise awareness, so that Singaporeans know to check the list of accredited persons before engaging a religious teacher. MUIS will also explore

other ways, including legal options, to ensure that Islamic institutions do not engage or allow unaccredited individuals to conduct religious activities.

ISD has also worked with MDA to reach out to bookstores to ensure that they do not carry extremist literature, whether in paper or electronic form. These efforts will be stepped up and firm action against errant distributors and retailers will be taken.

Terrorists are increasingly exploiting the Internet as an effective means to propagate their radical ideology, promote their cause and recruit potential operatives. To extend their reach, their messages have been posted online in different languages, including English.

There have been suggestions that the Government should block these radical websites. However, this would be a futile exercise. The architecture and reach of the Internet make it practically impossible to interdict all radical websites. Moreover, there are several thousand such sites and the number continues to grow. If we bring down one website, it can easily resurface under another name or in another jurisdiction. To be effective, we would not only have to block terrorist websites but also popular social networking platforms like YouTube and Facebook, which would clearly not be practicable. The same Internet that empowers ordinary individuals unfortunately also serves radicals.

Since we cannot expect to perfectly shield Singaporeans from exposure to jihadist ideology, education is critical to inoculate our society against jihadist ideology.

For many years now, ISD has held briefings and talks to schools and community groups, to share its concerns about radicalisation. The Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG) too has used

public talks, forums, media interviews and written articles to alert the general Muslim public to the falsehoods of jihadist ideology. Several other Muslim leaders and organisations have also initiated and organised community counter-ideology programmes. The common goal of these efforts is to help Singaporeans who chance across radical teachings in the guise of religion to see through the falsehood and not be led astray. These community efforts are a positive development and we hope even more community organisations and leaders will step forward to do likewise.

As for Muslim Singaporeans who may be radicalised while pursuing studies overseas, MUIS will strengthen its capacity and resources to reach out to them, and hopefully convince them not to enrol in radical institutions where they are at risk of being subverted by radical ideas. This would include more measures to advise on the choice of schools, as many commentators in the media have suggested, and stationing officers overseas to keep in close touch with young Muslim Singaporeans studying there, to ensure that they are rightly guided, supported and remain connected to Singapore’s development and contemporary issues.

Singaporeans themselves must play their part to help loved ones turn away from the path of radicalisation. They must not turn a blind eye or be unwilling to heed warning signs. Fadil and Muhammad Thahir bin Shaik Dawood had let people close to them know that they were interested in militant jihad, and these people had noticed that they were surfing radical websites. However, none of them sought help from the religious or Government authorities. Instead, they brushed aside Fadil and Thahir’s jihadist talk as not serious. Had they contacted the authorities at an earlier stage, things might have turned out quite differently for Fadil and Thahir, and the two of them

might not have had to be detained or placed on Restriction Orders.

Early intervention is the best way to save a relative or friend from the road to radicalisation. It gives him the best chance to be guided back to the correct path. This is the socially and morally responsible thing to do; it should not be seen as betrayal, because such action helps both the individual and our society. We should not be paranoid. But as a community, we need to be discerning enough to distinguish mere "viewpoints" from "something more sinister", and have the moral courage to seek help from MUIS and the Government authorities when required. Not reporting suspicious warning signs could not only hurt innocent lives but also strain communal and familial relations if the individual becomes thoroughly radicalised and does something disastrous. Reporting warning signs is thus a necessary first step towards countering radicalisation in our midst, and I can assure you that no further action will be taken if it turns out to be a false alarm.

Sir, as for the concern about disunity in the society and community, over the years since we uncovered the JI in 2001, Singaporeans – Muslims and non-Muslims alike – have stood together in our efforts against terrorism. Non-Muslim Singaporeans have not looked with suspicion at fellow Singaporean Muslims because they understand that the JI members and self-radicals are just a few misguided individuals. Muslim Singaporeans have also undertaken many proactive measures to address the problem of radicalisation. I believe that there is good reason to be confident that Singaporeans will be resilient and will continue to stand together against the ever-evolving terrorist threat.

Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister, for the comprehensive answer. My supplementary question is: are the

radicalised individuals who have been arrested by the ISD this time merely just a few misguided individuals or is there a more deep-rooted problem in Singapore and how do we ensure that Singapore remains safe against the threat of terrorism?

Sir, I believe our Muslim community is moderate and not one where extremism freely thrives or is accommodated. However, what these recent arrests tell us is that notwithstanding this, there are individuals who may be susceptible to the dangers of radicalisation, and no society is immuned to this threat. Singapore, certainly, is no exception. We, therefore, cannot rule out the possibility of some Singaporeans being radicalised in future. There may also be already radicalised Singaporeans whom the security agencies are not aware of. The Home Team agencies will do their utmost to deal with the terrorist threat but there is no such thing as a perfect intelligence and enforcement system that can guarantee the detection of every threat and the prevention of every incident from occurring.

Even in America and the United Kingdom, with the deep commitment and the enormous resources post 9-11 to tackle the jihadist terrorist threat and with the numerous successes they have had in foiling several plots, some attacks still manage to get launched. In the UK, it was fortunate that perpetrators of the Glasgow Airport attack in 2007 were ultimately unsuccessful, like the Christmas Day airline plot last year and the Time Square bombing plot this year. They were unsuccessful because the devices failed to detonate as intended. Unfortunately, in the case of the Fort Hood incident, the perpetrator successfully staged an attack. Lives were lost and innocent people were hurt.

In Singapore, we have to be prepared for the possibility that one day, a terrorist could slip through our defences and carry out attacks in Singapore. This is the reason why we have worked hard at developing our consequence-management capabilities even as we strengthen our intelligence and defence efforts to prevent an incident through early detection. In addition, even though we already enjoy a level of communal harmony, which is treasured by all Singaporeans and which has been noted and commented on by many visitors, we do not take this for granted and assume that an attack will never take place in Singapore which will affect our social cohesion.

This is why we started a community engagement programme in 2006 to build networks of trust among the communities in order to shore up our resilience. Within our community, we are also fortunate to have our Muslim religious leaders who are rational and sensible and who have the moral courage and conviction to speak up against jihadist terrorism. This is most apparent with the members of the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG). These members have actually interviewed and met the JI detainees and they understand fully the threat of terrorist doctrines and their implications on religious harmony and the security of Singapore if these are unchecked.

Our Muslim religious leaders, whether it is in the RRG or other groups must together work with MUIS to press on to enhance the protection of the vulnerable members of our Muslim community from radicalisation. Our Muslim leaders have been and must continue also to be united against this fight. Unlike some other countries where it is difficult to find a unified voice among the Muslim leaders because of the different groups' interests, our Muslim leaders have shown, time and again, a commitment to the common good not just for the well-being of the Muslim community but they also understand fully

the interests of the wider community and the national interests of Singapore, which they are a part of.

I, therefore, truly hope that Singaporeans will never have to experience the pain of a terrorist attack but if we should ever face such an attack, then we should ensure that we are prepared and that our sober and balanced responses as a society ensure that we are resilient and able to recover from such an attack. How we react to an attack as a people is crucial because the injury that a terrorist incident inflicts on a society is deepest and long-lasting when it permanently scars communal relations with mistrust and animosities.

In the event of a successful attack, we must not overreact hastily and in the heat of a moment overturn the entire system which has worked well and which has provided the safety and security to Singaporeans in the last 10 years.

Hindsight is always perfect vision. The dots which are significant after an event are always most obvious. Even as we learn from mistakes, our response must always be rational, considered and carefully calibrated and deliberated. In the meantime, we will and must continue to refine and improve our defences through the Home Team working together with our foreign partners, as well as through our people, to keep up with the dynamics and evolving threat of jihadist terrorism.

Sir, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the detailed and comprehensive answer. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, I would like to know if there are clear processes in place to help staff and stakeholders of institutions, such as schools, tertiary institutions, mosques, madrasahs and other related organisations, address this self-radicalisation issue, should they be unsure of handling individuals faced by these sentiments face-to-face.

Secondly, despite having a holistic approach of creating awareness on the dangers of terrorism through public seminars, community dialogues and workshops, can the Ministry consider implementing more outreach efforts in engaging all segments of the Singapore society? This is in view of the increasing penetration of terrorist-related information on the Internet.

Sir, over the last few years, there have been extensive efforts in educating the different segments of our community – whether they are schools, workplaces, religious institutions – on the threat of jihadist ideology. In fact, the RRG members have spoken up on many occasions in private gatherings and big gatherings in mosques and to different groups of people who come and visit us to discuss the actions that were taken. The ISD, together with some community groups, has also gone to schools to hold seminars and talks with the students and teachers to help them understand the threats of jihadist ideology, and this effort has been going on for many years. In fact, with the community engagement programme, the Government has been engaging the different segments of a community. For the schools, in particular, there is a strong effort by the Education Ministry in ensuring that the students fully understand such threats, at the same time know how to deal with them. And particularly for the principals and teachers, they also know how to recognise individuals who may be facing problems and who are unable to reconcile the issues themselves and who may need help. From what we know, teachers and principals have no issue about contacting the security agencies to tell them about the concerns that they have and seek help from the authorities who will then talk to the individual students concerned. The same thing applies to the workplace, the employers' organisations, and so on.

These are the efforts that have been going on for many years.

Even for the media, we have also worked closely with the media, particularly with some of the journalists covering such stories, to help them understand the seriousness of a threat like this to us and in the event of a successful attack, how then do we deal with this as a community. Because how the press reports an incident very much affects how the people react to it subsequently. So we need all segments of a community to be involved, and this effort will carry on.

Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, from the cases of those radicalised by external teachers who preach militant jihad, whether there is a profile of Singaporeans who are vulnerable to such influences and whether their radicalisation is linked not only to external influences but also internal developments in the country and their community such as unhappiness with certain policies, their lot in life or their circumstances.

I think it will be simplistic for me to just outline a profile and then people say, "Okay, I will try to recognise these individuals when I see them". To do so will be to mislead people and sometimes we may let our guard down when we see certain signs which may not appear right but it does not seem to fit the profile that I have outlined. Having said that, let me say that from the cases that we have investigated, radicalisation actually cuts across all groups – gender, ethnicity, educational qualifications, socio-economic background, and so on. Foreign cases also reflect the same kind of traits. That said, we have also noticed that many of the radicalised Singaporeans are actually weak in their religious grounding. Therefore, they want

to seek out what they think is the correct ideology and, unfortunately, they went to the wrong places or talked to the wrong people and therefore they cannot discern what is right or what is wrong. And when they do not seek the correct guidance from recognised azatisahs or religious teachers, then certainly they will face more issues and also pose problems to the community.

In the case of Muhammad Fadil, for example, he is no different from other JI members, even though he is self-radicalised. From the groups that we arrested over the years from 2002 onwards, he is just like any other person of these groups that have been radicalised. We know that from the groups that we detained, there are young people like Fadil, there are also middle-aged people, and there are also those in their 30s. Unfortunately for the younger people, their vulnerability can also be borne out by the youthful idealism that they may have, coupled with an inability to reason and to question the information given to them. As a result, they are unable to tell what is the right thing to do.

On the question of how we can prevent radicalisation, as I have said, we can try to keep out radical influences through measures like education, community vigilance, counter-ideological talks, and so on. But there is no perfect shield that can prevent Singaporeans from being influenced by radical ideology. If a person looked at the wrong places, talked to the wrong people, they may get radicalised. Increasingly, because of the use of the Internet, some individuals get radicalised without others knowing about it or with very few people knowing about it, and that is where it is important for family members and their friends to tell the authorities, MUIS or religious teachers about such a change in behaviour of a person, so that things can be done to help the person not to get onto the wrong path.

Mr Sadasivan, last question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this – a concern that arises as a result of these incidents is an erosion of trust between people of different religious groups that could lead to finger-pointing or even victimisation. How does the Government monitor these developments? And if we come across such situations, how do we handle and manage them on the ground?

Sir, over the years, after the various detentions that have been conducted or made against JI members as well as other groups like the pro-MILF type, and the self-radicalised cases since 2007, we have been in very close touch with the community leaders, not only the religious leaders and the Muslim leaders but also community leaders of all ethnic groups, and also those in the business, unions, and so on. We also get feedback from members of the public, through REACH, and also through the press and the grassroots network, and also through direct interactions. From there, we have a sense that generally Singaporeans are quite balanced in their response to any arrest that we have made so far. The more information we share with the leaders, the better they understand the problems and, therefore, the better they are able to lead their community and to respond and deal with such issues. And Singaporeans understand that the Muhammad Fadil's case, as well as the other radicalised cases, is just an isolated case not representative of the whole community.

As I have said in my main answer, the great majority of our Muslims are moderate and they are part of Singapore, part of our community and we have social cohesion over the years. So they understand that very well. Therefore, whenever we come across individuals

who may have other views, we try to understand what is it that they are concerned about, in what way we can address them and therefore try to deal with those issues on a private basis, which is much better. If the issue has been taken out, then we discuss it openly. The main thing is that we must be frank with our people that if we have a problem, we resolve it, and not sweep it under the carpet.

3. Mr Michael Palmer asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence whether the radical activities of NSF Muhammad Fadil Abdul Hamid have in any way undermined the security and integrity of the SAF and what steps are being taken to ensure that the SAF is secure from similar self-radicalised activists.

4. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence how has the Ministry been working with the Ministry of Home Affairs to ensure the early detection of self-radicalised individuals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 3 and 4 together?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, investigations have shown that Muhammad Fadil was a solitary individual who took the wrong path.

This specific case, therefore, has not affected the security and integrity of the SAF or MINDEF’s view of other Malay or Muslim servicemen, who continue to serve dutifully and with commitment in their units. MINDEF has briefed SAF

commanders on this case, and they have briefed their own servicemen so as to ensure that the whole organisation understands this position clearly.

The security agencies in MINDEF and the Ministry of Home Affairs worked closely together on this case. They acted as soon as there was sufficient indication that Muhammad Fadil was a security risk. At the national level, we have instituted security systems and processes to detect, monitor and neutralise potential security threats. MINDEF and the SAF is part of this national system, and will continue to maintain a high level of vigilance against any potential threats that may surface.

Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether this recent incident will have any effect on the deployment of Malay/Muslim servicemen in the SAF.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I stated earlier, investigations have shown that Muhammad Fadil was a solitary individual who took the wrong path. This specific case, therefore, will not affect the way MINDEF deploys Malay or Muslim servicemen in the SAF. The role of Malays in the defence of our nation and in the SAF and the associated challenges and dilemmas we face, are difficult and sensitive issues for our multi-racial, multi-religious society. They have confronted Singapore since our early days of nation-building. The Government has on several occasions discussed them in this House as well as with Malay community leaders. Over the years, we have been able to all work together in an honest, realistic and practical manner to make progress together as fellow Singaporeans.

The SAF is a microcosm of Singapore society, and race relations within the SAF reflect those in our broader society. Thus as Singapore has made steady progress

towards racial and religious integration, so has the SAF. Malays serve today in many more places and roles in the SAF than before – in the Commandos, Engineers, Artillery, and as Pilots and Sea Soldiers. As Malay educational standards have improved, a higher proportion of Malay enlistees are fulfilling the educational prerequisites to be selected for commanders’ training. Indeed, more Malays are now serving their full-time national service as commanders. And among our regular Malay servicemen, some have risen to hold senior and sensitive Command and Staff appointments. In each case, it is because the individual serviceman has the required qualifications and merit, and is the most suitable person for the job.

Nevertheless, in an age of jihadist terrorism, race and religion remain salient issues. Events around the world as well as continuing incidents in our immediate neighbourhood remind us that it will be a long time before the threat from jihadist terrorism subsides. Singapore – including the SAF – will need to watch this international context, and continue to manage our own racial and religious issues sensitively and pragmatically so as to safeguard our racial and religious harmony.

The SAF will not let individual incidents, in particular those which impinge on sensitive racial and religious areas, cause distrust or suspicions among us, and negate the progress we have so painstakingly made. When we acknowledge the real problems that we face and tackle them together sincerely and practically, we can strengthen understanding, trust and confidence among our communities in Singapore, and thus make further progress together.

Our best approach is for the SAF to decide on appointments and advancements based on qualifications and merits of the servicemen so long as they are committed to Singapore, dedicated to the SAF, and capable of doing the job. By

assessing each person according to these criteria, we can recognise the commitment, contributions and abilities of our servicemen, who come together to serve in the defence of our nation.

5. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in view of the flash floods which occurred in parts of Singapore on 16th June 2010 (a) what caused the floods; (b) how often does PUB check on the maintenance of the drains; (c) what is the design capacity of our drainage system especially in the city area; and (d) what is the process for PUB to monitor the adequacy of the drainage system for various locations in view of the constant building redevelopment in Singapore.

6. Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the root cause of the recent flood in Orchard Road which caused damage estimated at millions of dollars; (b) whether the flooding could have been prevented with regular checks or having a better drainage system in place; (c) whether recent water works have a contributory role to the flood; and (d) what strategy will the Ministry be undertaking to avoid occurrence in the other areas of Singapore.

7. Miss Penny Low asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in light of the floods which occurred in parts of Singapore on 16th June 2010 (a) what measures have been put in place to prevent a recurrence; (b) how does the Ministry rate our national drainage system; (c) how does the Ministry rate our national agencies' emergency response to the situation; and (d) how can the Ministry better prepare property owners, shopkeepers, shoppers and residents in responding to emergencies.

8. Miss Penny Low asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in view of the rising sea level and climate change issues that can lead to flash floods and other unprecedented calamities (a) how is Singapore preparing itself in terms of (i) physical infrastructure; (ii) information infrastructure; (iii) links to regional and global information and warning systems; and (b) how can the Ministry better prepare residents to help themselves and others in such times.

9. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in light of the second flash floods on 25th June 2010 (a) what are the underlying causes for the floods in Newton, Novena, Kampung Java and Little India; (b) what plans are in place to rectify the existing problems; and (c) what new plans will be put in place to better prepare our environment from other similar calamities.

10. Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the financial losses resulting from the recent flood in Orchard Road; (b) if any financial assistance or support services will be extended to shop owners affected by the flooding and temporary closure of their shops for major repair, including those without sufficient insurance coverage; and (c) whether the grassroots organisations and CDCs will consider extending their community engagement programmes and services to help shop owners and workers affected by future emergencies such as the flooding of major retail districts.

11. Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how vulnerable to flash floods are public housing estates such as Bedok and Chai Chee; and (b) whether the current infrastructure at these public housing estates is adequate to cater to the new patterns of rainfall.

12. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the recent flash floods in Singapore are linked to global warming and, if so, what action will the Ministry take in planning for the future and to raise public awareness of the possibility of greater climatic fluctuations and their effects on Singapore.

Sir, with your permission, could I take Question Nos. 5-12 together?

Yes.

Sir, I thank the Members for their questions. Over the last 30 years, the Government has invested some $2 billion to upgrade our drainage infrastructure. PUB will continue to implement new drainage works to reduce the severity and incidence of floods in Singapore. In planning our drainage infrastructure, PUB takes into account the expected flow from surface runoff based on the size of the catchment area, the history of rainfall intensity and the different types of land surfaces in the catchment. The impact of planned land developments in the future is also worked into the drainage design considerations.

As part of our building development control measures, PUB stipulates drainage requirements for effective flood prevention such as minimum platform and crest levels for buildings and entrances to underground facilities. This inter-agency process is well-established, involving PUB, HDB, URA, JTC and LTA to ensure that long-term development plans incorporate the necessary drainage requirements.

Sir, to ensure that our drains are free-flowing and perform to their designed capacities, a comprehensive maintenance regime is in place. Contractors are

deployed island-wide to check and clear debris from the drains. Their work, under a performance-based contract, is closely monitored by PUB to ensure that they meet the specified cleanliness standards and frequency.

To alleviate the risk of flooding in low lying areas in the city, the Marina Barrage has been in operation since 2008. It has served to remove tidal influence at the Stamford Canal outlet. During heavy rain, up to nine gates and six pumps at the barrage will be operated to discharge excess storm-water to the sea.

Sir, as Members can see from the chart* which has been distributed, through concerted effort and careful land development planning, flood prone areas have been reduced from 3,200 hectares (ha) in the 1970s to 66 ha today. After the recent flooding, we will review the list of flood prone areas. We continue to take a serious view of flooding incidents. Where they occur, PUB will assess the cause of the flood and, if necessary, work with other agencies to improve the drainage system and raise the road levels. PUB also engages building owners on appropriate flood protection measures to prevent a recurrence.

Sir, on 16th June 2010, 100 millimetres (mm) of rain fell in two hours over the Stamford Canal catchment area. Orchard Road (between Cuscaden Road and Cairnhill Road) was the worst-hit, with a flood depth of 300 mm. The floods subsided within an hour.

PUB has completed the investigation of the flood incident at Orchard Road. The investigation found that the flood was caused by an intense storm that moved quickly along the Stamford Canal catchment from upstream to downstream in two bursts, 30 minutes apart. At 9.40 am, the first intense burst of rainfall fell over the upstream portion of the Stamford

Canal catchment. The runoff from this initial rainfall flowed down the canal. When it reached the middle section of the canal (from Cuscaden Road to Grange Road), it coincided with the runoff from the second burst of rain which fell over the entire catchment at 10.10 am. This generated a combined storm flow that caused the water level to rise rapidly and overflow onto Orchard Road. The situation was worsened by debris carried into the canal by the first burst of rain. The findings of this investigation were shared with an independent expert review panel, comprising both local and international experts. The experts concurred with PUB’s findings.

On that morning, PUB responded swiftly to the impending storm, and cooperated closely with the Traffic Police, Land Transport Authority, Singapore Civil Defence Force, National Environment Agency and MediaCorp Radio. At 8.30 am, prior to the heavy rains, PUB staff and contractors were deployed to anticipated hotspot areas prone to flash floods. The gates at the Marina Barrage were operated progressively from 8.30 am onwards to allow excess storm-water to flow to the sea. When the flood occurred at Orchard Road around 10.30 am, PUB worked with the Traffic Police and SCDF to render assistance to the public. At noon, shortly after the flood subsided, tankers and pumps were deployed to assist in pumping floodwater out from affected premises.

Sir, my Ministry has studied the investigation findings by PUB on the flood incident in Orchard Road, and we agree with the findings. I am also satisfied that the response by PUB and the other agencies was consistent with the standing procedures.

Sir, PUB has since engaged the managing agents of affected premises in

Orchard Road as well as the Orchard Road Business Association to recommend early warning systems and structural measures to limit the impact of flash floods on premises. These measures include flood barriers and road humps to protect basement car parks. Building owners and managing committees have also been encouraged to improve their communication and evacuation procedures as part of their emergency response plans for flood incidents. In addition, PUB has invited the businesses to participate in its SMS alert system so that they will be alerted of high water levels detected by sensors in Stamford Canal. We will look into extending this alert system to the public.

PUB will also be making the data from its water level sensors available to the public on a website. The existing network of 32 water level sensors will be expanded to 90 sensors by the end of the year and to 150 next year. PUB is also working with the Traffic Police to put up more signboards to warn motorists of flooded roads to avoid.

Sir, on 25th June 2010, 100 mm of rain fell within 1.5 hours. Unlike what happened on 16th June 2010, the rain was widespread over the whole of Singapore resulting in localised floods in several areas such as Bukit Timah, Thomson, Little India, Kampong Java, Newton and Bedok.

On 17th July 2010, just last Saturday, there was another heavy and intense rainfall over Singapore, causing floods over the central and eastern parts of Singapore. In the early morning, about 181 mm and 194 mm of rain was recorded in the central and eastern areas of Singapore respectively. This is more than the average total monthly rainfall of 158 mm for July. Some of the locations flooded included Bukit Timah, Newton, Orchard Road, Telok Kurau and Jalan Taman.

Most of the affected areas on both 25th June 2010 and 17th July 2010 were known flood prone areas. Similar to that on 16th June 2010, the runoff from the intense rain caused Stamford Canal to overflow.

On these occasions, PUB, together with Traffic Police and SCDF officers, was onsite to render assistance to those affected.

Sir, PUB has an ongoing drainage improvement programme to improve the drainage in many of these areas. Previous flood prone areas, such as Joan Road, were not affected as a result of completed drainage projects in the area. There are plans to implement drainage improvements to several major canals and drains. The tender for improvement to Geylang River closed in June and tenders for improvements to Bukit Timah First Diversion Canal and the downstream stretch of Rochor Canal will be called in the next three months. Tenders for the upgrading of major drains along Thomson Road and MacPherson Road will be also called by the end of this year. Works to improve the drainage system in the flood prone areas of Little India will start in the next few months.

Wherever possible, we will bring forward the start of these works and expedite their completion. We are also undertaking an urgent review of the Stamford Canal.

During these storm events, downtown areas like Marina Centre and Chinatown were not affected as the Marina Barrage was operated effectively to avert further flooding.

Sir, Miss Penny Low and Ms Irene Ng have asked if these recent cases are evidence of global warming and climate change, and whether we are prepared for

this. There is a wide range of variability in rainfall in our region – within this year so far, we have experienced both intense rainfall and the driest February on record. Although we cannot conclusively link these events to climate change, I would like to assure Members that we are aware of the challenge of climate change and are closely monitoring long-term rainfall trends in Singapore.

To better understand Singapore’s long-term vulnerabilities to climate change, NEA commissioned a study involving both local and foreign experts. The study projects that the average daily temperature could increase by between 2.7o C to 4.2oC from the current average of 26.8o C, and the mean sea level around Singapore could rise by 24 cm to 65 cm, by 2100. As climate science is a complex and evolving subject, we will continue to improve our understanding as more information and data become available and climate change models become more robust. This will allow us to incorporate the latest scientific understanding on the potential impact of climate change into our infrastructure planning considerations. NEA is also working to expand its capabilities in climate science through collaborations with renowned climate institutes and the World Meteorological Organisation. In the longer term, we will put in place additional measures as needed to adapt to the potential impact of climate change. MND leads an inter-agency Adaptation Taskforce to review the sufficiency of Singapore’s existing adaptation measures and to identify the additional measures that need to be implemented.

Sir, the incidence of flash floods is a challenge faced by cities around the world. Recently, devastating floods in France, China and Japan inflicted significant damage and loss of lives. As an island in the tropics, Singapore is especially prone to intense rain storms. We have seen the occurrence of three

intense rainfall events over the past month, caused by Sumatra squalls and the influence of Typhoon Conson, and aggravated by the prevailing La Nina conditions. Climate change could add a new level of complexity to this.

Sir, I empathise with the frustration and anxiety of those affected by the recent floods. PUB officers will continue to hold dialogues with affected residents and businesses, and advise on possible improvement measures that they can take. We will also look into improving our alert system to provide early warning of possible floods to the public. Although it might not be realistic to expect Singapore to be completely flood free, my Ministry will work with the relevant agencies to carry out a systematic review of all major drainage systems and their design parameters, as a priority. The review is expected to take several months, and all possible interventions will be considered within the constraints of cost effectiveness and competing uses for limited land in Singapore.

*Cols. 831-832.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions. In one month, there were three floods in Orchard Road and other parts of Singapore. Does the Minister think that these could have been prevented and why does he think so? Question two, where are the other flood-prone areas that his Ministry has checked after the infamous Orchard Road flood and what are the findings and rectifications done so far? Question three, is there any drainage masterplan and when was this last updated and what more can be done to reduce the flood-prone areas?

Sir, in the last one month, we have seen three intense storms, only two causing flooding in Orchard Road, and not all three. On 25th June 2010, the storm did not cause any flooding.

Orchard Road was flooded.

No. Orchard Road was not flooded. We have to be precise. Sir, the question that the Member asked is whether this can be prevented. In the first case, as I mentioned earlier, for the flooding on 16th June 2010, we did not expect it to happen in Orchard Road. But we have learnt from the incident that, first, we must be more prompt in the way we remove the debris and we have installed the grates to be able to catch debris upstream. Secondly, we need to review the design of Stamford Canal and its adequacy altogether. I think the 17th July 2010 storm caused us to be very concerned that this is the major canal diverting water all the way to the sea and therefore if it is flooded, we have to take a serious view of what needs to be done. As I mentioned in my reply, we are giving this top priority in our review of all the canals in Singapore. The Member asked where the other flood-prone areas are. In fact, for the three incidents, most of the flooded locations were flood-prone areas that we are aware of. The only area that was a surprise to us is Orchard Road, and that is why we are paying attention to Orchard Road and we need to deal with this problem decisively.

We do have a drainage masterplan. The drainage masterplan is updated at a certain frequency. We have, in fact, been looking at this for the last three years

ever since the flood in 2007 and we have been pushing forward the drainage improvement plan as far as possible. As Members know, it will take time because we need to acquire the land, call for tender and so on. As I mentioned in my reply earlier, we will accelerate it as much as possible. But, at the end of the day, we must also look at the drainage system vis-à-vis the overall land use within Singapore. In certain instances, we may not be able to

expand the drain but we could consider other measures which we are also exploring, such as the use of retention ponds and so on.

The Minister has earlier said that contractors are mainly responsible for supervising the clearing out of the monsoon drains and the small drains channelling run off, which often are a repository for dried leaves and other stuff not cleared resulting in clogging and even mosquito breeding. I would like to ask the Minister who is in charge of the contractors.

The second question is, what action has been taken against contractors who failed to clear the rubbish from the monsoon drains in a timely manner? If there are enough penalties, is the quantum of these penalties sufficient? I wonder whether the fines that have been imposed on these contractors are expensive enough than if the contractors were to deploy more workers to do timely cleaning. It has been said that it is cheaper to pay fines than to employ enough workers to clean up. I would like the Minister's comment on this.

Sir, all of the contractors are hired by the PUB to clean the drains, as I mentioned in my reply. They are given a contract. We have, in fact, increased the contract period from three years to five years so that they can explore the use of technology. We have not come across a severe case of contractors who have not been doing their jobs. Having said that, PUB officers are always on the lookout to monitor the work done by the contractors. At this point in time, we do not see any evidence to suggest that the fines are inadequate or that the contractors are cutting corners. Certainly, if we come across incidents of shortchanging, we

would certainly come down hard on the contractors. But thus far, I have been informed by the PUB that there are no such incidents.

Can I ask the Minister, to what extent has our rapid urban development limited our island's capacity to run off streams caused by strong rainfall? I would also like to know if Minister would ensure that besides providing drains, our urban planners would incorporate techniques that promote infiltration and storage of water in the soil column and reduce impermeable surfaces.

Sir, for any urban development, before the plans can be approved, the PUB would have to check as to whether or not there will be an adequate consideration given for the drainage system. Whatever run off that is produced as a result of the development, it must not over stress that drainage system that we have. If there are exceptional cases, we will work with the developers to see what are the ways they can ensure that the run off from the development does not aggravate the existing system. The Member suggested some ideas. I will pass these to the PUB to see what they can do further with the contractors and the developers. Thus far, we have not come across any incidents where flooding is a result of an existing development. More often than not, we would have calculated together with the developer what is the run off, and whether or not the existing drains have the capacity to absorb the additional run off.

Mr Speaker, supplementary questions. How does MEWR determine what constitutes flood-prone areas, as outlined in this graph [Member indicated a handout ]? Are these areas identified the same as those identified in previous years? If they are the same, then why was drainage in those existing flood-prone areas not

rectified in the first place? And if these areas are not the same, what contributed to new flood-prone areas emerging? Last but not least, this might be slightly unrelated, there was a report about a photographer who was taking pictures at flood-prone areas and was being handcuffed. I just wanted to know whether there is any policy of MEWR to disallow people from taking pictures, and if it is not, I think this is a good opportunity to clear the air.

Sir, on the second question, we are only familiar with the case as much as the Member is from reading the reports in the newspapers. There is no policy of the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) or PUB in terms of taking pictures. From what we understand, the photographer was warned because of safety issues, not because of privacy issues. There is nothing private about a flood. Based upon the report, that was what we understood to have happened that morning. The Member asked how we define a flood-prone area. Flood-prone areas are areas which are below or marginally above the high tide and not served by any pump or drainage system and areas which have been flooded by storms of lower intensity than what it is designed for. For example, in my own constituency, which, unfortunately was flooded over the weekend, there are terrace houses which are well below the level of the Kallang River. These are low-lying areas. We know they are flood-prone, so, if there is a rainfall of a certain intensity, these places will be flooded. How do we resolve it? Well, the only way is for the level of the roads and the buildings to be raised at the next re-development. We will continue to work with people who are living in the areas which are affected. In fact, we have a drainage upgrading programme for most of these areas to alleviate the flooding situation in those particular areas. The only area that we have uncovered is

Orchard Road. I would not consider Orchard Road as a flood-prone area. I think it is a hotspot, we are studying it very carefully to see what more can be done to alleviate the problem as quickly as possible.

I would like to ask a question. The Minister said that a lesson had been learnt from the flooding in Orchard Road. I cannot help but feel sad for shopkeepers in a certain building, Lucky Plaza. In fact, the news said that the Lucky Plaza is not so lucky. So, is there anything the Ministry can do for the building owners if flooding continues or is it another Ministry's responsibility?

Sir, in fact after the incident of 16th June, we discussed with the Management of Lucky Plaza on what are the things that they can do in terms of flood alleviation measures. And, in fact, the PUB stands ready to advise any of these buildings that have been affected, on what are the measures that they can take and we are in constant contact with them. So it is really up to the Management to make the necessary decision. In fact, some of the condominiums affected earlier have already put up the measures, some have not, and we would continue to work with them to advise them on what is the best thing to do. In fact, MP Christopher de Souza has been actively working with his residents and we have been in touch with the condominium affected in his area on the things that they can do. We will work with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to raise the road level and the hump level which is in front of the condominium so that we can alleviate the flood situation over there.

Thank you, Minister, for the comprehensive reply in which you mentioned Bukit Timah three or four times. The stretch of Bukit Timah where the canal runs through is located in

my constituency. So, I would like the Minister's assurance on two questions.

Firstly, I understand that there is going to be a widening and a deepening of the Bukit Timah canal. Could that be accelerated? And also the canal that takes the collection of water to Sungei Ulu Pandan which goes underneath Maple Avenue, would that be accelerated too?

Secondly, would PUB continue to encourage the management councils of the condominiums where there are basement carparks to invest money in crest protection measures? I think that would be a very good interim measure until the widening of the canal.

As I mentioned in my reply, where it is possible to accelerate, we will do so and, in fact, the Bukit Timah canal and the diversion canal is one of the top priority areas. So I would like to assure the hon. Member that the PUB is paying close attention and will work as fast as possible to get this job done. To the second question as to whether we can continue to work with the management of the condominiums, we would do so, as per my reply to the earlier question. In fact, after the last three incidents, we contacted all the management of the condominiums and advised them on what can be done. These are all older condominiums. The new condominiums are all subjected to the new platform levels in which PUB has stipulated. For those who were built before the new law came into effect, the best thing for the management to do is really to work together with the PUB and find measures in which they can incorporate. Some have already done so. Some, I think, are considering that. And, in fact, Sir, I would like to add that we are also prepared to work with home owners because, in some areas, it may be difficult for us to expand

or enlarge the drain because of limited land availability, but what we can do is to advise the home owners on the necessary actions to take. So the PUB is prepared to work with the home owners on what are the measures they can take to prevent flooding in their homes.

I visited the site in Chai Chee and I met a few concerned residents there. While waiting for the overall changes in the drainage system, they suggested that maybe the Ministry can consider making an immediate step to increase the size of the road kerbs, scupper drains and road kerb drop inlets at all affected housing estates to take in more water quickly, so that we can prevent further flash floods. Secondly, I have also noticed that recent heavy rain spells, which were accompanied by strong winds and thunder storms, have resulted in some damages to our urban infrastructure such as our traffic lights, signages, power supplies as well as trees and landscape of our roads. The concern I have is when these structures break down, especially during heavy downpour, they may pose a danger to the public. So I would like to ask the Minister if there are efforts being carried out by the relevant agencies to review the operational status of these structures in withstanding the effects or impact of such heavy downpour or thunderstorm.

Sir, to the second question: there is an inter-agency committee chaired by the PUB that looks at all of these incidents. I cannot be very precise as to whether or not they are reviewing it but I am sure LTA and the various agencies whose infrastructures are affected will certainly consider what additional measures to take. To his earlier suggestion about enlarging scupper drains and making the inlets bigger, this is already being done by the PUB. I do not have the details for Chai Chee but certainly we looked at it because that was one of the areas

flooded on the 25th of June. We will consider whether or not these are some of the short-term immediate measures, as he rightly pointed out, that can be put in place before we enlarge the drains or the canals.

Sir, two supplementary questions. First, I read that the PUB and the authorities are actually stepping up their checks of blocked drains from quarterly to monthly. So, does the Minister not agree then that this is an acknowledgement that the checks were actually not done frequently enough up to now? Second, Sir, I wonder if the Minister could clarify the role of the Marina Barrage because there appears to be some confusing statements in the media about this. Earlier, the Minister said that the Marina Barrage did help to alleviate the flooding situation in the first incident on 16th June. But the press reports at that time quoted the PUB head as saying that the Marina Barrage was not to be blamed, so I wonder whether the Minister could elaborate on what role the Marina Barrage played in the flooding incident.

Sir, the frequency of checks of our drains prior to the incident of 16th June was every three months and that was adequate. But obviously the 16th June's storm was an intense storm that caused a lot of rubbish to be pushed down to the Stamford Canal and caused some parts of the canal to be blocked. We decided, in the interest of alleviating as much as possible flood-prone areas, to increase our frequency of cleaning blocked drains. So it is not an acknowledgement that something has gone wrong but it is something that needed to be learnt as we go along and maybe these are the ways in which we can improve the work that we do. To the second question on the exact role of the Marina Barrage – the Marina Barrage is supposed to be 3-in-1. First of all is to

create a freshwater reservoir for ourselves, second is really flood alleviation and third is for recreational uses. On the flood alleviation measures, as rightly pointed out, it is meant to alleviate flood in low-lying city areas. In fact, in the incident of 16th June and even last Saturday, the nine crest gates were opened progressively to allow the storm water to flow into the sea. But how the crest gates and the pump are operated would have to be decided by the water level, both inside the reservoir and outside,

because if the water level outside is higher, and it is high tide, then you have to start the pumps and pump the water out. If it is lower, we can lower the crest gates. The trigger point has to be done carefully and this will take some time. If we do open up the crest gates, we have to ensure that we do it correctly. PUB had done this correctly in the last three incidents, and because of that, none of the areas downtown had any flood. As to whether or not we could have done it for the Orchard Road area, I would like to inform Members that we did but do not forget the Marina Catchment is a very large catchment. In the case of Orchard Road, the canals are all the way upstream and it may not have enough capacity or even ability to drain off the water as quickly as possible. At the end of the day, this has to be studied as a system, not just as a barrage, together with all the drains on how we can do this. As I mentioned earlier, the Stamford Canal is now our priority, we will study this carefully on how, together with the system that we put in place, we can alleviate the hotspots that we have discovered in Orchard Road.

Sir, one supplementary question. Can the Minister share some ideas on the early alert system he mentioned to inform the public as well as to allay the fears and anxiety of home, shop and car owners of these flash floods?

Sir, the early warning system we have is an SMS-system that is triggered using the water sensors that we have in our canals. We monitor the water level of our canals on time. When it reaches a certain level, we basically trigger the alarm to inform agencies such as the Police, SCDF and others to be on high alert. We would extend this alert system to the businesses affected. We are now studying whether we can extend this to the public, because it just involves an SMS. We would ensure that people who are in the low-lying areas, if there is an incident that is about to happen, we are able to inform them so that they can take the necessary measures. But the point is that all of this is not an exact science because the water level would have to reach a certain level, based on our judgement, for us to trigger the alert. As to whether flooding will occur or not, it is not possible for us to say with 100% certainty. But, at least, I think the whole point is that the businesses can do something. If there is no flooding, it is okay. If there is a flood, they are able to save their properties. We would study this system in a more comprehensive manner to extend it to members of the public.

Meanwhile, as I mentioned in my reply, we would extend the number of sensors, from 32 to 150 eventually. We would put all of the level of the sensors on PUB's website. Even if you are not on the alert system, you can go to the PUB website and see the water levels in real time.

Sir, my question is related to what the Member has just asked. I would like to ask the Minister: when will the alert system be ready to roll out to the public? The second question is similar to Mr Christopher de Souza’s. I am also a MP of the Bukit Timah area. Bukit Timah is supposed to be known as a flood-prone area. Despite the construction of the

drainage system in the area, we are still experiencing floods in that area. I would like to ask the Minister: even with the enhancement to the drains, canals and so on, would Bukit Timah ever be taken off the flood-prone area list? Or can it be less flood-prone than what it is today?

Sir, honestly, no Minister can ever give the Member the answer. [Laughter ]. It is difficult for us to say as to whether or not we can make it entirely flood-free. I was reminded by senior Members of the Cabinet that Bukit Timah was known to be a flood-prone area in the 1960s and 1970s. But if you look at the chart, the PUB has been very successful in reducing the numbers of flood-prone areas, including areas in Bukit Timah. But, obviously, more needs to be done and we will do our best. We cannot look at the control of floods just purely from the drainage system. The idea of protecting yourself, warning yourself early that a flood may occur, what you can do – is an important part of the challenge. So it is both trying to give you early warning so that you can do something, and on the part of the PUB to increase the drainage system as much as possible to drain off the water into the sea as quickly as possible. So we will do our best, expand the drainage and the canals that we have in Bukit Timah. At the same time, it is better for us to work with the condominiums and businesses around the area to bring them into this early warning system, and to play a part to prevent flooding from occurring in their own developments. As mentioned by Mr Christopher de Souza earlier, some of the condominiums' management will probably have to make a decision as to whether they want to implement some of the flood prevention measures that we have advised them to do so. These are the things that we can continue to do together to ensure that we can minimise the impact of flooding if it occurs again at Bukit Timah.

13. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport in light of the deaths of three foreign workers arising from an expressway accident on 22nd June 2010 (a) what measures will be implemented to ensure the safety of foreign workers being transported to and from work on their employers' vehicles; (b) how will these measures help minimise injury and how quickly will they be implemented; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider legislating that employers must transport their workers in mini buses or buses with compulsory seat-belting.

14. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked the Minister for Transport (a) if the recently introduced measures to enhance the safety of workers transported on lorries should be effected sooner instead of the phased approach; (b) whether the deadline for compulsory installation of higher side-rails on existing lorries should be brought forward rather than wait till 2012; (c) whether the current number of buses/minibuses is sufficient to meet the transportation needs of the industry; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider supporting businesses who wish to convert to bus transportation in the near future by providing incentives/subsidies.

15. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry will consider bringing forward the deadline for introducing new safety measures for the transport of workers on lorries that were supposed to be introduced by 2012; (b) what enforcement action will be taken against errant employers who fail to comply with safety rules when transporting workers; and (c) what are the immediate steps taken to provide better protection to

workers pending the introduction of new safety measures.

16. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport (a) if the Ministry will consider bringing forward the proposed measures to have higher protective side railings and canopies for lorries which will only take effect in 2012; and (b) whether there are plans for interim measures such as public education for transport operators who ferry workers.

17. Dr Lam Pin Min asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the underlying reasons for the spate of accidents involving foreign workers transported in lorries; and (b) whether the speed limit for vehicles used in transporting workers can be further reduced to make travelling on these vehicles safer.

Sir, with your permission, can I take Question Nos. 13 to 17 together as they are related to the same matter?

Okay.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an issue that the Government takes seriously. Last year, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Teo Ser Luck explained in this House that the safety measures in place and enforcement efforts have generally been effective in keeping the fatality and injury rates of passengers carried at the back of lorries low. Nonetheless, a workgroup led by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) recommended a series of measures to further enhance the safety of workers transported on lorries.

Most of the measures were implemented on 1st September 2009 and 1st January 2010. Enforcement records showed there has generally been a high

level of compliance to these safety rules. There has been on average a 50% fall in the number of violations of these rules in the first four months of this year, compared to the last four months of last year. The accident statistics during the 10-month period before and after the new measures were implemented show that the injury cases have reduced by about 17%. However, for fatality cases, it is too early to draw conclusions given the very small numbers involved, with three cases for the 10 months before 1st September 2009, and three cases for the 10 months after, all of which happened on the unfortunate 22nd June accident.

There are two remaining measures from the workgroup recommendations that we had planned to implement on 1st September 2012. They are: first, all lorries used to ferry workers must be fitted with canopies and higher side railings. This has been a requirement for all newly-registered lorries since 1st January 2010, and was to be extended to existing lorries on 1st September 2012. Second, the minimum deck space requirement per seated worker will be doubled from four to eight square feet. A longer lead time was given to these two measures to allow businesses to phase in their operational changes and make decisions on their existing assets.

Since the fatal lorry accident on 22nd June, LTA has reviewed the situation and identified four areas through which to further enhance the safety of workers on lorries. They are:

vehicle-safety related measures,

driver-related measures,

enforcement and penalties, and

public education.

On vehicle-safety related measures, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Mdm Halimah Yacob and Dr Lim Wee Kiak have asked whether these remaining two measures should be brought forward. We have decided that it would be prudent to do so, and it will be done as follows:

All light lorries used to transport workers will have to be fitted with canopies and higher side railings within the next six months, that is, by 1st February 2011. Heavy lorries used to transport workers will need to comply by 1st August 2011.

The doubling of the minimum deck space requirement per seated worker to eight square feet will be implemented for both light and heavy lorries by 1st August 2011.

The requirement for canopies and higher side railings is being phased in as there are capacity constraints in our local workshops. We have looked at the accident statistics which show that 75% of lorry accidents resulting in fatalities to workers involve light lorries. Also, light lorries, as compared to heavier lorries, are generally less able to withstand the forces of collisions in an accident. As such, we have put priority for light lorries to be retrofitted first.

Besides the vehicle safety-related measures which would help minimise the extent of injuries when accidents do occur, the drivers also play a crucial role in transporting the workers safely. The Traffic Police (TP) already has a strict enforcement regime and penalty framework against errant drivers who speed, drive recklessly or dangerously. In response to Dr Lam Pin Min’s suggestion on reducing the speed limit of lorries which transport workers, it is not recommended as it will increase the speed differential between lorries and other vehicles on expressways and this will

itself give rise to other safety issues. Our focus should be on ensuring that drivers keep to the existing speed limits and drive safely. Hence, besides enforcement which I will touch on shortly, LTA and TP will explore the use of technologies and devices to better control speeding by lorries used for carrying workers. Also, to ensure that foreign drivers who ferry workers or goods in the course of their work are fully competent and familiar with driving on our roads, the Ministries of Home Affairs and Manpower will develop and implement more stringent conditions for licensing these drivers. The details on these measures will be announced when they are ready.

LTA and TP have also stepped up their enforcement efforts and will continue to take strict enforcement action against errant drivers. Resources will be increased to sustain the stepped-up level of enforcement. Penalties for speeding and non-compliance with vehicle safety rules will be enhanced with higher fines as well as demerit points for greater deterrence. In addition, appropriate legal actions will be taken against both the employers and the drivers depending on the nature of the offence. The details will be announced in due course. LTA, TP and MOM, together with industry stakeholders, will continue public education efforts on road safety as well as develop targeted programmes such as safety talks, videos and posters for various stakeholder groups to raise awareness of the safety regulations for lorries carrying workers.

Mr de Souza has asked whether the Ministry will consider legislating that employers must transport their workers in buses. The measures that are in place, and to be effected in the next year, would help to achieve the desired objective of mitigating the risks of workers who need to travel on lorries in the course of their work. We should allow the measures to

improve workers’ safety on lorries to take effect and study their effectiveness before concluding that they are insufficient and going for a ban.

The efforts put in by all the relevant agencies underscore the Government’s concern about the safety of workers transported on lorries. Employers and drivers must also play their part as safety is also their responsibility as well.

Sir, I would like to thank the Minister particularly for agreeing to bring forward the deadline for implementing the two measures as well as the various other measures that he has mentioned. I certainly feel that that would somehow help in improving the safety for workers being transported in lorries. However, I do have three questions for the Minister.

First, I would like to ask Minister when the stringent licensing conditions for the foreign drivers will be introduced. I think that is an important consideration. Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry would consider other than the measures already mentioned, making it a requirement for these lorries to install safety belts so as to further minimise injuries and deaths. Thirdly, I would like to ask the Minister whether he could also impose the same deadline of six months for the measures to kick in, with regard to the heavy vehicles, rather than make a distinction between light and heavy lorries.

On the Member’s first question on when the stringent licensing regime will come in place, this is something which the Ministry of Manpower and Ministry of Home Affairs are currently working on. They will announce it when ready but they are studying this carefully. On whether we could put in safety belt for lorries, the workgroup actually studied and considered this and consulted safety

experts on this. But the conclusion was if we were to put safety belts for lorries which were supposed to carry goods, it might actually create other safety issues, and cause different types of injuries to those being carried. His last question was whether we could impose the same six months timeline for heavy lorries. We studied this. It is really a question of capacity. If we could, we would have done it but we are trying to do the bulk. So about 60% will be done in six months and the remainder, a little later or few months later.

Mr Speaker, I echo Mdm Halimah Yacob's thanks to the Minister for Transport in bringing forward the deadlines. I think it shows the resolve the Ministry has in taking this matter seriously. The Minister mentioned penalties, and with that, the discussion on demerit points. But would the Minister consider a penalty to the employer if there is indeed a fatality or serious injury on the way to work, in terms that it may affect the quota or number of people he could employ in future?

When you pass a worksite, there is a billboard which says number of fatalities and the number of workers that are injured. Could we institute regulations so that employers will need to also display the number of workers that have been injured on the way to and from work on that billboard as a deterrent?

The Member’s question is about the penalty framework, whether or not it should also be applied to employers. This is something that we are looking at. I think I mentioned in my reply that it is not just penalties on the drivers but also on the employers because we recognise that sometimes the employers are equally culpable in the non-compliance of the safety rules. The Member's other suggestion

was whether or not we are going to put up notice boards at worksites.

It is a worksite billboard which already exists.

I will pass that suggestion to the Ministry of Manpower and they could have a look at whether or not this will act as another deterrent.

I thank the Minister for his reply to my Question. I would like to ask the Minister with regard to the insurance for these workers especially when they are injured or when lives are lost: what kind of coverage do they have now? Will the Minister be looking into increasing the insurance coverage of these workers who are transported on lorries?

My second question is whether the Minister will consider putting a ban to prevent these lorries from using expressways because expressways have stipulated speed limits. Even if you lower the speed, these lorries are going at faster and faster speeds with time.

I will take the second question first. We already have a speed limit. Actually, the speed limit is now 60 kilometres per hour. I think that helps to reduce injuries to workers when there is a collision. The Member's other point is on insurance coverage. We now have a Workmen's Compensation Act, and I think that should be covered under the Act.

18. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent breach of security at the SMRT depot (a) what is the Ministry doing to strengthen the security at all train and bus depots/interchanges; (b) what is the procedure for all train carriages/buses to be checked by the transport operators

before they go into service each morning; and (c) why was the graffiti on the SMRT train not spotted and the train allowed to leave the depot.

19. Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Transport whether he will consider enhancing security measures at MRT train depots, benchmarked against those at Changi Airport, considering the relative number of passengers carried by a train and a plane.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 18 and 19 together as they are related?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, my Ministry takes a serious view of the breach of security at SMRT's Changi Depot.

Following the incident, both public transport operators, SMRT and SBS Transit, have taken immediate steps to strengthen the security at their train and bus depots. Measures include the installation of more CCTV cameras and concertina wire along the perimeter fence of the train depots, increased security presence in terms of the numbers of guards and the frequency of patrols, and stepped up checks of both the interior and exterior of trains and buses before they depart for service. In addition, the inter-agency Public Transport Security Committee (PTSC), chaired by the Chief Executive of the Land Transport Authority (LTA), is undertaking a comprehensive review of the security of our entire public transport system. The PTSC's review will take about six to eight months to complete. Through this system-wide review, we aim to address any security gaps and see to practical improvements that need to be made to enhance the security of Singapore's public

transport system. In doing so, the PTSC considers international best practices, as well as those from other sectors, including Changi Airport. However, we should also bear in mind that there are differences in risk levels and ground practicalities between MRT train depots and Changi Airport. The PTSC would thus have to arrive at a set of recommendations best suited for our public transport network. As for why the graffiti was not spotted before the train left the depot, SMRT had explained that, prior to the incident, only the interior of train cabins were checked before the trains were launched into the network. This checking of MRT train interiors before leaving the depot and going into operation is part of the current procedures to ensure that MRT trains do not have any articles or items in them which could pose a security risk to commuters. Several SMRT staff had, in fact, noticed the graffiti but mistook it for an advertisement.

This incident at Changi Depot serves as a timely reminder to all of us that are involved in ensuring security to remain vigilant at all times. It is important that agencies learn lessons from this incident and take action to rectify the shortcomings. In doing so, we will continue to take a measured and risk-based approach towards security while not impairing the efficiency of our public transport system.

I thank the Minister for his answer. I agree with the Minister that pragmatism should prevail and that it is also not possible to be fully foolproof, in terms of security measures, whether it is for MRT depots or at the Airport. But I would like the PTSC or perhaps the Ministry to also consider the impact on the number of people, which I understand is about 1,600 passengers, coming on-board a MRT train

versus an aeroplane which is about a few hundred passengers. I think the extent of lives at risk, should a threat occur, is very real. I do hope that the Ministry will consider benchmarking the security measures for the airport versus a MRT depot.

Sir, as I have said, we will take into account not just Changi Airport but international best practices on how best to get this done. We share the Member's concern. The public transport system is a system that carries large numbers of people everyday. We are deeply conscious of this. So the PTSC will do a thorough review and see what more we can do to enhance safety and security.

Sir, a few supplementary questions. First, the Minister mentioned that after this incident, the two public transport operators (PTOs) are actually stepping up their depot security quite significantly by installing more cameras, conducting more patrols, etc. Does he not agree that up to now, perhaps, too light an approach has been taken on depot security? Second, does the Minister accept that the Government has an important oversight and regulatory role when it comes to public transport security? Third, I would like to ask the Minister who in the MOT or LTA is actually in charge of security, or is it MHA? Fourth, does the Ministry audit the security levels at the PTO sites?

One of the Member's questions was: who looks after public transport security? As I mentioned in my reply, we have an inter-agency group, which is the Public Transport Security Committee (PTSC), chaired by the Chief Executive of LTA but he has all the relevant agencies in there.

As SMRT had acknowledged, there was a serious security lapse. That was why it had taken immediate steps to rectify this. The other question that she asked is on the role that the Government plays. I will just touch on this because a Question is coming up later. I think it is a shared responsibility when it comes to public transport security. The public transport operators have a primary responsibility like all business entities to ensure the security of their facilities, operations and that of their commuters. On the part of the Government, through the PTSC, it provides an overall security framework and coordinates the work of the various agencies.

Her final question is on whether we conduct audits. Yes, we do that. For instance, in all the bus interchanges and MRT stations, we constantly check this on a monthly basis to ensure that the security systems are in place and effective.

Sir, I have two further questions. Firstly, do the Government agencies conduct audits of depot security? Secondly, which I forgot to ask earlier, is on the SMRT's reply about the workers thinking that the graffiti was an advertisement. Does the Minister find that to be an acceptable answer?

I think we all wished that there was requisite situational awareness, in answer to her last question, because there are different layers of security. They did notice the graffiti, but as I have said, they took it as an advertisement. Going forward, they have stepped up their visual checks on the train exterior, going out. I think they need to work out a system of coordination where this sort of information is floated up. As for whether we conduct audits and checks, we review that constantly, whether it is for bus interchanges, depots or MRT stations.

20. Ms Ellen Lee asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether his Ministry can provide more information on the suspected terrorist plot on Orchard MRT station; and (b) what his Ministry is doing to proactively respond to this threat besides the current measures already undertaken by LTA, SBS Transit, SMRT and the Police (including the Public Transport Security Command).

21. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs what role does the Government play in ensuring that security on public transport is not compromised.

You have four minutes, Mr Shanmugam.

I will try, Sir, particularly as I have to take Question Nos. 20 and 21 together.

Yes.

Sir, the Indonesian authorities' raid on a militant training camp in Aceh in February this year gave some leads. Thereafter, a security operation was mounted against suspect Ahmad Sayid Maulana in East Jakarta in May. During the operation, the Indonesian authorities found the map showing our MRT network, where Orchard MRT station was circled, and also a street map of Orchard Road. This map is similar to those which are readily available from the Internet.

An Internal Security Department (ISD) team went to Jakarta to discuss these findings with the Indonesian Police. I am

not able to provide further details of our engagement for operational security reasons. However, I assure Members that we view this matter seriously.

This discovery shows that, despite counter-terrorism successes by regional authorities, the terrorist threat in the region and to Singapore remains real. This should come as no surprise. Singapore has been targeted in the past, and continues to remain a trophy target. We cannot let our guard down.

Intelligence and international cooperation remains an important component of our efforts. We work together with our foreign counterparts to apprehend terrorists, and restrict the ability of their networks to obtain financial support as well as plan and prepare for attacks. This collaboration underscores the strong cooperation and trust between the intelligence and security agencies in the region.

Beyond intelligence sharing, we have also been proactively developing capabilities to prepare ourselves for evolving security threats. One example is Singapore Police Force's Public Transport Security Command (TransCom) which was set up in August 2009 to enhance our ability to police the public transport network.

Since the recent discovery, Police has stepped up high visibility patrols within Orchard MRT station and its vicinity. We have also reminded the Public Transport Operators (PTOs) to remain vigilant against possible terrorist threats. This is an addition to ISD's ongoing investigations.

Let me now turn to the security in the public transport sector. The PTOs bear primary responsibility for the day-to-day operational security of the premises and the environment in which they operate.

They are the domain owners best placed to decide what measures are most

feasible, taking into account the operating context and other considerations such as operational efficiency. This principle of domain owners bearing the responsibility for security in their respective domains is not new, and is the most practical and sustainable approach to ensuring our national security. The alternative is to have the Government everywhere and watching everything, but this is impossible, indeed not desirable.

As for the provider of public transportation services, PTOs thus have first line responsibility for ensuring that the service they provide is safe. This includes safeguarding the public transport infrastructure, by implementing and maintaining appropriate security measures for the infrastructural assets, as well as carrying out their duty of care to protect the lives of their staff and the users of the public transport system.

The Government also plays a key role. It sets out the general security framework and the security standards (such as the Video Surveillance System standards) to be met by the PTOs. The Government sets the framework to examine security issues in a structured manner. The Government also brings together various stakeholders through platforms like the Public Transport Security Committee, (whose members comprise both the relevant Government agencies as well as the PTOs) to advise on security issues.

As regards security functions, the Government handles areas which cannot be handled by the PTOs. These security functions include intelligence gathering and collaboration with overseas law enforcement agencies. In addition, the Government also handles some aspects of operational security. It deploys Police personnel (such as TransCom officers) as needed by the threat environment to

provide an additional layer of security, beyond the first level of security maintained by the PTOs.

The Government and the PTOs thus have their respective roles to play in building an effective and strong partnership to secure a public transport network in Singapore. This partnership is vital, as it is a more practical and sustainable approach in the long run. In ensuring the safety and the security of the assets, operating premises, staff and customers, PTOs that have a strong security mindset are in fact protecting the continuity of their own business and making a longer-term investment. It is not just an expenditure with no returns.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

[ Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 22, 28-29, 34, 36, 40-41, 43-46, 48-51, 54 and 56-60 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 23-27, 30-33, 35, 37-39, 42, 47, 52-53 and 55 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

*Cols.

"to give effect to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and for matters connected therewith and to make consequential amendments to the Banking Act (Chapter 19 of the 2008 Revised Edition) and the Penal Code (Chapter 224 of the 2008 Revised Edition).'."

presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

First Reading

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Housing and Development Act (Chapter 129 of the 2004 Revised Edition)."

Bill read the First Time.

Second Reading

Second Reading, what day?

Today, Sir, immediately after the conclusion of proceedings on Item 1 of the Orders of the day. Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill.

Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Bill, laid upon the Table by the Minister.

The Certificate is in order. Are printed copies of the Bill available for Members?

Yes, Sir. Printed copies of the Bill have been handed to the Clerk for distribution to Members. [Copies of handouts distributed to hon. Members.]

"to amend the Goods and Services Tax Act (Chapter 117A of the 2005 Revised Edition)",

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

"to amend the Rapid Transit Systems Act (Chapter 263A of the 2004 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act (Chapter 158A of the 1996 Revised Edition)",

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

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

presented by the Minister for Manpower (Mr Gan Kim Yong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.04 pm

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

The dangers of smoking tobacco are well established. Tobacco contains more than 60 chemicals that are known to cause at least 20 forms of cancer. It also contains nicotine, which makes the user feel high, causes addiction and adversely affects the cardiovascular system potentially leading to higher risk for heart attacks and strokes. Despite these well-known risks, many smokers find it hard to quit and new smokers continue to join the ranks. The data is depressing. Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death, killing more than five million people every year worldwide. To different

degrees of success, countries have tried to stem the tobacco epidemic.

Singapore was a world pioneer in tobacco control. We were the first in Asia to ban advertising in 1971 and we have been aggressive in tobacco taxation. In 2004, we again led Asia by being the first to use graphic warnings on cigarette packs to deter smokers from lighting up. Last year, we were the first in the world to mark all duty-paid cigarettes sold here with the letters "SDPC", for "Singapore duty paid cigarette", as a means to combat cigarette smuggling. On efforts to get smokers to quit, the World Health Organization recognised only nine countries, including Singapore, for their nationwide network of smoking cessation services. As a result of these proactive efforts, our smoking prevalence, at below 14%, is among the lowest in the world.

International alliance in tobacco control is growing. In 2003, the World Health Organization (WTO) developed, what is called FCTC – Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, to get its member states to adopt strategies and best practices aimed at reducing the demand for tobacco and regulating its supply. We signed the FCTC in 2004. Two obligations are now due for compliance: (a) imposing a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship; and (b) extending health warning labels to the outer packaging, and prohibiting false and misleading packaging and labelling of tobacco products.

The Smoking (Control of Advertisements and Sale of Tobacco) (CAST) (Amendment) Bill seeks to amend the current Smoking (CAST) Act (Chapter 309 of the 2003 Revised Edition). The Bill will allow us to fulfil these obligations. In addition, I am using the opportunity to further tighten our tobacco control measures. There are two reasons for this.

First, smoking has increased in recent years, particularly among young adults. Between 2004 and 2007, smoking prevalence increased from 18% to 25% among young men, and 7% to 9% among young ladies. This is a cause for concern. Second, tobacco companies are fighting back, against the global smoking control measures, by introducing new and alternative tobacco products. Many of these products are designed to attract new tobacco users and marketed to especially appeal to the younger customers, including women. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal explained vividly how a major tobacco multinational company was transforming into a company that offers a range of smokeless alternatives, such as strips, lozenges, snus and e-cigarettes. I brought along some samples. This is snus and it contains tobacco sachets and with instructions on how to use it – take one, put it under your tongue and enjoy it. This is a pack of e-cigarettes. "e" stands for electrical – you plug it in because you need the battery to light it up and they look like cigarettes. You have to unscrew it and these are batteries, you put it in and it releases nicotine and even lights up. And there are health warnings, "smoking is harmful for health, e-cigarette is good for health." Many of these products closely resemble confectionary items. Clearly, the intent is for them to act as starter products that get young non-smokers addicted to nicotine.

We should expect tobacco companies to want to maximise profits by seeking to grow their customer base. Governments must however be alert to this trend and do their best to protect the people, especially the young, from the unnecessary harm of tobacco and its substitutes. In Singapore, we have to ensure that our legislation and our control strategies keep pace with development in the tobacco industry. We intend to go as far and as fast as other countries in our

tobacco control measures, for as long as they are practical and effective.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now highlight the new provisions that are being introduced in this Bill. First, let me deal with our two outstanding obligations under the FCTC.

Tobacco sponsorship of the arts

The current Act does prohibit tobacco advertising and promotion but it allows exemption for sponsorship of activities such as arts and cultural events. The Act allows tobacco companies to sponsor such events and activities and their sponsorship be publicly acknowledged. This exemption is in conflict with an obligation under the FCTC which imposes a fully comprehensive ban on all forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. The removal of section 3(2)(a) will allow us to remove this exemption clause. We have consulted the Ministry of Information, Communcations and the Arts (MICA) and they support this move. They have been building up alternative sources of sponsorship. We will give the arts organisations a grace period of up to the end 2010 before we remove the exemption clause.

Tobacco packaging

The current Act requires graphic health warnings to be displayed on individual tobacco product packages sold here. The WHO FCTC, however, imposes an obligation to display graphic health warnings on all kinds of internal and external packaging. To meet this obligation, an amendment to section 17(1) will extend the display of graphic health warnings to outer packaging, such as the box or the carton that holds the individual packages for retail.

Tobacco labelling

Under the current Act, we do not regulate on how tobacco companies label

or brand their products. Some have used terms in their product packaging or labelling that may give the impression that their product or brand is less harmful to health or less addictive. Such terms include words like "mild" or "light". International and local studies found that consumers are misled by such terms. They believe that these products are less harmful and that switching to these products may help them to quit smoking, when in fact this is not so. There is no such thing as a safer cigarette; all cigarettes kill.

The new section 17A will prohibit the importation, distribution, sale or offer for sale of any tobacco product that has or is accompanied by any false or misleading packaging or labelling. Such a prohibition will allow us to fulfil another obligation to the Convention and align ourselves with many other countries with similar prohibitions. The actual terms to be prohibited such as "mild" or "light" will be prescribed within the subsidiary legislation. We will give tobacco manufacturers a grace period of 12 months from the date of Gazette to effect the necessary changes.

New and emerging products

Next, let me discuss the emergence of new and alternative tobacco products. As far back as 1993, the World Health Organization and several countries, including Singapore, had already expressed concern over new and emerging harmful tobacco products, and had recommended banning products – such as smokeless tobacco – that were becoming available. We amended the Act and, hence, section 15 of the current Act prohibits chewing tobacco and provides prescribing powers to prohibit other smokeless tobacco products for oral use.

Since then tobacco companies have become even more aggressive and

innovative, especially in recent years. Today, unconventional tobacco products come in various forms – smoked tobacco such as flavoured cigarettes; smokeless tobacco such as tobacco gels; dissolvable tobacco which resembles candy – this is particularly harmful because it can "con" the little kids; and tobacco substitutes such as e-cigarettes and even drinks like nicotine water.

These new and emerging products are being marketed as safer alternatives to cigarettes but they are not. If they contain tobacco, whether they are smoked, chewed, inhaled, sucked or topically applied, then they are potentially harmful as tobacco is carcinogenic and causes cancer. If they contain nicotine, then they are still harmful as nicotine is toxic and highly addictive. There is a misconception that tobacco substitutes can be used as cessation aids when they have not been approved for such use. The nicotine level in some of these new and emerging products is actually higher than that in the cigarettes. With regular use, addiction can occur, leading to smoking and even dual use of both cigarettes and the substitutes. This is particularly observed in the west, as office workers find it very hard to smoke because most offices are now smoke-free. Here comes the smokeless alternative. During working hours, they take the smokeless products and when they go home, they take the real cigarettes. This is what the industry call "dual usage".

My Ministry has studied the evidence available internationally and locally, on the harm of tobacco use and nicotine addiction, and the appeal these new and emerging products may have to vulnerable groups, such as young people and young adults. The evidence is substantial. Almost all these new products have not yet reached our shores. Members will not be able to find them yet in Singapore.

Hopefully it will never surface here. Let us take a pre-emptive step to ban them and prevent them from coming here and harming our people, especially the young. The amendment of section 15 will allow us to prohibit them. The proposed ban will cover these categories of new products:

nasal and oral snuff, of which snus and smokeless cigarettes are sub categories;

dissolvable tobacco, often referred to as "tobacco pellets" or "tobacco candies" and which may also come in strips and sticks;

e-cigarettes and other nicotine-based cigarettes or similar which deliver nicotine but may not contain tobacco;

tobacco and nicotine gels;

nicotine water, drinks and food products; and

fruit and candy flavoured cigarettes and other tobacco products such as cigarillos, beedies and "anghoon".

The proposed amendment to section 15 will also cover some future variations of emerging products by prescribing powers to the Minister for Health to allow prohibitions of future innovative products if they do not fit within the current categories. In making this amendment, we will not be alone. The proposed prohibitions are in line with bans already imposed in several countries including Australia, Canada and the European Union.

Finally, we are taking the opportunity to make a number of technical amendments to improve the clarity of the Act and to enhance its implementation. They include:

Clause 3 which amends the title of the Act from "Smoking Control", which is

obviously outdated, to "Tobacco Control", as many new products are now smokeless;

Clause 4 which introduces new definitions for "emission", "packaging", "premises", "tobacco product", "tobacco substitute" and "use";

Clause 6 which introduces the term "services" alongside "goods", to extend the coverage of prohibition to sales promotion of tobacco products;

Clause 8 which extends the prohibition of cigarettes sold in packs less than 20 units to miniature cigars or cigarillos. Importers and local distributors will be given a grace period of 12 months from the date of Gazette to effect the change;

Clauses 9 to 10 which include the term "distribution" alongside "import", "sale" and "offer for sale", to cover the entire supply chain and ensure that distributors are also held accountable for compliance with the Act;

Clause 13 which clarifies officers' roles when they carry out their enforcement duties, so that they are deemed as public servants for the purpose of the Penal Code;

Clause 15 which further defines the scope and hence the penalty of obstruction to these officers during their work, so that the officers can perform their duties more effectively;

Clause 16 which refines the maximum composition sum of any offences under the Act, to align it with the provisions in other Acts; and

We are reducing the maximum allowable tar and nicotine yield levels of cigarettes from 15 mg to 10 mg for tar and from 1.3 mg to 1.0 mg for nicotine. This will align us with international best

practices. Tobacco manufacturers will be given a grace period of 12 months from the date of Gazette to effect the change.

Mr Speaker, Sir, tobacco is harmful and it kills. We have kept our smoking rate low, relative to other countries. But it is a constant battle with the tobacco companies which are savvy and innovative. Our law and our control strategy must keep pace with the developments in the industry. I seek the Members' support for this Amendment Bill.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. We all know that smoking is addictive and bad for our health. It can cause serious diseases and even death. Yet, people all over the world still smoke. As long as tobacco is available for sale in the market, smoking will continue. One may think that the most effective way to eradicate smoking will be a total ban of tobacco products. However, this will not work. A good example will be the abuse of illicit drugs. Many countries have strict laws against the possession, sale and use of banned substances. Yet, we still hear of drug addicts in our community, many of whom have their own creative ways of obtaining these banned substances from the black market. Similarly, a total ban of smoking will not eliminate this problem. It will only push it underground, causing a new black market for tobacco products. A more practical and realistic approach would be to help existing smokers quit and to prevent non-smokers from picking up the bad habit.

Therefore, I support the Ministry's effort of introducing strict regulation in the control of advertisements, sale,

marketing and use of tobacco products in Singapore. As a result, Singapore's smoking prevalence is among the lowest in the world. Concerted efforts of our National Smoking Control Programme since the 1970s have reduced our smoking prevalence from above 25% to below 14% currently.

According to MOH's National Health Surveillance survey in 2007, about one in seven Singapore residents aged 18-69 smoked cigarettes daily. Daily smoking was most prevalent in young adults aged 18-29 years (17.2%). Men are six times more likely to smoke than women. The age-specific male smoking prevalence exceeds 20% for all age groups from 18 to 69 years of age. There is also a significant racial difference. Malays' smoking prevalence is more than double that of Chinese or Indians. Fortunately, our female smoking prevalence is low, at single digit percentage, except for young Malay ladies which stands at 14%. But more than half of women smokers are below 29 years old and their smoking rate has risen sharply from 5% in 1998 to 9% in 2007.

It is irrefutable that smoking is detrimental to health. According to the World Health Organization, a person dies, on average, every six seconds from a tobacco-related illness. That is over 5 million people each year! They also stated that 50% of current tobacco users will die of a tobacco-related illness. Not only do smokers die early, they also deprive their families of income, raise the cost of health care, and hinder economic development. There are strong scientific evidences to link smoking to many serious ailments, such as heart diseases, chronic obstructive lung disease and cancers of the lungs, oral cavity and esophagus. Not only are the health of smokers affected by the habit, innocent bystanders, especially the family members, are also adversely

affected by the second-hand smoke. Involuntary or second-hand smoke exposure can cause smoking-related diseases and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Children exposed to second-hand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death, frequent respiratory infections and more severe asthma.

The adverse effects of smoking have prompted many governments in the world, including Singapore, to mandate the prominent display of health warnings on cigarette packs. Singapore has led Asia by being the first to use graphic warnings depicting disease conditions such as lung and mouth ulcers to deter smokers from smoking in 2004. On top of that, Singapore has become the first in the world to mark all duty-paid cigarettes sold here to combat cigarette smuggling. Yet with all these measures, the prevalence of smoking in Singapore remains significantly high enough to warrant tougher measures. Are we doing enough to tackle this long-term enemy? Should we learn from Bhutan, a small remote Himalayan nation, to address this long time public health concern? Bhutan went on an offensive war against tobacco with a total ban on smoking in public places and sale of tobacco products in 2005. The ban forbids people from lighting up at government offices, hospitals, schools, parks and shopping centres, among other places. With this new law, Bhutanese are, technically, allowed to smoke in their homes and can even import small quantities of tobacco for "personal use", though they will pay as much as 200% in customs duties and sales taxes for the pleasure. This predominantly Buddhist nation is thought to be the first country in the world to impose such a ban. The moves are part of the government's effort to make Bhutan a smoke-free nation. Do we see learning points from such a draconian initiative?

The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) was adopted by

the World Health assembly in May 2003 and entered into force in February 2005. The FCTC was developed in response to the globalisation of the tobacco epidemic and aimed at reducing the demand for tobacco and regulating its supply. Singapore signed the FCTC in 2004 and has fulfilled its obligations, except on two where compliance is incomplete. I would like to seek clarification from the Minister the reasons for the failure to achieve full compliance since 2004 and whether this has contributed to the increase in smoking prevalence among the young adults in Singapore in the last five years.

The imposition of comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, promotions and sponsorship in this Bill serves to fulfil our obligations to FCTC. Whilst the current Act prohibits advertising and promotion, it allows tobacco companies to sponsor arts and cultural events with public acknowledgement on a case-by-case basis, as approved by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA). The amended Act will eventually prohibit such sponsorships altogether. I would like to ask the Minister, why should such sponsorship be disallowed if the publicity on the sponsorship is not acknowledged and will this contravene the WHO FCTC? Will the advertising ban also include tobacco companies putting up congratulatory or condolence messages for staff or business partners?

I agree totally with the Ministry's move to amend section 17(1) which mandates that the display of graphic health warnings be extended to the outer packaging, such as the box or carton that holds the individual packages. The new section 17A also prohibits the importation, distribution, sale of any tobacco product that has or is accompanied by any false or misleading packaging or labelling. Labels such as "mild" or "light" that give the impression to consumers that the product is less harmful will also be banned. A

grace period of 12 months from date of Gazette will be given to tobacco companies to effect the necessary changes. This period, compared to the 30 months provided by the European Parliament and Council of European Union, seems rather short. How did MOH come up with this period of 12 months and is this time-frame adequate or realistic to ensure the industry compliance?

All smokers must be made to understand that the only safe thing to do is not to smoke at all. Whilst we rationalise that a complete ban may not be realistically possible, the Government's approach to maintain the twin-pronged strategy of preventing initiation and encouraging cessation is an important step in the right direction. The amended section 15 prohibits the importation, distribution and sale of any

alternative tobacco products. I understand the indiscriminate and unregulated use of alternative tobacco product can similarly cause harm. However, many studies in Europe have shown benefits of such products in helping smokers kick the habit. As such, I would like to urge the Ministry to consider allowing alternative tobacco products as part of the strategy to help smokers progressively stop smoking altogether. I believe that if the use of these alternative products are regulated and employed judiciously, it can add to the armamentarium of anti-smoking strategies.

Sir, many smokers start smoking at a very young age. They usually pick it up out of peer pressure or curiosity and find it hard to quit later on in life due to the addictive effect of nicotine. It is indeed worrying to note that the smoking prevalence among young men and women have increased from 18% to 25% and 7% to 9% respectively. I would like to ask the Minister what are the possible reasons and what more can be done to arrest this rising trend. Should the proliferation of low-priced tobacco products be curbed

and can the price of tobacco be tightly controlled to discourage the youth and even adults from smoking?

In conclusion, I would like to applaud the Ministry’s continuous effort in strengthening tobacco control and also in educating the public on the adverse effects of tobacco smoking. The WHO has estimated that, on a global scale, one person dies from a tobacco-related illness every six seconds. The sad fact is that smoking is also the most avoidable cause of death. Smoking-related diseases and death must be seen as an epidemic and a serious public health concern. The Government must continue its effort in tackling this problem, as long as Singaporeans continue to light up.

On that note, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I would like to firstly declare my interest as a practising medical practitioner, in stating suggestions and proposals for this Bill.

Smoking kills six times as many people as those dying from road traffic accidents, suicide, murder, poisoning, manslaughter and HIV-related deaths all put together. Cigarette smoke has over 4,800 chemicals, and of which 70 have been proven to be carcinogenic.

In general, policies that encourage existing smokers to quit and discourage non-smokers from starting are ideal. However, it is not a perfect world.

I am in agreement with the suggested amendments. There are, however, two areas which I would like to elaborate on.

Firstly, on tobacco harm reduction. Harm reduction is a widely accepted strategy in public health that recognises

that there will always be people who engage in risky behaviours. As abstinence is regarded as an unrealistic goal for some, the objective of harm reduction is to mitigate the health risk associated with the risky behaviour. Tobacco harm reduction acknowledges that a significant portion of tobacco users is unable or unwilling to break their addiction.

In this Bill, Sir, there appears to be a lack of tobacco harm reduction strategies. As such, I would like to propose having an option of a strategy to shift current tobacco users who cannot and are unable to quit to the less harmful nicotine products. Overall, the use of smokeless tobacco products confers only 2% of the health risk of smoking and the public health impact would be incredibly reduced. This offers them a gateway to quitting. It is also possible to restrict this further such that it is only for persons undergoing "quit" programmes by recognised bodies and institutions, and not for underage youth or unsupervised usage. These people can be monitored closely by the implementing institutions. This way, we can offer an option to those who need help to gradually quit in a controlled manner. On the other hand, Sir, if we do put forth the blanket rule ban, without assessing the evidence of these harm reducing products objectively, a large proportion of the remaining smokers will continue to smoke and will have a 50% chance of dying.

We have the statistics from the Minister for Health and indeed it is not something that we want to hear – increasing numbers every year. Therefore, I feel tobacco harm reduction must come in. In the US, for example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) legislation requires manufacturers of safer tobacco products to prove that they will have no significant population effects before they are marketed.

Also, Britain’s Royal College of Physicians, a prestigious body indeed, strongly endorses tobacco harm reduction. Comments from the College include, "smokers smoke predominantly for nicotine. If nicotine can be provided in the form of a cigarette substitute, millions of lives can be saved. Harm reduction is an essential component of many aspects of medicine and day-to-day living".

In 2008, the American Association for Public Health Physicians adopted the policy of "encouraging and enabling smokers to reduce their risk of tobacco related illness and death by switching to less hazardous smokeless tobacco products". Smokeless tobacco has been proven to have much lower nitrosamine content, is less harmful than cigarette smoking, is not associated with respiratory illnesses such as chronic obstructive lung disease, and does not cause problem with passive smoking and third-hand smoke. In fact, tobacco-related mortality in low nitrosamine smokeless tobacco is only 10% of the risk of cigarette smoke. The Swedish experience with snus is like a natural "experiment" that has been going on. Since the usage begun, they have lowered lung cancer mortality and there has been no increase in the incidence of head and neck cancer and also several vascular accidents.

The International Primary Care Respiratory Group (IPCRG) published a consensus statement in 2008 on tackling the smoking epidemic, "therapy to manage nicotine dependence can significantly improve patients’ chances of quitting successfully and is recommended for people who smoke 10 or more cigarettes per day".

Surely, Sir, sound medical principles of tobacco harm reduction, as in the examples above, may be a regulatory move worth considering here in

Singapore, instead of a blanket ban completely. Sir, Singapore has a R&D laboratory, aimed at developing next generation reduced harm products that are substantiated by scientific evidence. If indeed the R&D is done rigorously, becomes successful and the products can be proven scientifically to possess reduced harm claims, then laws that can permit objective assessment of the evidence presented by these harm reducing products, instead of a blanket rule to ban completely, will be worthy of our consideration.

It is also interesting to note that "nicotine is the primary substance responsible for tobacco dependence, but the majority of harm caused by tobacco use is not from nicotine, but from the by-products of smoked (or from burning) tobacco, such as fine particulates, carcinogens and noxious gases, including carbon monoxide." If levels of toxic chemicals can be drastically reduced by heating tobacco, instead of burning it, or by changing the mode of delivery of nicotine, there is a chance of developing a product that might be less harmful.

Sir, there is a good body of rich literature and active R&D going on globally on this topic. There may be potential spin-off benefits for Singapore. The presence of scientists in systems biology, state-of-the-art computational science, and disease modelling, allows for the osmosis of ideas, bridge gaps in knowledge, and creates a fertile R&D environment. Hopefully, this will facilitate some break-throughs.

After all, we can be selective in deciding which ones to be allowed in for regulation. I do support the ban on the sugarcoated and other nicotine candies which may prove attractive to children and youth.

My second point relates to sponsorship and advertising. With this Bill, we will be removing the exemption clause which allows companies to sponsor arts and cultural events and be publicly acknowledged. Sir, I would just like to share with the House the following information:

1. Tobacco companies do have corporate social responsibilities going on in our community. One example I would like to quote is the "Food from the Heart" programme, supported by Phillip Morris;

2. These companies do employ Singaporeans earning their living;

3. How many of us know that, if an employee of a tobacco company or his or her family members passes on, the company is not allowed to put the company’s name and logo or insignia of any sort with the obituary; and, finally,

4. Give this a thought. Does the average smoker in the street even know names like: Phillip Morris, Peter Stuyversant, and so on. Perhaps, the only thing these smokers care about would be that they have their cigarettes and they get to smoke it too.

Sir, I support the Amendment Bill. I also hope with the arguments I have put forth, consideration will be given to the controlled regulation and usage of certain products in the specific situations I have discussed.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.40 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first of all express on behalf of my constituents a warm welcome to the Minister after his successful recovery from his recent operation. Today, I also rise in full support of the Bill before this House.

I concur with the Minister when he underscored the dangers that tobacco poses to our young. Nicotine is highly addictive and we should strenuously reduce its accessibility in all forms before it causes irreparable damage to our people, particularly our young and impressionistic students. In going about my daily tasks, I often chance upon young students, in their teens, taking an illegal puff at multi-storey car parks, taking refuge at the walls of staircase landings, thinking that they are able to hide from public view. They are teens in secondary school. Sometimes they are in uniform and other times, in casual wear. These teens get pass our strict laws against cigarette sale to minors by approaching adults for a cigarette or asking them to purchase on their behalf.

I propose that schools take up the challenge and set up anti-smoking advocates to reach out to them. We should try and win over those who have taken up smoking. At the same time, we should build a so-called firewall and ring-fence the non-smokers from being influenced. Schools can organise activities and get the students to talk about the hazards of smoking. Introducing harsher penalties and more law enforcers are not enduring solutions. These youths may

simply go "underground". In fact, by putting an age limit, it has an opposite psychological effect on the teens. To be able to buy cigarettes is regarded as a coming of age, "I have come of age to be able to buy cigarette on my own."

I also agree that parents too have a part to play, and I am sure many are strictly enforcing the rules at home.

A trial research designed by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle in 2009 on phone counselling found that it was effective in helping teens to quit smoking. These smokers from various high schools in Washington State received personalised smoking cessation counselling. It combined motivational interviewing with cognitive behavioural skills training. The smokers were taught to recognise the importance of quitting based on their own values, to anticipate and cope with stress and other factors that led them picking up smoking. It offered plans for stopping and eventually saw these plans through.

Consistently, an earlier research published in 2001 by the John Hopkins Medical Institution and the Baltimore City Health Department has highlighted that personalised counselling will help smokers recognise the need to quit on their own accord. Activities included building camaraderie among the smokers, self-identification of personal smoking habits and perceived barriers to quitting. It also focused on developing strategies for quitting, and prevention of relapse and dealing with withdrawal symptoms. According to the research, this programme not only had a measurable impact on the smoking habits of participants but was also more effective in promoting quit attempts and in achieving smoking cessation as compared to exposing them to just simply educational materials.

Consecutively-held personalised counselling sessions provided by trained

counsellors will help to address and curtail smoking among young adults and students. I understand that the Singapore Cancer Society has a counselling scheme where students caught smoking by the Police can be referred – I repeat the words "can be referred" – to them for counselling. This is not sufficient. I urge the relevant Ministries to work together and consider incorporating smoking cessation and personal anti-smoking counselling programmes in schools or in the polyclinics and make it compulsory for the school students who are caught smoking to undergo such personalised counselling programmes since they are proven to be effective.

Mr Speaker, I support the amendment of the Bill.

4.06 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend the Minister for Health for introducing this Bill in Parliament and augmenting on the previous Smoking Act. It is indeed heartening to note Singapore’s achievements in the past few decades in its fight to stay smoke-free and control tobacco and smoking across the island. It is laudable that we are 14% in terms of smoking prevalence, one of the lowest in the world. I support the drive towards curtailing smoking and introduction of further legislation to control advertisements and sale. In particular, it is imperative for our legislation to stay relevant with the advent of smokeless alternatives and new designer tobacco and nicotine-related products which may at first instance appear harmless but can have long-term ramifications and affect our populace, especially the young.

Nevertheless, I have two major concerns which I hope to echo in my short speech on this topic related to smoking and tobacco use. Firstly, I am particularly concerned with the fact that more young adults are becoming smokers

and also the issue of underage smoking. Secondly, I am concerned with the fact that although we have only 14% smoking prevalence, the majority who are non-smokers are still having to face the brunt of second-hand smoke which is medically known to be just as harmful.

I am aware we have been embarking on concerted outreach to youths and the young on the ills of smoking as well as tightening up enforcement of sale of cigarettes and tobacco to those underage. But is there more that can be done in terms of enforcement against underage smokers as well as convincing our youngsters to skip and quit the habit? This new Bill augments the efforts to minimise this problem but my personal thoughts are whether the current education programmes or enforcement machinery are sufficient. If yes, why is there a trend towards rising number of younger smokers amidst our population?

On my second point, I recently received an email from a resident of mine whom I shall call "A". He lives in an HDB flat with his wife who was recently pregnant. "A" has a neighbour, whom I shall call "B" who lives next to his unit and both "B" and his wife and their siblings living in that unit are smokers. They do not smoke inside the unit as they have a child inside, but they smoke at the corridor. Despite numerous requests by "A", the occupants in "B"'s unit continued to smoke. "A" approached "B" and his wife but was told off that there is no law to curb smoking in the corridor. "A" tried to call NEA and NEA gave the same reply that there is no ban on smoking in corridors. "A" and his wife were highly distressed by this incident. Sadly, "A"'s wife had a miscarriage recently and lost the baby. "A" attributed it to the smoke, distress and depression caused by their inconsiderate neighbour "B" and asked me to voice it out and help

him stop this problem. I can empathise with him. It is a sad loss.

Though the cause of the miscarriage may not be easily proven, I opine that we can do more to help the majority of 86% of the populace (who do not smoke) so that they do not have to bear the brunt of having to face the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. We have come a long way after we started to ban smoking in certain public establishments and selected public places. However, I submit that NEA can re-visit and re-examine the areas where smoking can be further curtailed through public consultation and to augment the current enforcement efforts to resolutely curb smoking in areas where smoking is prohibited. Ask any HDB dweller and he or she will tell you that smokers are still seen in lifts and many common spaces in the heartlands where smoking is actually prohibited under the new slew of prohibitory measures. I know a total ban is not possible but can and will legislation be introduced to prohibit smoking in void decks, common corridors, apartment lift lobbies and common spaces in the heartlands? I know many non-smokers often suffer in silence when forced to inhale second-hand smoke, including smoke from neighbours who live in close proximity. I speak for them and hope we can do more.

Sir, with these considerations, I support this Bill.

4.10 pm

I rise in support of this Bill.

About seven Singaporeans die prematurely from smoking-related diseases each day. Hence, I support more stringent measures to curb smoking in Singapore and to bring our law in line with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. I also agree that our law should

cover other new and alternative tobacco products. Although we still have one of the lowest smoking prevalence among females in the world, the number is increasing, especially among young women in the 18 to 29 age group, which has increased from 6% in 2004 to 9% in 2007. Several countries, such as India and Japan, have already reported popular use of tobacco products, such as flavoured cigarettes and tobacco candy, by young women. So, we should stop these products from being sold here.

Nicotine is so addictive that according to estimates, three quarters of those who quit eventually return to the habit. I have people who asked for financial help smelling very strongly of cigarette smoke. Even when they are faced with severe financial difficulties, they are not able to drop the smoking habit.

Sir, I wish to focus on the problems of smoking at the workplace and in the Malay community, particularly Malay youths.

In 2004, 15% of our working population was smoking but this had risen to 16% in 2007. The highest increase is among the 18 to 29 years old, as 20% of them smoke compared to 17% in the general population.

Besides smoking out of habit, young adults have cited the stress of starting their first job and influence from colleagues at the workplace as reasons for smoking. As a majority of the smokers in Singapore are in the workforce, it is very important that companies put in place strong smoking control initiatives.

A 2002 study done by the National University of Singapore and the Nanyang Technological University showed that a 16% smoking prevalence in the workplace would cost companies $2,200 per smoker each year. Smoking results in lower

productivity, higher absenteeism and larger healthcare costs for companies.

It is clearly in the companies’ interest to encourage employees to stay smoke-free and healthy. Based on the 2006 National Workplace Health Promotion Prevalence Survey, about 25% of the companies with a workforce size of at least 50 have a smoking control programme, an 18% increase from 7% in 1998.

However, much more can be done, and some companies are already doing so, such as Sheraton Towers which started its smoking control programme in 2005 following a survey which revealed that 20% of its employees were smokers. With strong management support, a "No Smoking Policy" was implemented on the hotel’s premises and the cost of conducting smoking cessation programmes by trained medical personnel was entirely borne by the hotel. As a result of these efforts, the hotel achieved a 6% decrease in the number of smokers between 2005 and 2008.

I urge more companies to follow Sheraton Hotel’s example to achieve win-win outcomes, and I urge the Ministry to place greater focus on workplace efforts.

(In Malay): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Sir, the smoking prevalence among the Malay community had increased from 18% in 2004 to 23% in 2007, especially among Malay men. In 2007, more than four in 10 Malay men were smokers compared to two in 10 Chinese and Indian males.

This is especially worrying as many of them are also heavy smokers and regularly smoke more than 10 cigarettes a day. The reasons they cited for smoking include for relaxation and relieving stress. Many of them have also cited addiction to cigarettes as the main barrier to quit this habit.

The majority of these male smokers are married and smoking becomes a financial burden. Furthermore, smoking does not only affect the smokers, it can also harm the health of their family members. It is important to highlight all these issues in the smoking cessation programmes targeted at the Malay community, so that we can see its effectiveness.

Many male smokers started smoking when they were young and this situation still continues. I am very concerned with the Malay youths. Our statistics are worrying. With the help of some friends, I conducted a study among 43 Malay youths aged between 15 and 26 years who are smokers. The statistics that I obtained are very alarming. Thirty-two of these youths started smoking when they were 15 years old or younger. In fact, one of them even started smoking when he was only eight years old. Twenty-five of these youths were introduced to cigarettes by their friends. There were two of them who were introduced by their own fathers. This is bizarre and strange, but it happened. Almost all the youths smoke every day. Thirty-two of them smoke at least five sticks of cigarettes a day, while four of them smoke 15 to 40 sticks of cigarettes a day. Thirty-four of these youths had fathers who smoke. In fact, for two of them, their mothers also smoke – which is quite worrying.

This clearly indicates that when the fathers smoke, they become negative role models to their children, which is consistent with research findings which support the same point. Hence, awareness programmes should also publicise this fact to encourage them to kick the habit, if they truly care for their children’s welfare.

Another issue of concern is the ease with which young people are able to buy cigarettes. The majority of them secured

their cigarettes from friends, coffee shops, provision shops or convenience stores and, in some cases, they purchased cigarettes that are sold illegally. Most of them also said that the shop operators where they purchased the cigarettes from either did not ask for their age or, even if they did, did not bother to check their identity cards.

*Cols. 833-834.

(In English): Mr Speaker, if we want to stop the increase in cigarette smoking among the young, there is a need to ensure stronger enforcement measures against shops that are flouting the law by selling cigarettes to those below 18. I urge the Ministry to step up its enforcement action against such errant shops.

Beyond that, I also urge cigarette companies, if they truly have a strong sense of corporate social responsibility, to audit their suppliers, their agents and their retailers to ensure that they do not sell to those under the age of 18 which is against the law. It would indeed be contradictory if cigarette companies participated in community projects aimed at helping the poor and needy, and yet its products could create the smoking addiction which had contributed to the problems of the poor and needy in the first place.

Sir, I also believe it is important to help those who are already smoking to quit. But the survey results that I have cited show that we must also put a lot more emphasis on prevention as the smoking habit once started is extremely addictive and difficult to stop. I urge the Ministry, with the support of community groups, schools and families, to put more effort into preventing smoking among the young. The Ministry should also continuously evaluate the effectiveness of existing smoking prevention and cessation programmes so that our approach can be more focused and targeted.

With this, Sir, I support the Bill.

4.19 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I have only one point to make, in the form of a suggestion. Can I suggest that we include the terms "marketing and promotion" wherever and whenever the term "advertising" appears in the Bill? I believe that this will cover a loophole that tobacco companies may be able to exploit to promote their products.

Some years ago, at an outdoor event, I saw a tobacco company sponsoring a hospitality tent by subtly using the colours of their well-known cigarette packaging as the theme of their tentage. In the tent was custom-made furniture in the shape and colours of their cigarette packaging. The staff who manned the tent were also all dressed in uniforms in the colours that one would automatically associate with the cigarette packaging. Though subtle, this was obviously a clever way for the tobacco company to circumvent the law regarding advertising, but is nevertheless still an attempt to promote their product.

Sir, it is my belief that by including the terms "marketing and promotion" in the Bill, we may be able to catch any sort of promotional, marketing and advertising activities that tobacco companies might get involved with. This will include below-the-line as well as above-the-line advertising, event association and even the subtle forms of marketing that I illustrated earlier. The use of tobacco is a harmful, nasty habit that should not be encouraged in any form. Tobacco companies should not be able to exploit any loopholes in the law in order to market their poisonous wares to an unsuspecting public.

With this, Sir, I support the Bill.

4.20 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is strange why there is even a sensible debate about smoking in this day and age.

The harmful effects of smoking are well established. I came ready to this House to cite facts and figures to back this up, but many Members of this House have cited the same figures. So I would not trouble the House to repeat them. However, we all know that non-smokers are also at risk. Involuntary smoking involves exposure to the same numerous carcinogens and toxic substances that are present in mainstream tobacco smoke. There are 69 identified carcinogens in tobacco smoke. Indeed, there is a higher concentration of carcinogens found in sidestream smoke than mainstream smoke because the former is produced at a lower temperature, resulting in incomplete combustion of the tobacco.

Studies have shown that non-smokers increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20% to 30% and heart disease by 25% to 30% when they are exposed to second-hand smoke.

This has had a direct economic impact. According to the Health Promotion Board, the social cost of smoking in 1997 ranged from $673 to $839 million. This includes the direct costs such as payments for hospitalisation and healthcare, morbidity costs (lost of production due to smoking-related illnesses) and mortality costs (lost production from people who died early due to smoking). This social cost therefore overwhelms the economic benefits of smoking – about S$600 million or so collected in Government taxes every year from tobacco products.

The facts and figures I have cited are not new. Yet, large numbers continue to smoke, increasingly so. Why do they do it? For many years, the tobacco

companies ran advertisements to promote how "macho" and how "cool" smoking was. The Marlboro Man, expertly herding cattle on the great plains while puffing on his cigarette, became the symbol of manhood. Generations were drawn to cigarettes, and became addicted without even realising it. Allegations of health risks were dismissed or demolished. Adverse reports were suppressed. All in the name of profit.

But we now know the truth. Litigation in the US has exposed what some tobacco companies have been doing to protect and expand their business. These include engaging in schemes to defraud smokers and potential smokers by falsely denying the adverse health effects of smoking; falsely denying that nicotine and smoking are addictive; falsely denying that they manipulated cigarette design and composition so as to assure nicotine delivery levels that create and sustain addiction; representing that light and low tar cigarettes deliver less nicotine and tar and therefore present fewer health risks than full flavour cigarettes; falsely denying that they market to youth; falsely denying that second-hand smoke causes disease; and, finally, suppressing documents, information and research to prevent the public from learning the truth about these subjects and to avoid or limit liability in litigation.

One would have thought that with this knowledge, cigarettes would be banned forever. If tomato ketchup or milk had half the carcinogens and toxins cigarettes have, or carried half the health risks, they would be removed from supermarket shelves in a heartbeat. We banned the sale of chewing gums for much less. With cigarettes, somehow it is different.

The debate over the harmful effects of smoking has long been over. Today, tobacco companies openly acknowledge

that their products cause cancer and increase health risks. That, however, has not stopped them selling the stuff. The stark reality is that the smoking culture has become entrenched in our society. Smokers now say it is their human right to light up. Addiction has the effect. Governments around the world know that even if they wanted to, they are powerless to get rid of smoking completely. A complete ban is political suicide. In some countries, campaign contributions from tobacco companies will dry up or, worst, move to your political opponent. Significant tax dollars will also be lost.

So we take little steps, like putting warnings on packages, or pictures of diseased organs or, like in Australia, having nothing at all on the packages, as if all this will really stop a smoker from getting his fix.

And then we rationalise. We say that smokers now have been warned about the ill effects. We ban smoking in public buildings and say smoking in private places is a matter of choice, except that that choice has been compromised by the drugs deliberately introduced in cigarettes to make them addictive.

And what about the children? Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of second-hand smoke because their bodies are still growing and they breathe at a faster rate than adults. In the US, between 150,000 and 300,000 children under the age of 18 months get respiratory infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) from second-hand smoke. More than 40% of children who visit the emergency room for severe asthma attacks live with smokers. I have on many occasions seen adults smoking with children nearby. Who is looking after the child’s interests? What choice does a child have?

Nonetheless, the increase in awareness of the health risks and the crackdown on

smoking in public areas have obviously caused tobacco companies concern about revenue loss. That has prompted them to develop and market an increasing range of alternatives to the conventional cigarette. The Minister has given examples of these and they include: safer cigarettes, smokeless tobacco products and alternative nicotine products.

Examples of "safer cigarettes" marketed elsewhere include a cigarette that heats up but does not burn tobacco and is advertised with claims of "less risk" of certain smoke-related diseases. The problem is that these products have not been proven to be medically safer.

Smokeless tobacco has been marketed as useful alternatives where smoking is prohibited, or when it is inconvenient to smoke. These include flavoured chewing tobacco, with flavours such as peach, cherry, wild berry, mint, green apple and wintergreen. There is even now a tobacco lozenge – a mint-flavoured, smokeless, compressed tobacco lozenge (a "cigalett" – about the size of a Tic-Tac breath mint). So while you may be dying of cancer, your breath will always be minty and fresh.

More worryingly, these flavoured tobacco have candy-like appeal, which make them attractive to children. The flavours also make the product seem more harmless. This is a good way to get children started on tobacco-use. The use of smokeless tobacco is more discreet than smoking, which may mean it is easier for children to use without drawing attention to themselves.

The tobacco companies cannot be expected to regulate themselves. Their track record speaks for itself. So unless we act firmly and decisively, a whole new generation may end up being addicted to tobacco and nicotine.

I therefore support the proposed amendments, in particular, the new

section 17A, which prohibits the use of any term descriptor or trade mark which creates the false impression that a particular tobacco product is less harmful than other tobacco products. And I hope the Minister will ban any statement which is not supported by independent research. I also support section 15, which prohibits the sale of chewing tobacco and also give the Minister power to prohibit other tobacco products.

I would, nonetheless, like to raise three points. First, the amendments also deal with new products touted to be nicotine alternatives. I understand these to be tobacco-free products with added nicotine, intended to deliver the nicotine-kick without smoking. Examples include: nicotine pellets or candy; nicotine water, as the Minister said, which incidentally contains enough the equivalent nicotine of two cigarettes; and nicotine wafers.

As with chewing tobacco, these products may be attractive to younger people, and create a new generation of nicotine addicts. Further, the marketing of such products is troubling. For example, nicotine water has been marketed as a "dietary supplement". These are relatively new and unfamiliar products which may result in people consuming larger doses of nicotine unsuspectingly. So over and above banning them, will the Government also educate the public about the harmful nature of these products so that they will not unknowingly purchase them when they are abroad or bring them back to Singapore for their friends or families to try?

Second, I urge the Minister to use his powers under section 15 to progressively lower the nicotine and tar limits of tobacco products sold in Singapore. The Minister has mentioned certain limits in his speech and I hope that will not be the final limit he sets. The tobacco companies will no doubt ask for time to adjust to new regulations, but if pushed, they will

no doubt find a way to comply. Where there is a profit, there is a way. Could the Minister share with this House his plans in relation to the exercise of his powers under section 15(2), both immediate and in the future?

Finally, while I accept that this is not within the Minister’s remit, will the Government consider measures to protect children from the effects of second-hand or side-stream smoke? At the very least, the Government should consider regulations against smoking whether in public or in private within close proximity to children? I know it is difficult to regulate what happens in the privacy of a person's home. But we have done it before for other undesirable conduct. And I think there is great value in such a law as a symbol of what we consider to be appropriate and responsible social behaviour.

4.30 pm

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for this opportunity to share my reflections. Smoking kills. Addiction to smoking is the greatest cause of avoidable mortality and morbidity. Smoking causes harm to almost every single organ in the human body and is a risk factor that is associated with numerous diseases. In addition to harming their own health, smokers also put non-smokers at risk. Therefore, I give my strongest support to this important Bill that will reinforce the strong anti-tobacco stance adopted by this Government.

The amendments detailed in this Bill, taken together, further reinforce the commitment our Government has taken to alleviate the prevalence of smoking in Singapore and to protect the health and well-being of Singaporeans, in particular, non-smokers from the ill-effects of

second-hand smoke. The Smoking (Control of Advertisement and Sale of Tobacco) Act as well as the Prohibition of Smoking in Certain Places Act are the pillars which uphold Singapore's tobacco control efforts and sustain a smoke-free Singapore. The prevalence of smoking among Singaporeans aged 18-64 years has decreased significantly since 1975 (when it was at about 27.5%) to the rate that it has been hovering now, at about 13.6% and this is indeed a remarkable achievement. I would like to congratulate the Ministry of Health for this. However, while the overall prevalence has declined, we also note a disturbing trend; an increase in the prevalence of smoking among younger Singaporeans, which the Minister has already highlighted. The prevalence rate of smoking among those aged 18-29 years has increased from 12.3% in 2004 to 17.2% in 2007. Research on young smokers shows that the experiment with smoking in their adolescence, starting from as young as when they are 12 years old.

In our current climate where strong anti-tobacco norms prevail and the harmful effects of smoking are well documented and publicised, these trends are both surprising and alarming. What additional measures can we take to stop teens from experimenting with cigarettes, to alleviate the risk to nicotine addiction? On this note, I have three suggestions. First, we must step up on enforcement to prevent supply of tobacco products to teens below 18 years old. Section 10 in the Smoking Control Act spells out provisions for enforcement on prohibition of supply of tobacco products to persons below 18 years old. In addition to policing establishments that sell tobacco products, we must also enforce punitive measures on those who supply or acquire tobacco products for underage smokers. Second, to further discourage the violation of section 10, will the Minister consider raising the penalty for repeat offenders? My third suggestion focuses on the root

cause of deviation from the prescribed norms. An important question that I have been asking is, what puts youths at risk for smoking?

Sociological research shows a very strong link between detachment from schools and family, and underage smoking. In her thesis on young smokers, Karen Cheong, who is an Health Promotion Board (HPB) scholar, completing her PhD in Sociology under my supervision, found that teens who perceive that mainstream goals were not within their reach were more likely to embrace sub-cultures and seek affirmation from like-minded peers. For example, teenagers who do not fair well academically would turn to affirmation from peers in similar circumstances. Sadly, there is also a strong correlation between detachment from schools and detachment from the family. For these marginalised teens, family support was also challenged. As we discussed the ill-effects of tobacco use, I would like to seize this opportunity to focus our attention on this group of young Singaporeans who are at the margins. It is important that we continue to look into the needs of our youth, strive towards a broader platform for recognising achievements so that all young Singaporeans will be able to find resonance with the goals we set for them as a community. Only then, can we render deviant norms, like smoking, irrelevant.

4.35 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. The dangers of tobacco usage are well-documented and we must do our utmost to reduce the incidence of tobacco usage. There are, however, two areas of concern in this Bill that I would like to highlight. First, I should disclose that I have received in my capacity as Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Chair for Home Affairs and Law representations

from a number of tobacco companies. I am also a partner in the law firm which is acting for one of these companies.

Sir, the first issue relates to the implications of this Bill on Intellectual Property Law obligation. As the Bill stands, there is descriptor regulation that is being proposed in section 17A. The proposed section 17A prohibits the importation of sale of any tobacco product if its packaging and get-up may suggest that it is less harmful or gives a false impression of its health effects, or if the Minister prescribes so. The amendment is aimed at preventing the public from being misled into believing that the particular tobacco product is less harmful than other tobacco products because of the use of descriptive language or packaging. That, in itself, is a worthwhile objective and I do support the Bill giving the Minister such a power.

However, my concern is that this amendment does appear to include "trademarks" within its scope. That may lead us to be in possible non-compliance with Intellectual Property Law obligations. As the Minister mentioned, examples of brand names that might be affected are those carrying the words 'light' or 'mild' or something similar. Some of these maybe registered trademarks in Singapore. This is in contrast with other terms used to describe, for instance, taste characteristics such as "low tar" which are generally added after the brand name, as opposed to actually being part of the brand name. Under our Trade Marks Act, a "registered trademark is the personal property" of the proprietor and the proprietor has exclusive rights to use the trademark. Inherent in our statutory scheme for the registration of trademarks is the determination of whether a trademark is of such nature as to deceive the public. Therefore a fair case can be made when the trademark has been registered and used in the past, that it was not considered to have confused or

deceived the public. Further, Singapore is a party to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). TRIPS requires a minimum level of protection for IP rights. Article 8 of TRIPS provides that signatories "may in formulating or amending their laws and regulations, adopt measures necessary to protect public health, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement".

Article 17 of TRIPS requires that when measures are taken, limiting the rights of trademark holders, such exceptions should take account of the legitimate interest the owner of the trademark. If we are to adopt section 17A in its present form, we must take care not to marginalise the legitimate interest of holders of registered trademarks and, more importantly, not breach our TRIPS obligations. There may also be treaties where Singapore has entered into, for example, with the United States and Japan, to name just two, which requires us to uphold intellectual property rights. Based on the above, I ask if the Minister could make it clear that section 17A shall not prohibit use of a term that is used in a brand name, which was registered as a trademark prior to the effective date of the amendment Act. I understand that similar approaches have been taken in other countries such as China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Thailand.

Sir, the second issue I would like to raise relates to the use of regulatory powers to ban particular tobacco products. Section 15 of the draft Bill provides the Minister with powers to ban any and all harmful tobacco products based on his discretion. This provision appears to be targeted at alternative forms of tobacco products such as chewing tobacco and smokeless tobacco. The Health Promotion Board's consultation document noted that most new

alternative forms of tobacco products are marketed as safer alternatives to cigarettes, despite the lack of conclusive evidence, and that these products potentially undermine the effectiveness of Singapore's cessation strategies as smokers may switch to using these products. This is a valid observation and I support the Minister having such powers. Having said that, I believe that a judicious use of such powers will also be in the interest of public health especially when these alternative products can actually be proven to be less harmful and might lead to more smokers kicking the habit.

I do echo the sentiments raised by two of my colleagues, Dr Lam Pin Min and Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef that harm reduction is a useful weapon in the strategy of reducing the incidence of tobacco usage. We do not live in an ideal world where smokers quit smoking because it is good for them. Provided it can be scientifically proven that such products may result in lesser harm or lesser tendency to be addicted, we should consider allowing such products because it would allow some smokers to reduce their dependency on tobacco.

Could the Minister, therefore, make it clear that before exercising his powers to ban any particular product, there will be a detailed product assessment procedure where affected parties could seek to justify their products as less harmful or addictive, and with an avenue for appeal? There could be provision for an advisory panel of medical experts to make sure that claims of products being less harmful than conventional tobacco products be scientifically supported. I do consider that the ultimate goal would be to stop all smoking. But it may be pragmatic to adopt an approach to permit less harmful or addictive products, which would help to "wean" smokers off cigarettes. This would complement rather than undermine our prevention and cessation efforts.

On that note, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

4.42 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendment Bill. Tobacco consumption is a vile, habit-forming practice that is potentially harmful and deadly. It cuts short the lives of a third to half of its users. According to a World Health Organization report, perhaps 100 million people died prematurely in the last century from tobacco consumption. This figure, in the eyes of many, is of tragic proportion as the deaths are preventable. Unless we do something very significant now, studies have indicated that another one billion people may die in this century if the current trend continues. Against the backdrop of such alarming statistics, I welcome the initiatives by the Government to put together a tighter restriction on advertisement and sale of tobacco products; all of which I agree.

Sir, while I wholeheartedly embrace the changes in this Bill, I will say that the changes may not have gone far enough. I say this with three specific references in mind. First, this Bill deals with putting restrictions on any form of direct or indirect tobacco product advertisement as opposed to tobacco brand advertisement. At the moment, neither the Act nor the Bill deals with tobacco brands that find its way into other goods and services. Cigarette companies have sought to promote consumption and sales through association with certain lifestyle, activity or values. Many of us will recall how "Camel" brand of cigarettes has found its way into a line of clothing that at first brush may have nothing to do with cigarettes.

Cigarette brand names have also appeared in travel services such as "Peter Stuyvesant Travel & Tours" or "Kent Holidays". Such insidious forms of

advertisements are a more dangerous form of marketing as it easily targets the young and vulnerable to ensure early brand endorsement. And on this note, I share the similar concerns of my colleagues. Arguably, it would not be difficult for one who is mentally conditioned to move from the "Camel" brand of cargo pants to the "Camel" brand of cigarettes. Would the authorities not be concerned if the same brand of cigarettes started to appear in children's toys in place of "Fisher Price" brand of products?

Tobacco brands appear innocently on products and services. However, they present a very powerful form of subliminal appeal and can make their presence felt quietly in many areas of our everyday lives. This is latent advertising.

In April this year, it was reported that doctors have urged governments to launch an inquiry into alleged "subliminal" tobacco advertising on Ferrari Formula One cars. It is claimed the red, white and black bar code on Ferrari cars and overalls, is intended to remind viewers of Marlboro cigarettes branding. Similarly, the Observer reported that Philip Morris, the manufacturer of the Marlboro cigarettes, is such a believer in experiential marketing that it funds owners of public establishments to have their interior decorations done up in a manner to convey the strength of the brand. For instance, a patron could be lounging in front of a screen and being bombarded with the Wild West cowboy scenes of Marlboro country, and be entertained by Bernstein’s theme song from the Magnificent Seven playing in the background. Now, one can never fail to feel macho about being associated with the Marlboro brand.

Incidentally, I understand that the three of the Marlboro men who appeared in the advertisements, died subsequently from lung cancer. The question really is, where does one draw the line? Should the Government take active steps to stop or

regulate such subliminal forms of advertising?

Secondly, the social signaling of smoking in the public media. Advertisements are a very powerful form of communication that appeals to the target audience’s sense of being, aspiration and desire. It is meant to connect with the audience and can strongly influence the development and acceptance of a set of socially acceptable values. Sociologists call this social engineering. So we go to the movie houses and see our heroes and heroines, our favorite characters, going about their business with a cigarette half dangling out of their mouths. Think of the pretty slim and young actress smoking away and looking glamorous on the screen. They are our favorite people; and, to us, it must be all right to smoke since they smoke in the movies. A new and recent groundbreaking study linked to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine shows that young adult smokers who are most likely to light up immediately are those who watch smoking in movies. The study is the first of its kind to directly link smoking scenes in movies to actual and immediate smoking behaviour.

I remember some years ago coming across an actor by the name of James Dean in the movies. Again, those of us who are old enough will remember the iconic actor holding a cigarette in his hand. I cannot imagine what kind of impression that image must have left on many impressionable youngsters of the time.

The same concern also applies to what has been portrayed on television. I have come across, often times, scenes on television screens where the protagonist is often seen holding a cigarette in his hand as part of a scene. It was reported in the Wikipedia that Mark Lee, our favourite local comedian, could be seen smoking

the red Marlboro cigarettes in most of Jack Neo's movies. Would this scene constitute tobacco advertisement under the Act?

While I am not advocating that we should ban all cigarettes from the movie or TV sets, we should at least have a comprehensive policy on how to deal with such indirect form of advertising. In some jurisdictions, there are warnings after the screenings in the end credits section or the packaging of the CD or DVDs, to warn of the hazards of smoking. In the United States, films with G, PG or PG-13 rating, allow smoking incidents (that means depicting tobacco smoking or related signage or paraphernalia) to appear only when there is a substantial reason for doing so. Sir, I think we can do likewise.

Thirdly, there is the risk of tobacco advertising through the Internet. This generation has seen the pervasive use of the Internet as a means of communication and information sourcing. A whole generation of young people is now glued onto the screen surfing the Internet for a wide variety of reasons. It potentially serves as a huge market for sales. I would not be surprised if tobacco companies are also interested in using this medium to promote their products. Presently, I understand that Internet giants like Google and Microsoft have policies that outlaw the promotion of tobacco products on their advertising networks. However, the same cannot be said about all other major Internet service providers whose revenue depends on advertising. Can we realistically expect these companies to say no to tobacco advertisements when there is so much money to be made from it? We have difficulty stopping pornographic materials filtering through the Internet, how confident can we be about regulating tobacco advertising on the Internet? It will be a sad day indeed if popular gaming sites or social networking sites are populated and rife with advertisements on tobacco products; and

we are not even talking about subliminal advertising that are being used as part of new technology that in essence, involves microsecond flashing of the advertisements to inform the subconscious mind. Does the Government have any policy in this regard in regulating it; or even, is the Government beginning to think about it?

The issue on hand is whether the Government is prepared to do more to curb the advertisements and consequent sales of tobacco products in this country. I note that in some countries, cigarettes are not allowed to be displayed in showcases, whether or not there are youths patronising the establishment. Presumably, this restriction works on the principle of it being out of sight and, therefore, out of mind. Such legislation is far reaching. I am not sure if the Government is prepared to go to such an extent.

Sir, this Bill is among other things to bring Singapore in line with and to fulfil Singapore’s outstanding obligations under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The question is whether it is just enough for us to be up to date or, given the known and harmful effects that tobacco substance abuse has on our society, we should be doing more to educate and prevent the spread of such addictive habits. Given the choice, I would urge our Government to do much more than what is currently being proposed in this Bill.

With that Sir, I support the proposed amendments.

4.50 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir. First, let me declare my interest as a Board member of the Health Promotion Board.

I applaud the Ministry for responding quickly to the emerging tobacco trends

and proposing a range of evidence-informed amendments to the Smoking (Control of Advertisements and Sale of Tobacco) Act. The proposed measures not only signal the Government’s commitment to the world’s first health treaty, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, but it also sends a clear message that, despite having a relatively low smoking prevalence, Singapore continues to ensure that measures are put in place to minimise the impact of tobacco use on our people’s health.

Singapore has seen a steady decline in its smoking prevalence since the 1970s when the first tobacco control legislation was enacted. However, as highlighted by Minister Khaw, there has been an increase in the smoking prevalence in recent years, especially among young adults aged 18 to 29 years. The age of smoking initiation was found to be 16 years young! Peer pressure, curiosity, and the misconception that one will not get easily addicted to nicotine – these are some of the reasons why our youths initiate smoking. Once they start, it can be very difficult to quit, given the highly addictive nature of nicotine. Our tobacco control measures must therefore look into how best to tighten access to tobacco products and their substitutes and to prevent initiation, especially among youths.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair ]

I am particularly concerned about the new and emerging products that Minister Khaw has highlighted and he has shown us a few samples this afternoon. International examples have shown that these products are highly popular among youths. Recently, I saw an episode of the popular American documentary programme, 60 Minutes, on YouTube, which focused on snus. It featured a youth who used snus in the gym, in class, and even when having his dinner, simply to satisfy his insatiable craving for nicotine. It struck

me that such a scenario could easily become a reality in Singapore. In fact, in a recent focus group discussion conducted by Health Promotion Board, youth smokers aged 15 to 17 expressed that they would be curious to try some of the new and emerging tobacco products that were shown to them. In addition, they felt that some of the products appeared easier to use than cigarettes and that they could pose challenges to the enforcement of underaged smoking laws.

Whilst such products are relatively new and studies on their full extent of harm are still ongoing, it is important to take pre-emptive action now rather than later. So, I am pleased to note that the proposed amendments look into banning new and emerging products. However, while we may ban such products, our youths might still be able to have access to them when they are overseas, or be misled by deceiving information from the manufacturers of such products. We, therefore, need to continue to educate our youth, going beyond cigarette smoking to include tobacco in other forms and stressing the addictive power of nicotine. We also need to teach our young to be discerning about the tactics of the tobacco industry and help them to develop life skills to stay tobacco-free for life.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while we look into addressing new and emerging products, we should continue to tighten controls on existing products. Similar to international studies, a local study in 2009, found that a significant proportion of Singapore residents perceived that cigarette packs labelled with descriptors like "mild" and "light", delivered less nicotine, and that they were less harmful to health, and this would make it easier for a smoker to quit, compared with other descriptors. In the same focus group discussion that I had made reference to earlier, the youth

smokers also shared that they smoked cigarettes labelled "mild" as they were under the impression that these were safer options. I am therefore heartened to know that we are looking at prohibiting misleading labels such as "mild" and "light", and am sure that MOH and HPB will continue to study and to adapt international best practices in this area.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of the minimum pack size for cigarettes in 1993 had effectively prevented retailers from selling loose sticks of cigarettes at low prices. Price has been shown to be an effective deterrent for individuals experimenting with cigarettes. Congruent to international observations, in a local survey involving smokers and non-smokers aged 12 to 29 years, one in four (that is 25%) indicated that increasing the cost of cigarettes would deter young people from smoking. Youth smokers at various HPB programmes have also indicated that they are more likely to quit smoking if the price of cigarettes was increased.

The call for cigarillos to be sold in packs of no less than 20 will certainly make them less affordable to youths and bring us a step closer towards reducing prevalence of tobacco use in our youths. I support such a call and I feel it is time for the Ministry to look into such measures as well.

Youth are very vulnerable to addiction, and the harm this brings about, as you know, is life-long. While several of the proposed amendments will help towards curbing tobacco use in our younger population, we need to continue to reach out to them and to the people who may have an influence over them to encourage a tobacco-free lifestyle as the desired norm. If anything, I urge the Ministry to step up its plans to further discourage tobacco use among the young.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Mdm Cynthia Phua for her kind words. Yes, it is good to be back alive. I went through a lot and while in the ward, I had the opportunity to speak to many fellow patients – quite a few of them were smokers. I did ask them what they plan to do now; whether they were going to stop smoking. Not 100% said definitively "yes, I would stop it". So you can see how addictive this product is. Those who have never lit up, please do not start. It is not worthwhile. Why kill yourselves? Going through a bypass is a trauma. At least for me, it is a life-changer. My diet, which has always been pretty disciplined, has now become even more austere. And yet, for some smokers who have gone through that, they still find it difficult to quit. So this poison is hard to ban since it has been around for so long. But let us try to protect our people as much as we can.

Eleven Members have spoken on this Bill. Dr Lam gave us a very good account of the harm tobacco can bring. Mr Hri Kumar's very passionate speech struck a chord. I thank all Members. The common message is loud and clear – tobacco is harmful, so let us do our best to protect our people from its harm. So thank you to all Members for supporting this Bill.

We will do what is practical to implement it effectively. First, many Members supported the ban on emerging tobacco products. Mr Seah Kian Peng's account of snus and other anecdotes is instructive. Let us not allow them to land here. However, Dr Lam and Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef suggested that we do not ban such products entirely but to consider some of them as part of a "harm-reduction strategy" to help smokers quit smoking.

I think their intentions are good but I honestly have my doubts as to whether the suggestion will be effective because I have personal experience of such "harm-

reduction strategy". The suggestion reminded me of our experience with Subutex. And it was the same argument – it was a theory from the West, maybe sponsored or motivated by companies which have financial interest in this, to say, "Let's go all out to promote it, it's good. It will help the heroin addicts wean from heroin. It is less harmful, as switching from heroin immediately to zero is very hard, but with Subutex, it is more likely”. Some of our regulators were persuaded by the argument and allowed it. This happened just not too long ago. The results were disastrous and several Singaporeans were hurt. It took the Ministry of Home Affairs and myself quite some time to reverse the policy and damages. But for some Singaporeans who were hurt, the damages were not reversible. I confess, I will be skeptical of this so-called harm-reduction strategy.

A less harmful tobacco product is an oxymoron. I share Mr Hri Kumar's view on this subject and agree with his robust approach. In the 1970s, the tobacco companies introduced cigarettes purported to be "low tar", "light" or "mild" as safer alternatives. They promoted such cigarettes to smokers who had health concerns and were then thinking of quitting. These products rapidly gained market share. As a result, there was a net increase in cigarette consumption. Independent research later on showed that smokers compensated by smoking more cigarettes or inhaling more deeply.

Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef quoted a positive experience of snus in Sweden. Yes, we have come across such reports. The Swedish experience has never been replicated outside of Sweden, and I cannot help noting that snus is a Swedish product.

The evidence is actually just the opposite, with the use of snus resulting in smokers becoming addicted to both cigarettes and snus. It is the same with

Subutex and the addicts end up using both. More smokeless tobacco use does not mean less cigarette-smoking. It is not a zero-sum game. Smokers use smokeless tobacco products to tide over nicotine craving in places where smoking is prohibited while continuing to smoke in other places where smoking is allowed – this perversely reduces the impetus for them to quit smoking. Meanwhile, tobacco companies get to entice non-smokers to develop nicotine addiction, adding to their customer base.

As I have said, our experience with Subutex as a "less harmful heroin" substitute is similar. Instead of reducing the number of drug addicts, we ended up with more. So our approval of Subutex upset our trend. MHA had been doing a wonderful job of bringing down the number of drug addicts. But after Subutex was introduced, it was a V-shaped recovery for the (illegal drug) industry. So I strongly advise against adopting such so-called harm-reduction strategy. I would keep an open mind but they would have to make a lot of effort to convince me otherwise from this position.

But I agree with Dr Lam and Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef that we should try to help smokers "to gradually quit in a controlled manner". There are proper ways to do so, one of which is through controlled Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) by following strict guidelines. We do not prohibit nicotine used in such a manner.

I heard Mr Alvin Yeo mention that before we ban new products, we should do proper assessment process and do objective scientific studies. My approach is this. I will be fair to the companies and, as I have said, keep an open mind. But you know my priority. My priority is the interest, the safety and the health of our

people, not the financial health of the tobacco companies. On that point, I am clear.

Second, all the Members expressed concerns over the rising smoking prevalence amongst certain population groups, including the young, the ladies and the Malay community. Mdm Halimah's speech in Malay made a heartfelt appeal to the Malay smokers to think about the welfare of their children and to get them to stop smoking. I join her in this appeal – please be responsible parents, and usually the fathers, be responsible fathers. You are bringing up the next generation. If you cannot quit smoking, then, at least, at the barest minimum, do not smoke when at home or do not smoke when in the company of your kids. But the best is to be credible as a role model, you must walk the talk, quit smoking yourself for your own sake. I also thank Mdm Halimah for highlighting the harm pregnant mothers bring to their infants if they smoke.

All the Members called for stronger smoking control measures. I agree entirely. We have implemented various programmes, and we will continue to try new ones. We will work with schools, religious institutions, employers, the charity sector and the community at large. I note Mdm Halimah's illustration of the Sheraton Towers as an exemplary employer who went the extra mile to get the employees to quit smoking. I applaud such employers and I urge more to join the movement.

I heard Mdm Cynthia Phua's call for schools to reach out to students who smoke and get them to quit. I appreciate her sharing several research findings done in schools overseas on effective counselling, including telephone counselling. I note her point that with teens, enforcement and penalty do not work as well. The psychology often works the other way. What is prohibited becomes highly valued.

We try to tap on the young to guide us on how to reach out to their peers. I myself had conducted focus group discussions with young lady smokers. And I asked them, "Don't you know this thing is harmful, it is poison?" They know that. Knowledge is out there – they are not ignorant. So I asked them, "Have you tried to quit?" They said, "Yes, many times." I said, "Why did you fail?" They said they tried a few weeks and some succeeded for a few months. But when their brother is smoking, their father is smoking, or their boyfriend is smoking, they find it very difficult to quit. So let me reiterate the point that adults should know better and especially parents who have brought a new generation into the world – please think about the welfare of your kids and try to be good role models. But this is obviously a complex issue as Assoc. Prof. Straughan has noted. One underlying cause could be the larger problem of some youths needing to embrace "sub-cultures" in order to seek "affirmation from like-minded peers".

We will definitely try to do more and learn from others. We have discussed the various initiatives in this House before. So, in the interest of time, I do not intend to repeat them here.

Our efforts have not been futile. Let me quote one indicator. The proportion of secondary school students who have ever tried cigarette-smoking has actually dropped from 26% 10 years ago to 16% now – a 10-percentage point drop. It is not a great victory but a victory nevertheless. We certainly need to do better.

Third, Ms Ellen Lee, Mdm Halimah and Assoc. Prof. Straughan called for stronger enforcement against sales to the under-age. I agree and I intend to do so. We will step up policing on tobacco retail outlets. We will consider raising the penalty on repeat offenders. We are also considering disallowing tobacco sales in outlets which

are clearly meant to serve the young in other products.

Fourth, Dr Lam asked about Singapore's compliance with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and whether we have been tardy. To date, we will be the third country in the world to fulfil all the obligations on tobacco labelling should this Bill be passed. Yes, there had been some delay, but I do not think it was a major delay. Dr Lam wondered whether this delay was a cause for the increase in smoking prevalence here. I doubt it. We have actually been ahead of the curve in tobacco control and, in any case, were largely FCTC compliant right from the start.

Dr Lam asked if we should give tobacco companies more than 12 months to implement the changes to tobacco product packaging. We did not choose 12 months arbitrarily but because we have done it before when we introduced the requirement that they must display the health warning graphics. We gave them 12 months and they were able to comply.

I appreciate Mr Sin Boon Ann's very thoughtful piece on lateral advertising, latent marketing and advertising through the Internet. Earlier, Mr Calvin Cheng made a similar observation. Indeed, these are the innovations that tobacco companies are mounting to get round the FCTC and it is also a hot topic currently being discussed and brainstormed among international regulators including ourselves.

We do not yet have all the answers to these challenges. In fact, we may never be able to find full complete solutions to some of these challenges, for example, Internet advertising. How do we censor scenes of modern day James Dean smoking a particular brand of cigarettes? I myself have not noticed Mr Sin's observation that Mark Lee seems to be particularly fond of Marlboro cigarettes but I would have a quiet word with him the next time I meet him.

Where we can, we should act. For example, we have removed the exemption for congratulatory messages and sponsorship publicity.

Mr Hri Kumar has described past misleading behaviours by tobacco companies; in fact, unethical behaviours by such companies. I agree with his observations. From a public health perspective, misleading terms are just as misleading, even if they are part of a trademark. Mr Alvin Yeo raised a couple of legal queries on this. Let me state clearly that we intend the new section 17A to affect trademarks if they contain misleading descriptors. We are not going to exempt them. We are fully aware of our TRIPS and other international obligations and we have consulted the relevant legal authorities extensively on this point. The proposed section 17A is aligned closely to the FCTC and will not violate Singapore's international obligations. We are in good company: the European Union prohibits misleading terms and descriptors even if they are a part of the trademarks or brand names.

Lastly, there were some comments which do not pertain to the proposed amendments in the current Bill. Let me briefly address them.

Ms Ellen Lee and Mr Hri Kumar made a plea on behalf of non-smokers and especially innocent children, from the effects of second-hand smoke from inconsiderate neighbours and irresponsible parents. Ms Lee asked the NEA to widen the outdoor smoking ban to include more common places in HDB towns, such as void decks and common corridors. I will raise her suggestion with the NEA. It is convenient that Minister Yaacob is my neighbour in Parliament. In fact, I had a word with him just now precisely about this point. Mr Hri Kumar asked rhetorically how we could extend the law to the

privacy of the home in order to protect the children from second-hand smoke. He knew it was outside my purview but I note his point.

Dr Lam suggested that we control retail pricing of tobacco products, to make them expensive, thus curbing consumption. In practice, price fixing seldom works as we live in a region where cigarettes are cheap. For the same reason, while we have been aggressive in tobacco taxation, there are limits but we will continue to use this strategy where practical and feasible.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, tobacco-related deaths and illnesses are preventable, as noted by several Members. So let us try to make Singapore as tobacco-free as possible. Dr Lam mentioned Bhutan. Currently it is still the only country which has banned tobacco. I was in Bhutan a couple of years ago. I made an effort to see if there were cigarette butts in the city. There were cigarette butts. I asked my counterpart. He said, "Oh, all brought in by foreign talent from India." Yes, as Health Minister, I would like to ban it too, but how effective and how practical that will be, we will see. We should keep it as a stretch target. We should see whether there are opportunities to do so. But for those products which are not yet here, let us be pre-emptive. Do not let them land on our shores. Those which are already here, it cannot be helped. We will have to live with them. We will try to minimise their space to protect the 80%-odd (non-smokers) and especially the innocent children. When drafting this Bill, we had extensive consultation with Singaporeans. The amendments received strong support from them.

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 Khaw Boon Wan].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

5.19 pm

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

Members may recall that in 2008, Parliament approved the Moneylenders Bill to revamp the regulatory regime for moneylenders. The purpose was to introduce a more flexible and progressive approach to the regulation of moneylending to keep pace with the modern credit economy. Following this, the number of moneylenders licences has increased significantly.

At the same time, there has been an increasing number of HDB flat owners borrowing from moneylenders and agreeing to assign the sales proceeds from their flats as repayment. These moneylenders then lodge caveats against the flats to claim an interest in the sales proceeds. In 2008, there were 12 registered resale applications with caveats lodged by moneylenders. In 2009, the figure increased to 546. In the six months of this year alone, there were 556 such cases.

While this is permitted under the current legislative framework, the Government is concerned about this trend as it undermines the intention of the home ownership policy which seeks to provide a home for our people for long-term stay.

Mdm Halimah Yacob raised similar concerns in Parliament in April this year. And I informed her at that time that my Ministry was reviewing this issue, and that we would be treating it with utmost urgency.

Today's Bill is to address this problem. I have introduced it with a Certificate of Urgency to quickly put in place the legislative framework to prevent more HDB flat owners from ending up with caveats on their flats, after borrowing from moneylenders.

Emphasis on long-term home ownership

Sir, before we get into the details of the Bill, let me remind Members what HDB flats are primarily intended for.

A HDB flat is for long-term home ownership. I cannot over emphasise this fact. HDB flats are heavily subsidised to allow families to purchase and own their homes. Owning the roof over one's head is a significant commitment for any family and requires the family to be financially prudent and responsible to service their mortgage and plan for the long term.

On the Government's part, we give generous subsidies to help young families and first-timers own their homes. As the flats and precincts grow older over time, we carry out upgrading and various improvement works at low cost or no cost to flat owners to help maintain the value of their flat. And finally, at old age, and this is where the long-term aspect of home ownership becomes crucial, flat owners can monetise their flats. They can supplement their retirement income either by subletting their flat, or a room, or by right-sizing to a smaller flat.

This life-cycle approach to housing works only if people do not cash out on their retirement asset prematurely. They will become homeless, if they have sold their flat and have not planned for where

they are going to stay next. They will also have whittled away their retirement nest egg. People are especially tempted to do this when flat prices are high. Selling their HDB flat prematurely, whether to cash in on its rising prices or to settle debts, is not a wise move, unless they have other housing options. It can only lead to bigger problems in the longer term.

If Singaporeans use their flats as collateral to borrow, they risk losing their homes if they default on their loan. Since 1994, the Government has disallowed the re-mortgage of HDB flats, except for the purpose of financing the purchase of the flat. There have been periodic call for this rule to be relaxed, but we have decided after careful consideration not to do so. In view of recent developments, we need to do more to protect the homes of Singaporeans.

Disallowing caveats pursuant to use of HDB flat as security

Sir, under the current rules, moneylenders can enter into an agreement with the HDB flat owners for the sales proceeds to be assigned to them as repayment of debt, upon which the moneylenders then lodge caveats against the flats. Such caveats enable the moneylender to determine repayment owed before he agrees to withdraw the caveat to allow the sale transaction of the flat to go through.

The problem is that once the flat seller has sold off his flat and repaid the moneylender, he cannot afford to purchase his next flat. The flat seller and the other flat occupiers become homeless and pose a burden to their family and friends for their housing needs and some join HDB's queue for rental flats, when they in fact do not qualify for rental housing.

Against this context, we have decided to go one step further now and disallow the lodging of caveats to claim an interest in the sales proceeds of the flat. And this is the focus of the Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill 2010 that is before this House now.

The Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill 2010

Currently, section 51 of the Housing and Development Act only provides that the title deeds of HDB flats cannot be used to create a security for debt. Section 51 does not prevent moneylenders from lodging caveats to claim an interest in the sales proceeds, after providing a loan.

Clause 5 of the Bill repeals the existing section 51 and re-enacts the section. It continues to disallow HDB flat owners from using their HDB flat as security or collateral for any debt, or obligation, or claim. One key difference with this new clause is that this prohibition now includes the sales proceeds from the HDB flat. The re-enacted section 51 also implements a new rule that voids any contract or agreement to use HDB flats, including the sales proceeds, as security or collateral. The changes do not affect banks and financial institutions, who can continue to grant loans on the security of the flat for the purpose of financing its purchase.

Besides providing that any contract using the HDB flat as security for debt is null and void, the Bill also provides that any Act, deed, instrument or document which protects rights under such a contract has no effect. This means that caveats against HDB flats for the payment of debt can no longer be lodged after the Bill is enacted. Existing contracts with valid caveats lodged would not be affected. This is in recognition of the sanctity of contracts that are already legally entered into.

Financial prudence

Sir, this policy change does not mean that HDB flat owners can no longer borrow from moneylenders. They can continue to do so. But they cannot use their HDB flat as a security, and they must find other ways to ensure that they repay their debts.

In preventing moneylenders from lodging future caveats against HDB flats, we are emphasising – and re-emphasising in fact this fact – that the HDB flat is meant for home ownership and it is a long-term asset for retirement. It is not to be used for short-term profit-taking or to cover debts. The new section 51 underscores this point, and it is urgently needed to curb future abuses.

Sir, I am also taking this opportunity to introduce in the Bill two unrelated operational amendments to allow HDB to discharge its statutory duties better. Clause 4 aligns HDB's punitive powers for public rental flats with that of sold flats. It allows for subsidiary legislation prescribing penalties for those who illegally sublet their public rental flats, in the same way that penalties can be prescribed for flat owners who do not comply with conditions relating to flats sold by HDB.

Currently, for misuse of public rental flats such as illegal subletting, the only recourse is for HDB to take back the rental flat and to debar the tenant for a fixed period. HDB has no further powers beyond this. Their experience shows that taking back the rental flat and debarring the tenant is not a sufficient deterrent. This amendment will allow HDB to impose penalties and more effectively safeguard the heavily-subsidised rental flats for those who really need them.

Lastly, clauses 2 and 3 amend the Housing and Development Act to allow HDB to provide much sought after

technical and consultancy services, locally and internationally, on matters within its expertise. The amendments also allow HDB to act as a Government's agent to service request, to share its expertise in public housing development, both within and outside Singapore. HDB would also be able to develop, sell and acquire intellectual property rights on a commercial basis.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.29 pm

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

I would, first of all, like to thank Minister Mah and the Ministry of National Development for coming up with this Bill within such a short period of time by invoking a Certificate of Urgency, a process which by itself is unusual. All because I think the Ministry clearly believes there is an urgent need to protect the interests of our HDB flat owners. In April this year, I had raised my concerns over the antics of moneylenders who had used their borrowers’ HDB flats as collaterals. Although this practice is legal, it is clearly contrary to our home ownership goals, as Mr Mah has clearly pointed out, and unconscionable, and this Bill now rectifies this situation.

Section 51 now makes any contract or agreement to directly or indirectly use protected property as security or collateral for any debt obligation or claim null and void.

Sir, the situation is really serious. As Minister Mah had mentioned, there were only 12 resale flat applications with caveats lodged by moneylenders for the whole of 2008 but this has exploded to 556 applications for the first six months of this year alone. Even with so much

publicity and warnings that such unethical practices should stop, without a law prohibiting them, moneylenders have continued to lure borrowers by using their flats as collaterals. This irresponsible behaviour of some licensed moneylenders had caused grave hardship to many. They use hard sell tactics such as advertising in newspapers as well as making use of housing agents to get more borrowers. Often, the borrowers do not clearly understand how the interest rates are computed and that there are other hidden costs, such as commissions paid to the housing agents to secure a borrower for the moneylender or legal fees, administrative costs and other costs. In the end, instead of just the 1.5% interest that was touted before they took the loan, they ended up paying as much as a 15% interest in some cases. Their shock starts when they discover that they had nothing left after paying off their debts to the moneylenders, which they had to first clear since it is protected by the caveat.

Sir, many moneylenders actively seek out and pay housing agents commissions to secure borrowers for them from among those who want to sell their flats but who need immediate cash as the sale transaction may take up to six months to complete. We all know that ultimately it is the HDB flat seller who is paying for the commission offered by the moneylender to the housing agent, and this adds to the flat seller's debt. I was told that housing agents are paid 3% commission on every loan that they help to secure. So for a loan of $20,000, for instance, the housing agent can earn a commission of $600 per month for up to six months, a very lucrative sum for very little effort. Most of the borrowers are low-income earners who mostly borrow amounts of between $10,000 and $20,000 but end up paying much, much more than this amount when they sell their flats. I recall a case that was reported in the media of a

Mr Rahim, a cleaner, who received only $250 from the housing agent, which the housing agent described as a donation to him, after the sale of his 3-room flat in Yishun last November. The 46-year old man had to camp at East Coast Park as he could not afford to buy a smaller flat as there was nothing left from the sale of his flat nor could he rent from the private market.

I am really worried, Sir, that these 556 cases registered in the first six months of this year will be the cases that we will see at our Meet the People sessions asking for yet another loan from the HDB that they cannot afford to pay for or for a rental flat that they do not qualify for. In the end, the real victims will be the children. I have seen many of them, who are moved like nomads from place to place, relative to relative, until their parents outlive their welcome and whose studies are completely disrupted. There is no doubt that this exploitation of the current loophole in our law by moneylenders, have contributed to the problem of homelessness in Singapore. Although I know that this law cannot have retroactive effect, I would like to ask the Minister whether there is anything that the Ministry can do to help these 556 cases, in terms of negotiating for lower interest rates or mediating between them and the moneylenders. At the same time, I also feel that there is a clear need to raise the standards of professionalism and ethics among housing agents. MND has announced that a new statutory board will be established to oversee the real estate landscape. This is sorely needed as it is obvious that the industry cannot regulate itself. Even housing agents who have been convicted of offences related to property deals can freely advertise and continue as agents after their release without any consequences whatsoever. The barriers to entry are non existent. Anyone who signs up with an agency is allowed to sell homes almost immediately. I was told that even foreigners who can

barely speak English, and who would therefore not be in a position to properly advise their clients on the option form or the sales and purchase agreement, have jumped onto the bandwagon.

In practice, few agencies are prepared to sack an unethical but high performing agent because they bring in good money for the agencies. Such situations of conflict do not augur well for the industry and significantly compromises the interest of flat owners. So, I would like to ask the Minister when this statutory board will be set up and how soon will regulations be formulated to control the unethical conduct of real estate agencies? I really believe that the moneylenders acting alone would not have resulted in 556 applications caveats being lodged. They certainly must be working together with the housing agents and therefore we really need to look at the issue in a wider perspective.

Finally, Sir, we cannot completely absolve flat owners who borrow from moneylenders from responsibility. They have caused much hardship to themselves and their family through their own actions and for which they must bear some responsibility. Even as I urge the Ministry to focus on flat owners' education as an integral part of our home ownership scheme, so that they understand that flats are meant to be long term investments for their security and old age, I do realise that no amount of education can stop flat owners from selling their flats and using it to finance their other needs or uses, if they so insist. Ultimately, borrowers must understand that the Government cannot free them from their legal obligation to repay the debts which they have incurred. In this case, the law can only disallow the use of the HDB flat or sale proceeds from being used as collateral for the loan. HDB knows of many instances where home owners incur debts with other creditors, such as credit card companies, and sell

their flats as a way to settle their debts and they end up with bigger problems as they do not have alternative accommodation. So, flat owners must accept personal responsibility and exercise financial prudence in whatever lifestyle choices that they make. They too have a duty to protect the roof over their heads.

Sir, I agree with a strong emphasis on the importance of viewing HDB flats as a long-term investment. And I am really happy that this Bill will send a very strong signal to flat owners as well as to moneylenders and others who are interested, that they should similarly view the flats that they have as a very important shelter for them and their family.

Sir, on this note, I support this Bill, and I once again thank the MND for its quick response to protect our flat owners.

5.38 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the HDB (Amendment) Bill seeks to prevent caveats from being lodged against HDB flats and the proposed restriction to disallow HDB flat owners from using their flats as security for any debt, obligation or claim. Sir, I would like to commend the Ministry for taking quick action in responding to the issue of moneylenders issuing loans to home owners who use their HDB homes as collateral for easy cash to support lifestyle choices rather than for the purpose of financial exigencies for livelihood.

This loophole needs immediate plugging, given the exponential increase in the cases reported since 2008 till to date. Sir, according to press reports, these moneylending activities have been targeted specifically and openly at "HDB home sellers only", sometimes with the connivance of housing agents. Mr David Poh, the President of the Moneylenders Association of Singapore, had openly stated that it is not so secure for

moneylenders to provide a loan based on the lenders' income as there is a possibility that they may also lose their jobs anytime. Mr James Lee, founder of James Lee Credit, also said that this is a "legal process that is all in black and white", further illustrating the current legal loophole.

Sir, what complicates the issue is that the moneylending industry is not the only one that is under scrutiny here. Real estate agents also work hand in hand. They would introduce flat sellers, sometimes desperate sellers, to the moneylenders and then get a referral fee of about $500 in return. Housing agents may claim that the sum may not be big and it is up to the home owners not to go through with the arrangement. But home owners, saddled with mounting debts, may see this collusion as the easy way out without realising the implications. Hence, it is obviously a win-win situation for both the moneylender and the estate agent but what of the poor home owner who may stand to lose all.

I agree with Dr Tan Tee Khoon, CEO of the Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies that estate agents have to satisfy several duties, one of which is to help HDB sellers work out their estimated sales proceeds before selling, a practice prevalent among financial planners. Agents also have the duty to advise sellers to plan for their next home before selling the flat. Sir, the amendment emphasises the need for flat owners to be responsible and prudent in their financial planning and well-being which otherwise would become a burden for society. Very often, flat owners resort to moneylenders and go on credit with credit cards, handphone subscriptions and hire purchases to service a highend life style with scant consideration for their housing loan obligations. Once heavily in debt,

they turn to the moneylenders resulting in the predicament that many face today.

Also, house owners should be cautioned against joining the bandwagon in this hot property market to make profits from the sale of their HDB flats. They then find themselves landing up in interim public rental housing or private rental flats, which quickly deplete the gains made from the sale of their HDB flats. They then join the queue at the Meet-the-People Session (MPS) to ask for heavily subsidised public rental flats. On this note, I would like to draw the Ministry's attention to the root of this entire moneylending issue. We ask ourselves, why were the moneylenders able to attract these voluntary HDB sellers? Sir, I am sure that no HDB owner would want to put a flat down as security for such debts unless there is no other way out and that there is an extremely urgent need for cash, in some cases. Save for the compulsive gamblers and those with unnecessary credit-card debts, some may actually have a valid and urgent reason to borrow cash. For instance, this may include the need to pay for an expensive operation or medical treatment. Of course, there could be a million endless possible reasons for borrowing cash, such as loss of jobs or death of the sole bread winner but the bottom line is whether there are other avenues for thrift loans to help these people who are in genuine financial need. Accordingly, would it be necessary to first find out how many such HDB owners have actually borrowed from moneylenders and the reasons for borrowing? Would HDB extend beyond the current practice of two concessionary loans for hardship cases?

Sir, I would like to ask Minister what time frame is given to honour the existing contracts between the flat owners and moneylenders and for the group that is affected after the time period, how would the Ministry be helping the flat owners in fulfilling the payment of their outstanding

loans to the moneylenders, especially in cases where they have borrowed because of financial circumstances and not so much as to support lifestyle choices.

Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, this is not a one-dimensional problem. A proper solution should involve many parties, namely the moneylending industry, the real estate industry, HDB home owners and HDB itself. Sir, the proposed changes are to be welcomed, as they are in line with the policy concerns and purpose behind HDB flats. These flats are certainly not meant for short-term profit, nor to be used as security for any debt, obligation or claim. Rather, HDB flats are built to provide affordable homes to Singaporeans and to provide for them in their old age. Sir, with reference to clause 4 of the proposed amendments, the current penalties for illegal subletting of public rental flats, I support the move to take more stringent measures against lessees who abuse heavily subsidised public rental housing. But I would like the Minister to enlighten us on what these more stringent measures are all about.